| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2006 10:07:01 AM |
| Object: |
An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
Ask this to a bible literalist.
1. "Do you believe that the world was literally created in seven, 24-
hour days?"
If they say they don't know how many hours a day might have had remind
them that they are supposed to be literalists, looking at the plain and
exact meaning of words and that saying a day means different things than
24 hours is being figurative or non-literal.
2. Once you've gotten them back on track, ask them whether it is true,
according to the bible that Adam and Eve died "in the day that they ate
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", as per Genesis 2:17. Note
that it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the *day* that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die."
At the very least this disproves the King James translation can be
literally relied upon, because, given that Adam and Eve are not said to
have died and been resurrected after eating the fruit, the only remedy is
some non-literal dodge, redefining words like "day" or "death", etc. One
standard apologetic is to claim that, for god, a day means a thousand
years. But god doesn't always mean 1000 years when he says a day and, in
any event, that is non-literal. The literal meaning of day is 24 hours.
If god means a thousand years then he needs to use the proper fucking
word, which is millennium. Period. End of story.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
19 Dec 2006 08:29:25 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fef1907b155ea63989d22@news.readfreenews.net...
Ask this to a bible literalist.
1. "Do you believe that the world was literally created in seven, 24-
hour days?"
If they say they don't know how many hours a day might have had remind
them that they are supposed to be literalists, looking at the plain and
exact meaning of words and that saying a day means different things than
24 hours is being figurative or non-literal.
If the earth and sun did not exist then there would be no way to measure
the length of a day.
2. Once you've gotten them back on track, ask them whether it is true,
according to the bible that Adam and Eve died "in the day that they ate
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", as per Genesis 2:17. Note
that it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the *day* that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die."
At the very least this disproves the King James translation can be
literally relied upon, because, given that Adam and Eve are not said to
have died and been resurrected after eating the fruit, the only remedy is
some non-literal dodge, redefining words like "day" or "death", etc. One
standard apologetic is to claim that, for god, a day means a thousand
years. But god doesn't always mean 1000 years when he says a day and, in
any event, that is non-literal. The literal meaning of day is 24 hours.
If god means a thousand years then he needs to use the proper fucking
word, which is millennium. Period. End of story.
Aside from the Adam and Eve thing, (which probably means "mankind and
womankind" in the original tongue) there you go again with 24 hour days,
there can't be hours without clocks. An hour is an arbitrary unit of time,
which is now standardized. But in the olden times there were no clocks. The
ancient Egyptians had water clocks, but these clocks did not have numbers
around a dial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
19 Dec 2006 10:01:17 AM |
|
|
In article <9HShh.1186$pQ3.1144@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
accordiondoc@mindspring.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fef1907b155ea63989d22@news.readfreenews.net...
Ask this to a bible literalist.
1. "Do you believe that the world was literally created in seven, 24-
hour days?"
If they say they don't know how many hours a day might have had remind
them that they are supposed to be literalists, looking at the plain and
exact meaning of words and that saying a day means different things than
24 hours is being figurative or non-literal.
If the earth and sun did not exist then there would be no way to measure
the length of a day.
Unless god had a pocket watch ;) You're right in the sense that day and
night shouldn't have been happening before the sun existed and the earth
was spun up on its axis. But, applying the principle of literalism,
since they said "day" (i.e. yom) then it at least meant a literal 24
hours. Granted, it's somewhat ridiculous for there to be an evening and
morning before the sun exists, but those are the terms in the bible and
still should be taken literally, according to many fundies. So perhaps,
if you want to make a technical point, the bible is lying about there
being real days before the sun was created. At best they were simulated
days with most of the properties of present, literal days.
2. Once you've gotten them back on track, ask them whether it is true,
according to the bible that Adam and Eve died "in the day that they ate
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", as per Genesis 2:17. Note
that it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the *day* that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die."
At the very least this disproves the King James translation can be
literally relied upon, because, given that Adam and Eve are not said to
have died and been resurrected after eating the fruit, the only remedy is
some non-literal dodge, redefining words like "day" or "death", etc. One
standard apologetic is to claim that, for god, a day means a thousand
years. But god doesn't always mean 1000 years when he says a day and, in
any event, that is non-literal. The literal meaning of day is 24 hours.
If god means a thousand years then he needs to use the proper fucking
word, which is millennium. Period. End of story.
Aside from the Adam and Eve thing, (which probably means "mankind and
womankind" in the original tongue) there you go again with 24 hour days,
there can't be hours without clocks.
Why couldn't there have been a clock. I mean, creationists are always
going around comparing god to a fricken watchmaker and all ;) Presumably
God could still time 24 hour periods even if he had to count "one
mississippi, two mississippi, ..., eighty six thousand four hundred
mississippi, ..."
An hour is an arbitrary unit of time,
Agreed, but if we apply literalism then god must have known how long he
wanted this arbitrary unit to be and could have measured it even before
there was a sun.
which is now standardized. But in the olden times there were no clocks. The
ancient Egyptians had water clocks, but these clocks did not have numbers
around a dial.
You've made a yeoman's effort, but, while there are many, many problems
with Genesis, this is not necessarily one of them. It's kind of like
when some of my fellow atheists complain that god made plants before he
made the sun. The thing is that he only made plants one day before the
sun, so it's not a major issue for plants to be in the dark for one,
literal day. What's more of a problem is that they would freeze solid
without the warmth of the sun, among other things.
