Thank you, but I will wait for Joygirl to offer the definition. There may be multiple meanings for this term, which I have never encountered.
1 Like
My take???
Godmother who had inspired me before to write says:
PAY attention to the wording⌠female and woman - male and man. Whoâs âlessâ? Who comes from who? SHEâS laughing.
Welcome to Atheist Republic Sameera
It is also well attested within biblical studies that your god advocates for slavery.
The biblical god is a psychopathic insecure homicidal monster who commits genocide, tortures innocent children, and unleashes horror and suffering on mankind.
According to the bible this god is all-powerful and all-knowing, created this universe and is thus responsible for everything that has happened.
1 Like
Jews are liars, you say? And because they do not deny Moses, that proves for you the contents of the Bible are true? Are you sure they arenât lying about that? The Archaeology Section of the University of Tel Aviv after years of comprehensive field excavations of the Sinai Peninsula, is pretty certain the Exodus is a myth. On their first trip the then PM, Moshe Dayan, pleaded with them to find the evidence to prove the Jewish faith. But forget the lack of evidence for the 40-year long camping trip, thereâs the matter that the majority of the 2 or 3 million refugees out of Egypt as decreed by YHWH had to die before their children could enter the Holy Land. The Jews were always big on preparing burial places for their dead (refer Abrahamâs detailed arrangements for Saraâs burial, Genesis 23). And the Tel Aviv University, the recognised authorities on biblical excavations found nothing of the several million burial sites.
I donât think the Jews are liars, thatâs a very broad callous, and bigoted accusation. They are no more dishonest than any other group of people else Iâve met including atheists. The majority of claims of all three Abrahamic religions are simply improbable and some impossible, despite those that insist out of pure faith the god given truth of their respective books.
You are partly correct. I maintain, from my reading, that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch or the Bible. Further again from my readings, I have doubts Moses or Aaron even existed, at least not in the manner in which they are depicted, the unwilling messangers of their god. Moses remains a mythical hero intended to serve as a unifying symbol for a nascent nation of people who otherwise had a much more mundane and less dramatic origin as a disparate collection of tribal herders and hunters in Canaan.
No book has ever edited nor redacted or added additional information by itself. âMenâ produced the bible. It was an uneven, accidental, collabrative work with its compilation of oral and scriptural references taking place between 800 and 700 BC. Books do not write themselves, donkeys and snakes do not talk, the dead do not bodily walk, diseases are not cured by the laying on of hands, real love is not extracted by threats of punishment, fear is not respect.
Not caring who the cook might be is ok if you arenât dining at Lucretia Borgiaâs table, or someone like her. She had a reputation for really sumptuous finger licking delicious poisoned food and beverages.
4 Likes
Interesting claims. Care to share your evidence? Without it, your claims remain claims, not arguments. So far, your opinions have the odour of sanctity often found with true believers who are fond of copy and paste, but not actual scholarship. Iâm sure Iâm mistaken and that youâre probably just being lazy because you underestimate the people here.
The religion which became Judaism goes back to ancient tribe of Israelites. Within their and the Canaan pantheon there were two gods among many. One was a petty war god called YHWH. He had a wife called Asherah***.
Scholars other than presuppositional biblical scholars have opined that Judaism was strongly influenced by Babylonian beliefs during the Babylonian captivity. The Torah was firsts written down ca 700 bce, after the Babylonian captivity.
Relatively recent archaeology has shown that it is likely Exodus did not happen and that Moses probably did not exist.
"âconcluding that biblical monotheism is an artificial phenomenon, the product of the elite, nationalist parties who wrote and edited the Hebrew Bible during the Babylonian exile as a response to the trauma of the conquest, and subsequently enforced it in their homeland during the early Persian period. Dever also notes that folk religion and the role of the goddess did not disappear under official monotheistic Yahwism, but instead went underground, to find a home in the magic and mysticism of later Judaism.[2]
Bear in mind I am an atheist so I dont beleive in gods and I dont beleive they write books of any sort.
