It's set, I ride at dawn

Oops overslept, seems I missed it. Anyway…Some right wing writer did an essay entitled “There’s Nothing Loving About Dolly Parton’s False Gospel” and one of Parton’s fans responded that “We ride at dawn”, and that sounded like an apt response to me :slight_smile: . The writer, Ericka Andersen, does now say she regrets using Dolly as an example to make her point. The writer does seem to like to provoke people, and it wasn’t exactly an apology. Dolly’s take on christianity seems to be that you’re suppose to love everybody and let God do the judging. I love Dolly, and good for her for cherry picking the good stuff, but that the Bible has to be cherry picked to keep people from hating on each other is the elephant in the room. I really think Andersen’s take is the more logical if you actually believe the Bible. It’s horrific, and disgusting, but it’s not hard to see how she reaches her conclusions. Of course you don’t want someone you love to burn in hell for eternity for not following the rules.


It’s a fine example that each theist creates their own god(s).

Dolly Is a nice person. She’s kind and generous. I, of course, think that’s her nature not her god.


I heard my name. What do you want? :hushed:

1 Like

But if God didnt not expose evil the bible wouldnt be a complete book. True wisdom is spoken from every side not just the positive.

Anyone understand what he was trying to assert there? What the fuck does “didn’t not expose” mean?

What the fuck is a complete book?

Utter gibberish, thank fuck we don’t have to suffer through any more deepities or vapitudes like this.

1 Like

Any book that hasn’t had pages ripped out?

'kay, so that raises another question, namely how does his assertion that “god didn’t not expose evil”, help stop pages being ripped out of the bible?

A deity didn’t write the bible. A bunch of idiots did.

1 Like

OK, so there is no objective reason to believe the bible was written by a deity, or that it was divinely inspired. See how I shied away from an absolute claim there, that some dishonest apologists would run with?

Claims carry a burden of proof, simply reject claims offered in the absence of any objective evidence. However if you make a contrary claim and can’t objectively evidence it, it emoldens the likes of the duplicitous Sherlock to peddle his fallacious wares in an attempt to reverse the burden of proof.

This might be helpful here:

"The burden of proof fallacy can involve several patterns of behaviors, all of which revolve around evading one’s burden of proof. The main such patterns of behavior are the following:

  • Denying the need to prove a claim.
  • Pretending to have already proven the claim, without actually having done so.
  • Shifting the burden of proof to others, by stating that they should disprove the original claim.
  • Shifting the burden of proof to others, by stating that they should prove their own stance, while ignoring the burden of proof for the original claim."


Note that Sherlock used every single one of those. In fact he had nothing else.

Now whilst their claims appear idiotic to us now, this is because we are standing on the shoulders of people who used science to understand reality. This does not mean the writers were necessarily idiots, they may well have been very intelligent, but lacked the “leg up” even the most mundane minds now have from acquired collective knowledge.

@Prycejosh1987’s claim however was irrational, idiotic, with appalling grammar.

Not sure why you guys have to make things like this more complicated than what they are. Geez… :roll_eyes:… Listen, if God didn’t not inspire Man to not write the bible the way he didn’t not want it to not be misinterpreted, then the evil that was not exposed would have never NOT been exposed in the way God didn’t want it to not be. Therefore, the incomplete book would have never been not complete due to the fact God didn’t not want it to not be completed with the unexposed evil God didn’t claim wasn’t created by him. Pretty damn simple, if you ask me.


God invented evil so he could cure it. I’m an atheist, I no more believe in evil than I do in god, “Evil” is not a word in my dictionary. The closest I get to it is calling someone like you "INSANE.’ If you want to get a look at evil, go stand in front of a mirror. Ignorance is certainly the root of anything you are going to call ‘evil’, and you, my friend, are overflowing with the stuff.

Obviously our Christian friend is unable to read. Especially his silly guide book. If he had read Isaiah 45:7, then he would know that his god is responsible for anything and everything that has happened in the bible. It’s sad when a Christian knows less about their own religion and an Atheist knows more. You’d figure they’d be an expert.


Still dwelling in mummy’s basement, afraid to face the real world, are you?

Your favourite Bronze Age mythology is bad fiction. We know this because it contains cretinous assertions than an astute child would point and laugh at. Such as that hilarious nonsense about genetics being controlled by coloured sticks, an assertion that was utterly destroyed by a 19th century monk, when he launched modern genetics as a properly constituted scientific discipline.

Likewise, your cartoon magic man is bad fiction, a one-dimensional cartoon character portrayed in your sad little goat herder mythology as possessing the primitive and brutal mindset of a Bronze Age warlord, one with a penchant for juvenile sadism, misogyny and mass murder.

The idea that there is any “wisdom” contained within the pages of your sad little goat herder mythology, other than accidental insertions made during the fabrication of diseased fairy tales, collapses under scrutiny like the wobbly apologetic soufflé that it is.

Now while I will be the first to admit that genuinely brilliant ideas can be disseminated via works of fiction (the corpus of Classical Greek writing contains some stellar examples, such as Lysistrata), mythologies have a habit of being very low on the literary scale in this regard, unless they involve the sort of fourth wall breaking that the Greeks were particularly adept at. Though I’m minded to suspect that the Greeks wrote their mythology as a satire on the excesses of the wastrel rich and powerful, and said satire tends to bring out the best in competent authors.

On the other hand, dreary, funereal diatribes written explicitly for the purpose of enforcing conformity to arbitrary and frequently iniquitous rules, have a habit of being examples of anti-literature. The Abrahamic brand of mythology is particularly feculent in this regard, with its lurid, creepy fascinations and obsessions with such matters as sexual repression and genocidal Lebensraum wars, not to mention the hideous “kill all who do not conform” exhortation repeated numerous times therein, that is the real central message thereof. If need be, I can cite relevant supporting material.

We also have the interesting spectacle of comparing what your mythology condones, and what it asserts purportedly constitute “abominations”, in many cases purportedly warranting brutal execution of supposed “offenders”. On the list of items explicitly condoned, are:

Genocidal Lebensraum wars
Kidnapping underage girls as rape slaves

On the list of “abominations”, on the other hand, we have:

Eating the wrong aquatic organisms
Wearing mixed textiles
Being outside repressive gender norms

This embarrassing litany on its own refutes your glib, naive and complacent assertions about “evil”, though I suspect a proper, rigorous treatment of ethics is another subject that was absent from your manifestly parlous education.

I suspect you’ve never actually read the mythology in question, and merely spooned up whatever perfumed propaganda on the matter was served up to you by your “pastor”.