So, yes, it makes no sense to talk about "days", in some sense, before
the sun existed and the earth was spun up on its axis. But we can still
talk about them as periods of time, which appears to be how the text is
using the term. The key is that literalism requires that if they used
particular words like "day" or "morning" or "evening" that we hold it to
have the same qualities that the word has right now, such as implying
that it was 24 hours long or that it involved light or darkness, which
presumably came from some source other than the sun in the first couple
days. Who knows why some god idiot would delay making the sun and go
through contortions of having to generate daylight without it for the
first couple "days", but, I suppose his ways are a mystery, aren't they
;).
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
20 Dec 2006 04:15:28 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ff1bab8479bc75d989d32@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <9HShh.1186$pQ3.1144@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
accordiondoc@mindspring.com says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fef1907b155ea63989d22@news.readfreenews.net...
Ask this to a bible literalist.
1. "Do you believe that the world was literally created in seven, 24-
hour days?"
If they say they don't know how many hours a day might have had remind
them that they are supposed to be literalists, looking at the plain and
exact meaning of words and that saying a day means different things
than
24 hours is being figurative or non-literal.
If the earth and sun did not exist then there would be no way to measure
the length of a day.
Unless god had a pocket watch ;) You're right in the sense that day and
night shouldn't have been happening before the sun existed and the earth
was spun up on its axis. But, applying the principle of literalism,
since they said "day" (i.e. yom) then it at least meant a literal 24
hours. Granted, it's somewhat ridiculous for there to be an evening and
morning before the sun exists, but those are the terms in the bible and
still should be taken literally, according to many fundies. So perhaps,
if you want to make a technical point, the bible is lying about there
being real days before the sun was created. At best they were simulated
days with most of the properties of present, literal days.
2. Once you've gotten them back on track, ask them whether it is true,
according to the bible that Adam and Eve died "in the day that they ate
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", as per Genesis 2:17. Note
that it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the *day* that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt
surely die."
At the very least this disproves the King James translation can be
literally relied upon, because, given that Adam and Eve are not said to
have died and been resurrected after eating the fruit, the only remedy
is
some non-literal dodge, redefining words like "day" or "death", etc.
One
standard apologetic is to claim that, for god, a day means a thousand
years. But god doesn't always mean 1000 years when he says a day and,
in
any event, that is non-literal. The literal meaning of day is 24
hours.
If god means a thousand years then he needs to use the proper fucking
word, which is millennium. Period. End of story.
Aside from the Adam and Eve thing, (which probably means "mankind and
womankind" in the original tongue) there you go again with 24 hour days,
there can't be hours without clocks.
Why couldn't there have been a clock. I mean, creationists are always
going around comparing god to a fricken watchmaker and all ;) Presumably
God could still time 24 hour periods even if he had to count "one
mississippi, two mississippi, ..., eighty six thousand four hundred
mississippi, ..."
An hour is an arbitrary unit of time,
Agreed, but if we apply literalism then god must have known how long he
wanted this arbitrary unit to be and could have measured it even before
there was a sun.
which is now standardized. But in the olden times there were no clocks.
The
ancient Egyptians had water clocks, but these clocks did not have numbers
around a dial.
You've made a yeoman's effort, but, while there are many, many problems
with Genesis, this is not necessarily one of them. It's kind of like
when some of my fellow atheists complain that god made plants before he
made the sun. The thing is that he only made plants one day before the
sun, so it's not a major issue for plants to be in the dark for one,
literal day. What's more of a problem is that they would freeze solid
without the warmth of the sun, among other things.
So, yes, it makes no sense to talk about "days", in some sense, before
the sun existed and the earth was spun up on its axis. But we can still
talk about them as periods of time, which appears to be how the text is
using the term. The key is that literalism requires that if they used
particular words like "day" or "morning" or "evening" that we hold it to
have the same qualities that the word has right now, such as implying
that it was 24 hours long or that it involved light or darkness, which
presumably came from some source other than the sun in the first couple
days. Who knows why some god idiot would delay making the sun and go
through contortions of having to generate daylight without it for the
first couple "days", but, I suppose his ways are a mystery, aren't they
;).
Oh yeah. Good point. It's been so long since I read the Bible I forgot that
"...the evening and the morning were the first day." And after that God
created the sun or maybe you should paste the text for reference. Otherwise
I would have to surf the 'net til I found a Bible, or the house for the old
family Bible. Did God create the sun later? Which day was that created?
Now we know that the rotation of the earth causes days and nights. Maybe the
primitives thought that it was a coincidence for the sun to be in the sky in
the daytime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
20 Dec 2006 08:19:34 PM |
|
|
In article <438ih.1417$pQ3.604@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
accordiondoc@mindspring.com says...
Oh yeah. Good point. It's been so long since I read the Bible I forgot that
"...the evening and the morning were the first day." And after that God
created the sun or maybe you should paste the text for reference.
Yahweh created plants on the third day and then promptly created the sun
and moon on the fourth.
"The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their
kinds ... And there was evening, and there was morning=3Fthe third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark
seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of
the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great
lights=3Fthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern
the night. He also made the stars ... And there was evening, and there
was morning=3Fthe fourth day.
Two good sources for bibles are net.bible.org and biblegateway.com. Of
course there is also the skepticsannotatedbible.com and various and
sundry free electronic offline bibles if you don't want to rely upon
websites. I actually got a CD for $1.00 that had several dozen bibles,
concordances, annotations, commentaries, etc. Even at that, I'm not sure
it was worth the money, given the worthless nature of scripture.
Otherwise
I would have to surf the 'net til I found a Bible, or the house for the old
family Bible.
It is good to have a paper copy handy in case you have to go argue with a
fundy or something. Remember, the thick, fancy ones can double as
makeshift weapons if the fundy gets irate.
Did God create the sun later?
It was quite a bit later, which is odd, consider that there was nothing
to hold Earth in its gravity well until the sun was created
Which day was that created?