Keeping to the theme of the Pentateuch, we know there are parallel versions of the biblical events. Historicallythe division of Davidâs kingdom into Israel and Judah, also entailed a division in heirarchy of priests and scriptures and modes of worship and the establishment of Shiloh and Jerusalem as vying centres of politics and religion. The Assyrians and the Babylonians forced the reunion of what little was left of Israel with the survivors from Judah. From that fusion we get the duplicate versions of events. The order of creation is inconsistent between the two accounts. In the flood the number of animals required differs, from two to seven (depending on clean and unclean). Its all small biscuits but not consistent with inerrancy. Then there inconsistencies such as Moses having created a bronze snake (later kept in a temple in Shiloh) to cure those bitten, after he had delivered the Ten Commandments that forbade artwork of all creatures of any kind (which yes Josiah iIfc destroyed in his Deuteronomic panic). I think you know what I else I mean. Iâd need a book to account for them all, many such books have already been written.
âShall the Giver of the soul of the man not have power to give soul to the womb man?â
What prevents the Giver of the soul to not make mention in their story that they gave woman a soul? Such an omission testifies already to the misogyny of the Jewish patriarchy, as much as it does to a god who prefers brevity and innuendo in his inerrant writing.
I think youâd be surprised just how much the differences between Camrys and Corollas have absorbed the time and attention of those seeking to purchase one or the other. Theyâre similar but the literature generated over their differences might supply enough material for several bibles. Iâm no motorhead but if I were considering such a costly investment, yes I would want details on production differences.
None the less, I still think a deity who has time to mention they gave a soul to one of his creations could have made a direct mention of giving a soul to the other, supposedly, prized creature, being equal in every respect except that she should do as parents and man demand and keep her thoughts to herself and never think to instruct a man. This oversight of declaring the investiture of the female soul smacks of a misogynistic priestly scribe rather than an oniscient god. The same is echoed in your defence that women are only lesser in respect to men. Barnyard animals might have retained their fear of the woman, but believing that gender is a defence against any alpha predator is a grave risk as hunger invariably trumps any sort of fear. Its what drives lions to attack buffaloes and hippos even when the outcome is not guaranteed.
By the âLying Theoryâ I presume you mean evolutionary theory. You suggest you understand it, but by denigrating that whole body of information drawn from many overlapping disciplines of evidenced and substantive scientific research, much of it supported by Christian researchers, its a clear indication you perhaps dont understand the basics of the methodology of science; the self correction, the constant peer reviewing of findings and the peristent admission that itâs main strength is not in proving anything but rather in its explanatory power.
And one claim this so called âLying Theoryâ does not make is how life began. The certainty of that claim lays with most religions despite the glaring differences in detail. Evolutionary theory concerns the reality and means by which animals and plants have devoloped into different species. Until verifirable and falsifiable evidence is presented, abiogenesis remains a postulate but in the absence of any scientific certainty of a creator god, abiogenesis remains the only other reasoned contender for explaining our biological origins. I will not subscribe to suppostions involving sentient alien lifeforms introducing life to this planet until their existence can be substantiated; its one area that deserves Occamâs Razor irrrespective of Drakeâs formula.
Even the most basic expositions of modern evolutionary theory and the history of the lines of discovery takes a small book to explain. I donât have the ability or talent to write that book here in this forum. I can only present my poor defence of having read possibly hundreds of books and papers by scientists far more qualified and gifted with articulating complex issues that involve the many fields of research that make up modern evolutionary theory. Throughout this huge body of research there are consistent and mutually supporting threads of sequential specialised knowledge and substantiated information that supports three fundamentals conclusions:
-all organisms are related by common descent
-the history of that common descent can be marked by an unbroken lineage that reveals divergent branches and resulting changes
-how the variations happen through biological interactions and the precise nature of genetic variations
I can only suggest you research the many scientific peer reviewed papers (there are literally millions of them) that support evolutionary theory.
And guess what. None of it pretends to prove or disprove the existence of anyoneâs god. It just doesnt support the idea.
I fully understand that religious and spiritual beliefs still serve important human needs even in this sacreligious age of scepticism and it is for this reason I do not subscribe to ad hominem attacks on those holding or expressing their religious beliefs or ideas, but as this is a debate forum and GodisReal has freely entered and expressed his ideas, I felt obliged to challenge him on them. I have not suddenly or unreasonably attacked him. The whole gist of his OP is that his god is a rational and compatible explanation of the creation of mankind. I disagree with that idea and the implication that a god even exists. Its his perogative, and yours, to feel offended, but not my responsibility to save either of you from it. The Abrahamic creation stories ARE garbled, they are full of contradictory and incredibly improbable information from beginning to end. I also understand that within that mythical and sometimes obscure literature are some agreeable, reasonable and general observations about the nature of living and life. Its what would be expected for a book that claims to written by a creator god. However the book and its authorship remains a claim. Its a claim that requires a confidence in unevidenced faith. I do not share that faith. I am an atheist. I did not change the issue, The claim that a god created life implies the assumption that god exists.
I forgive you for branding me a liar and a fraud. Calm the fuck down.
I challenge his ideas as much as you challenge mine, and this is a forum expressly published for that sort of exchange.
1 Like
Hello Sameera Jones.
Welcome to the forum.
Thanks for pointing out that information.
Indeed I have been referring to Friedmann. If you have any references or links I could, hopefully, if I have time, catch up on the latest considerations about Moses, Deuteronomy et al. I donât claim my knowledge is special, complete or comprehensive.
However, the story about Deuteronomy really begins in 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings where the supposed writings of Moses were serendipitously discovered during renovations of the Temple in Jerusalem. âDeuteronomyâ from the Greek means âa repetitonâ and it was interpreted as a âsecond law givingâ from Moses.
Iâve read several explanations regarding the arrangement of the various documents outlined in the structure of the book as we know it today, the irregular chronological writing of those documents, some of the earlier parts being written later than the main body, proposed constructions, and the myriad specialised interpretations of the book as a whole. All of them could be partly correct or correct in a general sense, I claim no special special understanding of it to suppose any one claim better than another. However using the Bible itself to explain the circumstances surrounding the discovery and later addition of the newly found Deuteronomy poses a few questions.
It was a very fortuitous find by the Levite priests in power at the time. Imagine, the very document that fully accorded with the Levite desire and proscribed methods to save the nation, its people, the Temple, and the priests themselves, from the depredations of the Babylonians through the destruction of the popular rival pagan religions, just happen be found while they were renovating their own temple. The sort of luck modern archaeologists can only dream of. The Levites had, since the removal of the ten tribes of Israel from history, expressed the very real possibility that jealous YHWH might use the Babylonians to repeat the Assyrian outrages. Afterall it was obvious the tribes of Israel were a bad lot.
And not only did it condemn the worship of foreign gods and goddesses, but the ancient sensuous Canaan ones as well, like the durable agricultural Baal and productive Asherah/Istah who were both full fellow members at council in YHWHs original cosmos. There was no longer any room on the block for his former co=deities even the one was once beleived to be his wife.
These âfoundâ writings, which were not the fuller text we know today, were attributed directly to Moses. They contained the Mosaic insistence that no other gods be worshipped before YWHW and re-emphasised the 10 commandments and the 613 mitzvots. Of course there was a considerable advantage for the Levite priests following the earnest and violent destruction and wholesale slaughter that followed. It left them in total power. The young king Josiah was suddenly alarmed at the prospect of losing his kingdom and his god. And not least for the priests Deuteronomy , by a incredible stroke of luck, detailed the system of titheing that would benefit the Levites handsomely as well.
The Abrahamic god might well have concocted this brilliant co-incidence, the rennovations and the find, to save Josiahâs kingdom, the Temple and the Levite priesthood, but it failed. Joshiahâs unforgiving and bloody purge, the deaths and destruction delivered to his own people made no difference whatsoever. It appears the fickle YHWH still employed the Babylonians for his own ineffable agenda. Or perhaps history just played itself out just like it would if there was no god.