Not until day 4, which is pretty fricken ridiculous. It's not clear why
there would even be liquid water on earth without a sun, even given our
atmosphere and possibly undocumented geothermal activity. You'd think
that the sun would be kinda a first priority for a planet making god.
Why worry about dry land or plants or any of that jazz before making the
sun. I think a fair question to ask creationists is, "If you were an
'intelligent designer', would you wait until day 4 to make the sun?"
Now we know that the rotation of the earth causes days and nights. Maybe the
primitives thought that it was a coincidence for the sun to be in the sky in
the daytime.
Yeah, they were pretty fucking clueless and that cluelessness is
reflected in Genesis.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
17 Dec 2006 08:44:13 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:07:01 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ask this to a bible literalist.
1. "Do you believe that the world was literally created in seven, 24-
hour days?"
If they say they don't know how many hours a day might have had remind
them that they are supposed to be literalists, looking at the plain and
exact meaning of words and that saying a day means different things than
24 hours is being figurative or non-literal.
2. Once you've gotten them back on track, ask them whether it is true,
according to the bible that Adam and Eve died "in the day that they ate
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", as per Genesis 2:17. Note
that it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the *day* that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die."
Standard Apologism - they died spiritually on that day.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
18 Dec 2006 08:06:31 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:07:01 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ask this to a bible literalist.
1. "Do you believe that the world was literally created in seven, 24-
hour days?"
If they say they don't know how many hours a day might have had remind
them that they are supposed to be literalists, looking at the plain and
exact meaning of words and that saying a day means different things than
24 hours is being figurative or non-literal.
2. Once you've gotten them back on track, ask them whether it is true,
according to the bible that Adam and Eve died "in the day that they ate
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", as per Genesis 2:17. Note
that it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the *day* that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die."
Standard Apologism - they died spiritually on that day.
And yet went on to live another 800 years or so - showing how vitally
important this "spirit" thing is!
Ha!
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
18 Dec 2006 09:49:08 PM |
|
|
In article <1166493991.378505.242400@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
m.richardson@utas.edu.au says...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:07:01 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ask this to a bible literalist.
1. "Do you believe that the world was literally created in seven, 24-
hour days?"
If they say they don't know how many hours a day might have had remind
them that they are supposed to be literalists, looking at the plain and
exact meaning of words and that saying a day means different things than
24 hours is being figurative or non-literal.
2. Once you've gotten them back on track, ask them whether it is true,
according to the bible that Adam and Eve died "in the day that they ate
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", as per Genesis 2:17. Note
that it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the *day* that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die."
Standard Apologism - they died spiritually on that day.
And yet went on to live another 800 years or so - showing how vitally
important this "spirit" thing is!
Ha!
Another common apology is that they "began to die" on that day. But (1)
Yahweh said they would die on that day, not just "begin" to die and (2)
why arbitrarily say they began to die on that day as opposed to the day
before. They were not immortal because genesis clearly shows that god
doesn't want them to "reach out his hand and take also from the tree of
life and eat, and live forever." This suggests that they were never
immortal and that they were slowly "dying" each day, even before the
fruity incident.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
17 Dec 2006 11:58:17 PM |
|
|
In article <r20co2hbh8raqcif9m9fl36v0o86mge6me@4ax.com>,
rukbat@pern.invalid says...
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 09:07:01 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ask this to a bible literalist.
1. "Do you believe that the world was literally created in seven, 24-
hour days?"
If they say they don't know how many hours a day might have had remind
them that they are supposed to be literalists, looking at the plain and
exact meaning of words and that saying a day means different things than
24 hours is being figurative or non-literal.
2. Once you've gotten them back on track, ask them whether it is true,
according to the bible that Adam and Eve died "in the day that they ate
of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", as per Genesis 2:17. Note
that it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou
shalt not eat of it: for in the *day* that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die."
Standard Apologism - they died spiritually on that day.
Yeah, I suppose they lost one of their nine lives. Who knew that Adam
and Eve were really cats :) Baseless metaphysical constructs are easy to
introduce to shift the goal posts, but since we don't know what it means
or even whether it is possible to "die" in spiritual sense, a literal
interpretation would require us to fall back on death in the actual,
definable, physical sense. After all, the act of eating the apple was a
physical one and presumably it had an effect upon physical mortality.
The "Fall of Man" is blamed for making all humans mortal and introducing
physical disease, so the Adam and Eve fable very certainly must refer to
physical, rather than spiritual death.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
18 Dec 2006 07:49:51 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:58:17 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Yeah, I suppose they lost one of their nine lives. Who knew that Adam
and Eve were really cats :) Baseless metaphysical constructs are easy to
introduce to shift the goal posts, but since we don't know what it means
or even whether it is possible to "die" in spiritual sense, a literal
interpretation would require us to fall back on death in the actual,
definable, physical sense.
Well ... God, himself, doesn't exist in a definable, physical sense.
They're always telling us that there's no objective evidence.
After all, the act of eating the apple was a physical one
Everyone makes that error. "The fruit of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil" refers to knowledge, not a physical fruit. They gained
knowledge - that was the sin. Man wasn't supposed to know anything,
or we'd be "as the gods".
The "Fall of Man" is blamed for making all humans mortal and introducing
physical disease, so the Adam and Eve fable very certainly must refer to
physical, rather than spiritual death.
You forgot the weasel factor, and religion is amply supplied.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
18 Dec 2006 10:51:18 AM |
|
|
In article <lu6do2lah5aogqs2qormlntmgch1kesim3@4ax.com>,
rukbat@pern.invalid says...
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:58:17 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Yeah, I suppose they lost one of their nine lives. Who knew that Adam
and Eve were really cats :) Baseless metaphysical constructs are easy to
introduce to shift the goal posts, but since we don't know what it means
or even whether it is possible to "die" in spiritual sense, a literal
interpretation would require us to fall back on death in the actual,
definable, physical sense.