One story from Jeremiah (44:17-19) has the women refugees from Judah living in Egypt complaining to him that they had lived good and prosperous lives in Jerusalem offering incense and prayers to Ishtar, but now lived in want and fear because that dickhead Joshiah destroyed all her temples and killed all her priests and banned all offerings to her. The irony in this story has always tickled me despite the grave and sad background.
Anyway send me some of those links or references Sameera.
3 Likes
Taninnim is a corruption of the name Tiamat the Babylonian mother goddess of all natural forms of chaos, and who lived in an unformed cosmology of gods and elemental forces. She represented all the beasties and plant life that continue to confound manâs attempts to control nature to grown grain and have natty little golf courses to play on. Tiamat was doomed to fight a titanic battle with the war god Marduk in which she led the armies of terrible beasts, dragons and winged monsters. She was much more than awful creatures, she was Chaos personified. Despite her tremendous efforts Marduk, the superlative warrior god, overwhelmed and, killed her and fashioned the world in which we live from her dead monstrous body by cleaving her head in half. Marduk also fashioned mankind from the blood of Tiamatâs dead husband and some dust, for the express purpose of serving his fellow gods.
Just a passing point.
2 Likes
Sweet Counter ! 
But, here is the counter to the counter!
-
the Jews did not present the Bible to the world.
-
We see them denying it but not as they should properly do if it was not True.
-
The Contents of the Bible also have other players who themselves do not deny the Facts stated therein!
-
We are witnesses to at least 3 of the predictions prestated in the Bible happening right before our eyes
a) No one in the world really knew about isreal before 1941 (the Bible had said that they would have been almost utterly wiped out from the face of the earth)
b) in 1946 the state of Israel was re-placed (the Bible predicted that they shall be returned to their place)
C) No one has removed Israel from that place ever since (the Bible said that they shall never be removed from their place)
The Contents of the Bible are True because
I) A Fact Seen in Nature and Natural Living is Always True!
II) By The Law of Truth which is The Law of Evidence, A Fact is Deemed True, if He who is supposed to Deny it, does not clearly and unequivocally deny it, He Is Deemed to have Admitted it.
AND the Weight of Truthfulness is Further increased and strengthened by the fact that, that which was not Specifically Denied is Corroborated by other Extraneous Evidence whch prove the Truth of it.
Iii) The Power of the occurrence of the Specific Events in Natural Living to which the peoples of Whole World are the Present Witnesses of the Specific Events which were very long prestated in the Bible, such that no one could reasonably foresee them, can not be ignored. It is a very Powerful Proof of Truth, For The Bible made the Whole World Today and Tomorrow Witnesses of the Truth which it had Pre-stated that it shall Occur!
And Having the peoples and Nations of the World as Witnesses to A Fact is A Very Solid Proof of Truth, for the Witnesses of the world amounts to Witnesses of Nature and Nature is Always an Absolute Proof of Truth!
Ok! What you know and call âWomanâ is By the Bibleâs Explanation of the creation of âthe manâ be reasonable described as âthe man with the Wombâ
which we know and have Seen in Nature that it is a very significant difference between the âmale manâ and the âfemale manâ as the Bible describes us.
âlying theoryâ is what I call the âevolution theory or theory of evolutionâ.
The theory is a Lie for it has no legs on which it stands on, neither does it have power create grounds.
The theory is Always Pursuing what has been created and since they attempt to say that it is a Creator why does it have serious difficulty in explaining and showing how it created?
Secondly, since it created this world which we call Nature, therefore we must see itâs hand in Nature Exactly as we can easily see the connection between Steve Jobs and iPhone.
But this is completely absent in the theory, it is always pursuing what is in existence, yet it claims to make existence.
So if it made existence, it must be easy for it to explain its making of its existence and Thanks to God that existence is very very plenty, so explaining should be very very easy and not difficult.