Well ... God, himself, doesn't exist in a definable, physical sense.
They're always telling us that there's no objective evidence.
Yes, so I suppose that when the bible claims that jesus died on the cross
it might mean that he just metaphorically died or metaphorically was
"resurrected". That would be par for the course for someone like
Jebus, who only metaphorically existed in the first place, in the fevered
imaginations of a few crazy jewish writers.
After all, the act of eating the apple was a physical one
Everyone makes that error. "The fruit of the tree of knowledge of
good and evil" refers to knowledge, not a physical fruit.
I'm just trying to be literal here. How would one go about eating
knowledge, or having it grow on a tree, for that matter? Granted, it's a
moronic story that doesn't make sense, but that's Genesis for you.
They gained
knowledge - that was the sin. Man wasn't supposed to know anything,
or we'd be "as the gods".
God apparently made a mistake then when he gave them brains, though he
corrected that mistake in morons like dookie and other christer fucktards
who have their brains replaced by *****.
The "Fall of Man" is blamed for making all humans mortal and introducing
physical disease, so the Adam and Eve fable very certainly must refer to
physical, rather than spiritual death.
You forgot the weasel factor, and religion is amply supplied.
I'm not forgetting about apologetics. I'm just pointing out that most of
the weaseling they can possibly do involves non-literal
re-interpretations. They can have weaseling or literalism, but not both.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
18 Dec 2006 01:32:49 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:51:18 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I'm not forgetting about apologetics. I'm just pointing out that most of
the weaseling they can possibly do involves non-literal
re-interpretations. They can have weaseling or literalism, but not both.
Literal Apologism. It's literal, except when we know it's impossible.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
17 Dec 2006 10:59:49 AM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet quibbler
(quibbler247@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Ask this to a bible literalist.
1. "Do you believe that the world was literally created in seven, 24-
hour days?"
If they say they don't know how many hours a day might have had remind
them that they are supposed to be literalists, looking at the plain
and exact meaning of words and that saying a day means different
things than 24 hours is being figurative or non-literal.
2. Once you've gotten them back on track, ask them whether it is
true, according to the bible that Adam and Eve died "in the day that
they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", as per Genesis
2:17. Note that it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the *day* that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die."
At the very least this disproves the King James translation can be
literally relied upon, because, given that Adam and Eve are not said
to have died and been resurrected after eating the fruit, the only
remedy is some non-literal dodge, redefining words like "day" or
"death", etc. One standard apologetic is to claim that, for god, a
day means a thousand years. But god doesn't always mean 1000 years
when he says a day and, in any event, that is non-literal. The
literal meaning of day is 24 hours. If god means a thousand years
then he needs to use the proper fucking word, which is millennium.
Period. End of story.
Literalism is the only way to read the word of "god". Non-literalism or
rationalization are basically heretical in nature, and will supposedly
instill the wrath of this god just as much will making golden idols, or
worshiping other gods.
And since literalism unveils the ignorance of a mankind some 30 centuries
prior to ourselves, the falseness of religion becomes painfully clear.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
17 Dec 2006 11:33:28 AM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote in message ...
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet quibbler
(quibbler247@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Ask this to a bible literalist.
1. "Do you believe that the world was literally created in seven, 24-
hour days?"
If they say they don't know how many hours a day might have had remind
them that they are supposed to be literalists, looking at the plain
and exact meaning of words and that saying a day means different
things than 24 hours is being figurative or non-literal.
2. Once you've gotten them back on track, ask them whether it is
true, according to the bible that Adam and Eve died "in the day that
they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", as per Genesis
2:17. Note that it says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the *day* that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die."
At the very least this disproves the King James translation can be
literally relied upon, because, given that Adam and Eve are not said
to have died and been resurrected after eating the fruit, the only
remedy is some non-literal dodge, redefining words like "day" or
"death", etc. One standard apologetic is to claim that, for god, a
day means a thousand years. But god doesn't always mean 1000 years
when he says a day and, in any event, that is non-literal. The
literal meaning of day is 24 hours. If god means a thousand years
then he needs to use the proper fucking word, which is millennium.
Period. End of story.
Literalism is the only way to read the word of "god". Non-literalism or
rationalization are basically heretical in nature, and will supposedly
instill the wrath of this god just as much will making golden idols, or
worshiping other gods.
And since literalism unveils the ignorance of a mankind some 30 centuries
prior to ourselves, the falseness of religion becomes painfully clear.
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some mythical thing
called literalism? I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories. You're almost as nuts as Quibbler.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
18 Dec 2006 11:23:43 AM |
|
|
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some mythical thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical things are
despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that many fundie
fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have spoken to dozens of
them in person who take the very view I am criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism will be dampened a bit legitimate and serious
investigations of 9-11 are finally carried out by the new Democratic
congress. I don't believe in specific conspiracies, though only a fool
like you would dismiss them all. I, along with the majority of the
American people, do believe that there should be an honest, non-
whitewashed investigation of the events to resolve the many apparent
irregularities, and that investigation will take place, no matter how
much you whine about it. You idiots were rejected by the voters and your
time is over. Deal with it.
BTW, it's rather hypochristian of you to complain about conspiracy
theories and then swallow the biggest conspiracy theory of all time,
known as God. So in conclusion, shut the ***** up.
You're almost as nuts as Quibbler.
In other words, not nuts at all. Rick simply can't respond to the issue,
as usual.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
18 Dec 2006 07:30:57 PM |
|
|
You're full of your usual blather.