The bible also claims there was vegetation on the earth before the sun was âcreatedâ. That humans were fashioned instantly in their current form using inexplicable magic. That a deity caused a global flood.
Those claims are all erroneous.
So picking out some things that you think are true, is nothing more than selection bias, based on a sharp shooter fallacy.
Though of course the bible allegedly predicting an event, even an extremely unlikely or improbable one, and it occurring exactly as predicted, doesnât remotely evidence a deity, or anything supernatural. Why would on earth would think it does?
I like the fact that you used the word âappearâ.
We are talking about âProofâ and Proof is Always in âAppearanceâ which is "that which is In View and can be viewed " it would not be Proof of it is not in view.
And thus we are talking about things âIn. Appearanceâ, âThings in viewâ, Things Seen, Things Experienced and Things in Nature"
The Origin of man and man himself is a thing in view, a thing seen, a thing experienced and a thing in Nature.
Therefore, It is legitimate for me to lay on things in Nature for the topic is about Things in Nature, and more Specifically the thing called âthe manâ!
The issue is not really about the whole contents of the Bible but about
- Origin of man as per the Bible which itself has not been challenged!
But was challenged is the Author or Authors or Non-Authoured or An Author Great and Beyond the man authors that we know (Another Appearance/view/Seen in Nature), for we know and see (Another Appearance/view/Seen in Nature) that animals, plants and rock do not author nor write books, so they are reasonably exempted and removed.
- How did we Ascertain and Verify that the Bible told the Truth and we be living on it.
So these are the Core issues of this thread at present and the contents of the as a whole are not under examination now.
Just to patronize you and no more I answer these parts
No you do not question everything! For if I told you that kidnappers are operating along your route to work, you would First Act in a safe manner.
Why? Donât worry, I am not waiting for an answer.
I guarantee that you do not really and truly know the importance of knowing an author, for if you really did, you would not have said this.
I am sure you have heard the word âCaveat Emptorâ! I bet you did not know the full weight of what it means, if not you would not have said this.
We all take water from persons without investigating the source of the water.
Why? Op cit my statement up here!
Can good advice and counsel come from The-evil aka Dâevil? Impossible!
Flowing from the above Good Advice Always come from The Good. To think and See that when one says Good, the Word âGodâ is so too close to âGood,â such that it feels sweet and rightful that they stay Together!
And these are the things I See and I have Seen! The blind are not capable of seeing, but I See and I have Seen!
75 years compared to âneverâ is practically nothing. Besides, a claim or a so-called prophecy that something will never happen can never be confirmed. Thus, the claim that âthey [the Jews] shall never be removed from their placeâ is a useless claim for truth in any circumstance.
This is pure and deliberate obfuscation (to hide a weak argument?). We, the users here, have better things to do with our time than to try to penetrate deliberate obfuscation. Please rephrase it so it actually is readable.
Thatâs not good reason, itâs unevidenced hearsay. Firstly the premise that the bible canât have been written by humans is demonstrable false, we only have examples of books written by humans.
However even were the premise valid, the unevidenced conclusion you leap to that it was written by a deity is a false dichotomy fallacy.
Sound reasoning would point out that if the bibleâs origins were an omniscient omnipotent being, then it would be reasonable to question why it contains any errors. Let alone be riddled with the most basic errors about the origins of the universe, our solar system, and all living things. Errors that seem to mirror primitive evolved apeâs erroneous notions about those origins in many other human cultures.
Now that is an example of âgood reasonâ. Or a sound rationale.
Incidentally your use here of a false dichotomy fallacy means your rationale is by definition irrational. Since it is a fundamental principle of logic that nothing can be rational if it contains a known logical fallacy. Ipso facto it is not âgood reasonâ, or sound reasoning, as you have asserted.
That one is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
A very poor analogy, since the inference would be unavoidable that a divine author, with limitless knowledge to create a message, and limitless power to communicate it, would not produce a tome with any errancy, let alone ubiquitous errancy. Ipso fact your analogy here, heavily falsifies your conclusion.