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some mythical
thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical things are
despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that many fundie
fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have spoken to dozens of
them in person who take the very view I am criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism
I'm merely stating a fact about Vic's gullibility.
will be dampened a bit legitimate and serious
investigations of 9-11 are finally carried out by the new Democratic
congress. I don't believe in specific conspiracies, though only a fool
like you would dismiss them all.
I have yet to see one that does not have a simple rational explanation.
I, along with the majority of the
American people, do believe that there should be an honest, non-
whitewashed investigation of the events to resolve the many apparent
irregularities, and that investigation will take place, no matter how
much you whine about it.
Have I whined about the investigation? You're battling those Strawmen again.
You idiots were rejected by the voters and your
time is over. Deal with it.
My time? I voted for all Democrats, except for Gov Blagojovich.
BTW, it's rather hypochristian of you to complain about conspiracy
theories and then swallow the biggest conspiracy theory of all time,
known as God. So in conclusion, shut the ***** up.
You're almost as nuts as Quibbler.
In other words, not nuts at all. Rick simply can't respond to the issue,
as usual.
You're doing battle armed with your usual lack of facts.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
18 Dec 2006 09:42:57 PM |
|
|
In article <Kbidnf0TZpZ_3RrYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're full of your usual blather.
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some mythical
thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical things are
despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that many fundie
fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have spoken to dozens of
them in person who take the very view I am criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism
I'm merely stating a fact about Vic's gullibility.
As opposed to your legendary non-gullibility by spouting the party line
explanation. At least Vic thinks for himself and I've seen no indication
that he's gullible, whereas you've just provided some evidence that you
are.
will be dampened a bit legitimate and serious
investigations of 9-11 are finally carried out by the new Democratic
congress. I don't believe in specific conspiracies, though only a fool
like you would dismiss them all.
I have yet to see one that does not have a simple rational explanation.
The explanation for how the Pentagon didn't manage to deploy a single
missile defense system to protect itself from a plane, despite only
needing one guy with a stinger on a rooftop can be chalked up to mere
incompetence. However, it's a bit hard to believe that mere incompetence
can account for the nerve center of the american military system being so
vulnerable.
I, along with the majority of the
American people, do believe that there should be an honest, non-
whitewashed investigation of the events to resolve the many apparent
irregularities, and that investigation will take place, no matter how
much you whine about it.
Have I whined about the investigation? You're battling those Strawmen again.
You're whining about alleged "conspiracy theories". Nobody denies that
the hijackers engaged in a "conspiracy" to attack the US. The question
is what other "conspiracies" may or may not have been going on and that
question will be resolved by detailed, vigorous and credible
investigation.
You idiots were rejected by the voters and your
time is over. Deal with it.
My time? I voted for all Democrats, except for Gov Blagojovich.
It sounds like you didn't have much choice and that even you could see
the writing on the wall.
BTW, it's rather hypochristian of you to complain about conspiracy
theories and then swallow the biggest conspiracy theory of all time,
known as God. So in conclusion, shut the ***** up.
You're almost as nuts as Quibbler.
In other words, not nuts at all. Rick simply can't respond to the issue,
as usual.
You're doing battle armed with your usual lack of facts.
As opposed to you who criticized my initial post without marshalling a
single fact. You simultaneously claimed that literalism was a myth and
that I wasn't fairly representing the apparently non-mythical doctrine.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
18 Dec 2006 10:13:12 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet quibbler
(quibbler247@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
<piggybacking in places>
In article <Kbidnf0TZpZ_3RrYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're full of your usual blather.
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some
mythical
thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical things
are despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that
many fundie fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have
spoken to dozens of them in person who take the very view I am
criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism
I'm merely stating a fact about Vic's gullibility.
As opposed to your legendary non-gullibility by spouting the party
line explanation. At least Vic thinks for himself and I've seen no
indication that he's gullible, whereas you've just provided some
evidence that you are.
There's one thing common about most of the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
None of them define a motive or a bad guy. When I watched that last one,
I kept commenting to myself, "oh come on". My biggest question would
have to be, where did the planes with the dead people go? The Bermuda
Triangle, perhaps. The video asked some important questions. Why were
all but one of the Pentagon surveillance tapes quickly confiscated -
leaving one that really showed nothing? Why were the results from the
black box never published?
After reading all the (rather heated, I might say) responses from that
thread I found myself visiting website after website looking for
ammunition, and finding mixed results. My personal conclusion is not to
keep beating a dead horse. I don't think we are being told the whole
story. All I know is that government corruptness has been plaguing us
for generations. We may never know the whole story.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
19 Dec 2006 12:03:08 AM |
|
|
Uncle Vic wrote in message ...
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet quibbler
(quibbler247@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
<piggybacking in places>
In article <Kbidnf0TZpZ_3RrYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're full of your usual blather.
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some
mythical
thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical things
are despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that
many fundie fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have
spoken to dozens of them in person who take the very view I am
criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism
I'm merely stating a fact about Vic's gullibility.
As opposed to your legendary non-gullibility by spouting the party
line explanation. At least Vic thinks for himself and I've seen no
indication that he's gullible, whereas you've just provided some
evidence that you are.
There's one thing common about most of the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
None of them define a motive or a bad guy. When I watched that last one,
I kept commenting to myself, "oh come on". My biggest question would
have to be, where did the planes with the dead people go? The Bermuda
Triangle, perhaps. The video asked some important questions. Why were
all but one of the Pentagon surveillance tapes quickly confiscated -
leaving one that really showed nothing? Why were the results from the
black box never published?
After reading all the (rather heated, I might say) responses from that
thread I found myself visiting website after website looking for
ammunition, and finding mixed results. My personal conclusion is not to
keep beating a dead horse. I don't think we are being told the whole
story. All I know is that government corruptness has been plaguing us
for generations. We may never know the whole story.