Damn, this triggered my Monty Python reptile brain. I canât help it. I mustâŚ
Half a bee, philosophically,
Must, ipso facto, half not be.
But half the bee has got to be
Vis a vis, its entity. Dâyou see?But can a bee be said to be
Or not to be an entire bee
When half the bee is not a bee
Due to some ancient injury?
ErmâŚok. Nothing to see here, move along. Nothing to seeâŚ
1 Like
Hi again JoyGirl, what have you hereâŚ
"1. the Jews did not present the Bible to the world.
- We see them denying it but not as they should properly do if it was not True."
Technically you are right, it wasnât the Bible they presented, it was the Torah, the Old Testament. It was translated from Hebrew to the koine Greek between the third and second centuries BC. The translation was named the Septuagint. The reason was for the translation was that because of the predominance of the Greek Academies over the synagogue as a learning place for young Jewish men during the Grecian rule of the Seleucid and Ptolemy regimes (both Greek), the use of Hebrew was overtaken by Greek. It was the main global language just as English is today. If you wanted to compete and survive in the ancient business world Greek was the language to use. But the important matter is that the translators were predominantly Jewish.
The authorship of the New Testament did not begin until 200 years later and the gospels were written in Greek which was still the franca lingua despite the Latin of the Romans. From memory, I recall Matthew was the only Jewish gospel author and he may have been trained as a Jewish rabbi.
â3.The Contents of the Bible also have other players who themselves do not deny the Facts stated therein!â
Who are these other players and what facts do they attest to in the Bible?
â4.We are witnesses to at least 3 of the predictions prestated in the Bible happening right before our eyesâ
âa) No one in the world really knew about isreal before 1941 (the Bible had said that they would have been almost utterly wiped out from the face of the earth)â
What on earth are you talking about girl?
The dispersal of the Jewish nation is mentioned in Deuteronomy when YHWH makes his promise that the Jews would be returned to the land of Israel from where ever they ended up. Itâs an echo of YHWHâs promise to Abraham. The Deuteronomic promise was in expectation of the Babylonians repeating the Assyrian experience of exile. It is a recurring theme in the Old Testament that Israel will be restored and become the dominant nation of the earth. Itâs the heart of the prophecies found in Daniel written about 300 BC and who predicted the destruction of the Seleucid empire in Babylon by an angelic army from YHWH.
The Romans lost all patience with the Jews of Israel and sent them packing in 70 BC, they recognised Israel as the heart of all the Jewish troubles in the East and dispersed them. The old and new prophets had not foreseen that happening. They were still counting on the return of the warrior Messiah that some folks thought they had found in Jesus.
The medieval Christians of Europe certainly knew about Israel and its prophesised return to power and they believed it so much they spent over 200 years fighting a string of Crusades to protect the Holy Land from the dreaded Muslims which cost them untold fortunes and lives of dead warriors and hapless pilgrims all of which proved an abject failure when they surrendered the Holy Land to Saladin. From contemporaneous histories, travel guides (yes travel guides because pilgrimage was a big money cow), and letters, it seems all of Europe knew of Israelâs predicted future as a powerhouse nation.
The English certainly seemed to be constantly aware of it. In 1566 Oliver Cromwell lifted a 300-year-old ban on Jews in England not because he liked them but as a Christian, he interpreted passages in the Bible that the Jews needed to inhabit âthe four corners of the worldâ, including England before Jesus would recall them all to Israel for conversion to Christianity just before the end of the world and the Judgement Day. That was 500 years ago.
In 1897, in an overt political display of the Jewish belief in Israel, the first Zionist Congress (later reformed as the World Zionist Organisation in 1960) was held in Basle Switzerland to begin organising the restoration of the Jewish nation. Where I hear you ask? Why ISRAEL.
Twenty years later itâs the British Government who formally declares a national policy for the restoration of Israel as a nation-state.
Thirty years later the Jews begin the repopulation of Israel and the long persecution of the Palestinians.
So how do you justifiy the statement that no-one was aware of Israel before 1941?
b) in 1946 the state of Israel was re-placed (the Bible predicted that they shall be returned to their place)
1948, offically but why quibble over a few years?
C) No one has removed Israel from that place ever since (the Bible said that they shall never be removed from their place)
No no-one has, but not for want of trying. They have lasted 73 years. Not exactly eternity and given current circumstances not fully guaranteed to last much longer. The Roman diaspora was not predicted, perhaps the next one wonât be either.
I have a lot of trouble following your bewildering explanation as to why the Contents of the Bible are True, simply because they make no sense and I dont recognise the authority of the propositions made. They donât read like any rules or laws of jurisprudence or even philosophy that I am aware of.
Hmmm 
⌠Iâm no historian BUT even I know that was Constantine at the Nicaea council of (est.) 335ce
Fact check me please - this is from memory (the above statement).
Do you see any issue there?
The difference being that histprically extant dinosaurs, are well supported by objective scientific evidence, whereas scary monsters is just a risible subjective phrase youâve thrown in as if the two are comparable in any objective way.
-
I donât believe this, please demonstrate some objective evidence for your claim.
-
I donât care what you believe, only what you can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for.
Thatâs an ad hominem fallacy. I value ideas that can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, and or sound rational argument. You have produced neither, which is why we see you attacking me personally here, rather than addressing my rational objections.
I offered sound rational objections, by pointing your arguments are based on or use known logical fallacies. Foremost of these are your your relentless use of argument from assertion fallacies.
Atheism isnât a claim, or a belief, it is the lack of a belief. So atheism doesnât require evidence, the claim it does, so often used in religious apologetics, is of course an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. An irrational attempt to reverse the burden of proof theistic belief carries.
Logic is a method, that adheres to strict principles of validation. I have not violated these, and I challenge you to show otherwise. The claim also of course puts words into my mouth using a straw man fallacy.
An appeal to authority fallacy is what I demonstrated you had used. The non sequitur is based the straw man fallacy you have created, and has nothing to do with anything I have said. I am dubious that you know what an appeal to authority fallacy means as well.
Iâll give you a clue, the lack of objective evidence is a factorâŚ
Well quod erat demonstrandum, scientific authority or expertise is supported, must be supported by sufficient objective evidence. The fact you are implying it involves a fallacious appeal to authority , simply demonstrates that understanding neither the fallacy or the most basic methodology of science.
The bible makes no mention of evolution whatever, and the biblical creation myth roundly contradicts that scientific fact.
Not even close to being correct. Firstly your second premise was demonstrably untrue, and secondly your conclusion in 3 doesnât remotely follow from that 2 premise. Saying something that resembles (your word) scientific fact, is not remotely the same as âsays something that is scientifically true.â **That is axiomatic. **
Whether you accept that your belief carries an epistemological burden of proof or not, is entirely moot. It axiomatically does, but even so I am under no obligation to acceded to your ludicrous assertion that your belief in an archaic superstition doesnt need to be properly evidenced.
You came here, to preach to me. So you donât get to dictate the epistemological grounds on which Iâll be swayed by your specious superstitious wares.
I have demonstrated your arguments are based on known logical fallacies, ipso facto they are irrational by definition. Simply denying this, with this vapid rhetoric is risible and doesnât change the principles of validation on which logical reasoning is founded.
Better for your vapid unevidenced beliefs perhaps, but again I am under no obligation to disregard epistemological or rational principles, simply so you can come here and peddle unevidenced superstition.
More sophistry, I am happy for others to decide if your dishonest disregard for the principles of logic and epistemology is the winning trump card you laughably claim here. However again you donât get to dictate what those principles are, or how I react when you violate them, like a drag queen at a tractor pull.
Yes you do, as do all claims, and all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim. Again the fact you want to ome here, and peddle superstition to atheists, doesnât grant you any licence to dictate to us the rationale we use to validate beliefs. Itâs quite a risible claim though, so thank you for that belly laugh.