I hope you realized that almost everything in that video has been easily
debunked with verifiable facts. And no, I couldn't watch it - old computer,
slow dialup - but others here backed me up. At least you don't go off
blathering like Quibbler.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
19 Dec 2006 10:30:18 AM |
|
|
In article <9pKdnQWIZZQ7HRrYnZ2dnUVZ_qK3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
Uncle Vic wrote in message ...
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet quibbler
(quibbler247@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
<piggybacking in places>
In article <Kbidnf0TZpZ_3RrYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're full of your usual blather.
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some
mythical
thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical things
are despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that
many fundie fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have
spoken to dozens of them in person who take the very view I am
criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism
I'm merely stating a fact about Vic's gullibility.
As opposed to your legendary non-gullibility by spouting the party
line explanation. At least Vic thinks for himself and I've seen no
indication that he's gullible, whereas you've just provided some
evidence that you are.
There's one thing common about most of the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
None of them define a motive or a bad guy. When I watched that last one,
I kept commenting to myself, "oh come on". My biggest question would
have to be, where did the planes with the dead people go? The Bermuda
Triangle, perhaps. The video asked some important questions. Why were
all but one of the Pentagon surveillance tapes quickly confiscated -
leaving one that really showed nothing? Why were the results from the
black box never published?
After reading all the (rather heated, I might say) responses from that
thread I found myself visiting website after website looking for
ammunition, and finding mixed results. My personal conclusion is not to
keep beating a dead horse. I don't think we are being told the whole
story. All I know is that government corruptness has been plaguing us
for generations. We may never know the whole story.
I hope you realized that almost everything in that video has been easily
debunked with verifiable facts.
What's not debunked is the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration.
That, more than anything, is what they continue to cover up.
And no, I couldn't watch it - old computer,
slow dialup
Sheesh, dude. Get with the program.
- but others here backed me up. At least you don't go off
blathering like Quibbler.
Actually, you're the one who merely blathers, while I actually have
something intelligent to say. The most you do is fire off a few vague
sentences with essentially zero support or significance.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
19 Dec 2006 12:25:10 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <9pKdnQWIZZQ7HRrYnZ2dnUVZ_qK3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
Uncle Vic wrote in message ...
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet quibbler
(quibbler247@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
<piggybacking in places>
In article <Kbidnf0TZpZ_3RrYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're full of your usual blather.
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some
mythical
thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical things
are despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that
many fundie fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have
spoken to dozens of them in person who take the very view I am
criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism
I'm merely stating a fact about Vic's gullibility.
As opposed to your legendary non-gullibility by spouting the party
line explanation. At least Vic thinks for himself and I've seen no
indication that he's gullible, whereas you've just provided some
evidence that you are.
There's one thing common about most of the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
None of them define a motive or a bad guy. When I watched that last
one,
I kept commenting to myself, "oh come on". My biggest question would
have to be, where did the planes with the dead people go? The Bermuda
Triangle, perhaps. The video asked some important questions. Why were
all but one of the Pentagon surveillance tapes quickly confiscated -
leaving one that really showed nothing? Why were the results from the
black box never published?
After reading all the (rather heated, I might say) responses from that
thread I found myself visiting website after website looking for
ammunition, and finding mixed results. My personal conclusion is not to
keep beating a dead horse. I don't think we are being told the whole
story. All I know is that government corruptness has been plaguing us
for generations. We may never know the whole story.
I hope you realized that almost everything in that video has been easily
debunked with verifiable facts.
What's not debunked is the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration.
That, more than anything, is what they continue to cover up.
And no, I couldn't watch it - old computer,
slow dialup
Sheesh, dude. Get with the program.
If I could, I would, you stupid moron. Why don't you say that to Greywolf?
Idiot.
- but others here backed me up. At least you don't go off
blathering like Quibbler.
Actually, you're the one who merely blathers, while I actually have
something intelligent to say. The most you do is fire off a few vague
sentences with essentially zero support or significance.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
19 Dec 2006 03:06:54 PM |
|
|
In article <K7adnRffHugRsxXYnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <9pKdnQWIZZQ7HRrYnZ2dnUVZ_qK3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
Uncle Vic wrote in message ...
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet quibbler
(quibbler247@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
<piggybacking in places>
In article <Kbidnf0TZpZ_3RrYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're full of your usual blather.
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some
mythical
thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical things
are despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that
many fundie fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have
spoken to dozens of them in person who take the very view I am
criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism
I'm merely stating a fact about Vic's gullibility.
As opposed to your legendary non-gullibility by spouting the party
line explanation. At least Vic thinks for himself and I've seen no
indication that he's gullible, whereas you've just provided some
evidence that you are.
There's one thing common about most of the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
None of them define a motive or a bad guy. When I watched that last
one,
I kept commenting to myself, "oh come on". My biggest question would
have to be, where did the planes with the dead people go? The Bermuda
Triangle, perhaps. The video asked some important questions. Why were
all but one of the Pentagon surveillance tapes quickly confiscated -
leaving one that really showed nothing? Why were the results from the
black box never published?
After reading all the (rather heated, I might say) responses from that
thread I found myself visiting website after website looking for
ammunition, and finding mixed results. My personal conclusion is not to
keep beating a dead horse. I don't think we are being told the whole
story. All I know is that government corruptness has been plaguing us
for generations. We may never know the whole story.
I hope you realized that almost everything in that video has been easily
debunked with verifiable facts.
What's not debunked is the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration.
That, more than anything, is what they continue to cover up.
And no, I couldn't watch it - old computer,
slow dialup
Sheesh, dude. Get with the program.
If I could, I would, you stupid moron.
At least Greywolf has an excuse, fucktard. What's yours, besides being a
dumbass that is.
Why don't you say that to Greywolf?
Maybe because he's not a fucktard like you.
Idiot.
I wonder if you've finally figured out that I've been baiting you this
whole time. Prolly not, even if I come out and tell you. The hope was
to shock you into actually using your brain for once, instead of merely
sitting on it.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
19 Dec 2006 03:50:16 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <K7adnRffHugRsxXYnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <9pKdnQWIZZQ7HRrYnZ2dnUVZ_qK3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
Uncle Vic wrote in message ...
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet quibbler
(quibbler247@yahoo.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
<piggybacking in places>
In article <Kbidnf0TZpZ_3RrYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're full of your usual blather.
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some
mythical
thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical
things
are despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that
many fundie fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have
spoken to dozens of them in person who take the very view I am
criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism
I'm merely stating a fact about Vic's gullibility.
As opposed to your legendary non-gullibility by spouting the party
line explanation. At least Vic thinks for himself and I've seen no
indication that he's gullible, whereas you've just provided some
evidence that you are.
There's one thing common about most of the 9-11 conspiracy theories.
None of them define a motive or a bad guy. When I watched that last
one,
I kept commenting to myself, "oh come on". My biggest question would
have to be, where did the planes with the dead people go? The
Bermuda
Triangle, perhaps. The video asked some important questions. Why
were
all but one of the Pentagon surveillance tapes quickly confiscated -
leaving one that really showed nothing? Why were the results from
the
black box never published?
After reading all the (rather heated, I might say) responses from
that
thread I found myself visiting website after website looking for
ammunition, and finding mixed results. My personal conclusion is not
to
keep beating a dead horse. I don't think we are being told the whole
story. All I know is that government corruptness has been plaguing
us
for generations. We may never know the whole story.
I hope you realized that almost everything in that video has been
easily
debunked with verifiable facts.
What's not debunked is the sheer incompetence of the Bush
administration.
That, more than anything, is what they continue to cover up.
And no, I couldn't watch it - old computer,
slow dialup
Sheesh, dude. Get with the program.
If I could, I would, you stupid moron.
At least Greywolf has an excuse, fucktard. What's yours, besides being a
dumbass that is.
The details of my personal life are none of your business.
Why don't you say that to Greywolf?
Maybe because he's not a fucktard like you.
Idiot.
I wonder if you've finally figured out that I've been baiting you this
whole time. Prolly not, even if I come out and tell you. The hope was
to shock you into actually using your brain for once, instead of merely
sitting on it.
Now you're really making up *****. You just can't get the answers from me you
think you should.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
19 Dec 2006 05:46:11 PM |
|
|
In article <eqydnU4P2ZQ-wxXYnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
The details of my personal life are none of your business.
Yet you dangle them like some sort of excuse, like I'm supposed to get
all teary-eyed for you.
Now you're really making up *****. You just can't get the answers from me you
think you should.
Nope. I actually use this technique all the time, though few people
catch on. Obviously I can't know details of your personal life and I
don't care if I'm right or wrong. I'll throw something out there and let
you bite. The goal is to kick you in the ***** and draw you out and get
you to get real for the first time in a long time. But on someone as
bone-headed as you, I'm not sure anything will work.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
20 Dec 2006 02:37:46 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <eqydnU4P2ZQ-wxXYnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
The details of my personal life are none of your business.
Yet you dangle them like some sort of excuse, like I'm supposed to get
all teary-eyed for you.
Now you're really making up *****. You just can't get the answers from me
you
think you should.
Nope. I actually use this technique all the time, though few people
catch on. Obviously I can't know details of your personal life and I
don't care if I'm right or wrong. I'll throw something out there and let
you bite. The goal is to kick you in the *****
You're a regular Black Knight when it comes to kicking me in the *****.
and draw you out and get
you to get real for the first time in a long time. But on someone as
bone-headed as you, I'm not sure anything will work.
Now you're really desperate.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
20 Dec 2006 08:41:45 PM |
|
|
In article <DsKdnXpMt5LxaxXYnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <eqydnU4P2ZQ-wxXYnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
The details of my personal life are none of your business.
Yet you dangle them like some sort of excuse, like I'm supposed to get
all teary-eyed for you.
Now you're really making up *****. You just can't get the answers from me
you
think you should.
Nope. I actually use this technique all the time, though few people
catch on. Obviously I can't know details of your personal life and I
don't care if I'm right or wrong. I'll throw something out there and let
you bite. The goal is to kick you in the *****
You're a regular Black Knight when it comes to kicking me in the *****.
Whatever, Sir Robin.
and draw you out and get
you to get real for the first time in a long time. But on someone as
bone-headed as you, I'm not sure anything will work.
Now you're really desperate.
It's OK. You can shut the ***** up already. It's not like you ever had
anything to say.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
19 Dec 2006 12:06:14 AM |
|
|
One more comment...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Kbidnf0TZpZ_3RrYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
[snip]
At least Vic thinks for himself and I've seen no indication
that he's gullible
Then you did not pay close attention that thread.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
18 Dec 2006 11:57:40 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Kbidnf0TZpZ_3RrYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're full of your usual blather.
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some mythical
thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical things are
despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that many
fundie
fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have spoken to dozens
of
them in person who take the very view I am criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism
I'm merely stating a fact about Vic's gullibility.
As opposed to your legendary non-gullibility by spouting the party line
explanation.
You mean the rational explanation. All you idiots have to do is call it the
"Official Narrative" or "Party Line" and you can dismiss it.
During that thread I provided many references which Vic (and apparently you)
appeared to completely ignore. Even many of the other atheists here were on
my side. But you don't care to acknowledge that.
At least Vic thinks for himself and I've seen no indication
that he's gullible, whereas you've just provided some evidence that you
are.
will be dampened a bit legitimate and serious
investigations of 9-11 are finally carried out by the new Democratic
congress. I don't believe in specific conspiracies, though only a fool
like you would dismiss them all.
I have yet to see one that does not have a simple rational explanation.
The explanation for how the Pentagon didn't manage to deploy a single
missile defense system to protect itself from a plane, despite only
needing one guy with a stinger on a rooftop can be chalked up to mere
incompetence.
Now you're making up stuff. Did they have those systems in place?
However, it's a bit hard to believe that mere incompetence
can account for the nerve center of the american military system being so
vulnerable.
Only to the extremely gullible.
I, along with the majority of the
American people, do believe that there should be an honest, non-
whitewashed investigation of the events to resolve the many apparent
irregularities, and that investigation will take place, no matter how
much you whine about it.
Have I whined about the investigation? You're battling those Strawmen
again.
You're whining about alleged "conspiracy theories".
You haven't got the slightest clue about what I said. Go back and do your
homework. Vic demonstrated extreme gullibility regarding the easily debunked
9/11 conspiracy theories.
Nobody denies that
the hijackers engaged in a "conspiracy" to attack the US. The question
is what other "conspiracies" may or may not have been going on and that
question will be resolved by detailed, vigorous and credible
investigation.
You idiots were rejected by the voters and your
time is over. Deal with it.
My time? I voted for all Democrats, except for Gov Blagojovich.
It sounds like you didn't have much choice and that even you could see
the writing on the wall.
Nice backpedalling. You seem to think I'm a liveling loyal Republican like
Fred. That couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm even on record - about a
year ago - stating I'd support Hillary/Obama in 2008, although I'm not sure
Hillary can dodge the Obama Juggernaut. You're just a simple-minded
knee-jerk.
BTW, it's rather hypochristian of you to complain about conspiracy
theories and then swallow the biggest conspiracy theory of all time,
known as God. So in conclusion, shut the ***** up.
You're almost as nuts as Quibbler.
In other words, not nuts at all. Rick simply can't respond to the
issue,
as usual.
You're doing battle armed with your usual lack of facts.
As opposed to you who criticized my initial post without marshalling a
single fact. You simultaneously claimed that literalism was a myth and
that I wasn't fairly representing the apparently non-mythical doctrine.
Your concept of literalism is a myth.
Face it, Quibbler, you're just a hostile, hot-headed knee-jerk.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: An Easy Disproof Of Bible Literalism |
19 Dec 2006 11:02:10 AM |
|
|
In article <zqqdnQSwy4jB4hrYnZ2dnUVZ_r-onZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Kbidnf0TZpZ_3RrYnZ2dnUVZ_smonZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're full of your usual blather.
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <Cr6dna389tnh4hjYnZ2dnUVZ_oS3nZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
You're going to disprove religion in general because of some mythical
thing
called literalism?
You're obviously too stupid to (1) understand what mythical things are
despite believing in them and (2) too dishonest to admit that many
fundie
fuckwits do subscribe to views of literalism. I have spoken to dozens
of
them in person who take the very view I am criticizing.
I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from someone
who belives 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Your moronic triumphalism
I'm merely stating a fact about Vic's gullibility.
As opposed to your legendary non-gullibility by spouting the party line
explanation.
You mean the rational explanation.
No, first of all, I've argued vigorously against most 9-11 nonsense, like
the jet fuel not burning hot enough to melt steel (which it didn't have
to do anyway) or the planes being flown by remote control or a million
other ridiculous stories. However, NORADs reaction to the incident was
far from rational or competent either.
All you idiots have to do is call it the
"Official Narrative" or "Party Line" and you can dismiss it.
You're the only idiot here as only an idiot would maintain that the half-
assed, politically charge whitewash investigation actually got the story
100% correct. It's clear that no investigation could. Therefore, only a
fool like you would rely upon it. The question is how serious their
errors were. They might have got the basic mechanics right, but they are
almost certainly covering the butts of lots of people who fucked up on
that day.
During that thread I provided many references which Vic (and apparently you)
appeared to completely ignore.
Actually, I just don't care to engage in banter with uninformed fools
like yourself. I suspect that your handful of "references" was even more
pathetic than your usual slipshod presentation.
Even many of the other atheists here were on
my side. But you don't care to acknowledge that.
I didn't care about the discussion one way or the other and if you're an
atheist then you're the most credulous and confused one out there. Move
over, Fred Stone.
At least Vic thinks for himself and I've seen no indication
that he's gullible, whereas you've just provided some evidence that you
are.
will be dampened a bit legitimate and serious
investigations of 9-11 are finally carried out by the new Democratic
congress. I don't believe in specific conspiracies, though only a fool
like you would dismiss them all.
I have yet to see one that does not have a simple rational explanation.
The explanation for how the Pentagon didn't manage to deploy a single
missile defense system to protect itself from a plane, despite only
needing one guy with a stinger on a rooftop can be chalked up to mere
incompetence.
Now you're making up stuff.
No, you just obviously have no clue what a fim-92 manpads stinger missile
is. It's a shoulder-fired system, fool. We handed them out like candy
in afghanistan. There have been at least 70,000 made, not to mention
chinese knockoffs. They entered service in 1981 and were used by
whitehouse security, among other things. They certainly could afford to
get one for the pentagon, which is all that it may have taken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
Did they have those systems in place?
It's not a fixed system, fool.
< | | | | | | | |
