Debunk this BS website, can you?

[angellous_evangellous]

Except it was in reference to a letter that has no speech sound.

Let all creatures of our God and king hereby know that the aleph is no vowel! If it were a vowel, Legion has noted for us what a vowel actually is.

The rest of you can bask in the glorious light that is daddy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't care about it now.

That makes two of us.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I claim this thread in the name of the immortal Paul Reubens.

 

[Muffled]

I believe it is better to start a thread with something specific from a website or at least present excerpts and why one thinks they need to be debunked. I believe the same goes nor Neitzke et al.

 

[viole]

Hey!
I was on YA and saw someone posted a link to this BS site. I skimmed through it and the material provided there is extremely filled with hatred against my religion. It's disgusting.

http://www.exposingchristianity.com

With BS, do you mean Biblical Scholarship? These acronyms can be confusing at times.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's from the Joy of Satan neo-Nazi cult. They're a bunch of lunatics. Ignore it.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

With BS, do you mean Biblical Scholarship? These acronyms can be confusing at times.

Ciao

- viole

I want just to be sure. How certain are you that there is no mistake in the way you are viewing the world?

 

[Saint_of_Me]

Hey!
I was on YA and saw someone posted a link to this BS site. I skimmed through it and the material provided there is extremely filled with hatred against my religion. It's disgusting.

http://www.exposingchristianity.com

Sorry, can't help you by criticizing or debunking that website. Because I went to it form your link and found myself laughing and agreeing with most of it. Especially the stuff about the blood-soaked Old Testament. And the murderous Yahweh. He, and it deserve every single bit of criticism heaped upon it.
And then some.

 

[McBell]

Sorry, can't help you by criticizing or debunking that website. Because I went to it form your link and found myself laughing and agreeing with most of it. Especially the stuff about the blood-soaked Old Testament. And the murderous Yahweh. He, and it deserve every single bit of criticism heaped upon it.
And then some.

Thank you for pointing out that honest discussion with you is not possible.
I really do appreciate it.

 

[viole]

I want just to be sure. How certain are you that there is no mistake in the way you are viewing the world?

Of course I could be wrong. In fact, I could be wong about many things. Invisible fairies, the flying spaghetti monster, Bigfoot, Allah, Thor, the ruler of the galaxy Xenu, astrology, Jesus, Excalibur, leprechauns, etc. etc.

Alas, I do not find any rational reason to pick one out as more plausible than the others, given the same exact evidence they share.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Of course I could be wrong. In fact, I could be wong about many things. Invisible fairies, the flying spaghetti monster, Bigfoot, Allah, Thor, the ruler of the galaxy Xenu, astrology, Jesus, Excalibur, leprechauns, etc. etc.

Alas, I do not find any rational reason to pick one out as more plausible as the others, given the same exact evidence they share.

Ciao

- viole

You put it as if youre certain that these things are wrong and made up. that you are very confident that you are right, meaning that you know for sure you arent mistaken with the worldview you have. but my question was specifically directed at the atheism/naturalism youre displaying. how possible could it be that naturalism, or to a lesser degree atheism, is false?

 

[viole]

You put it as if youre certain that these things are wrong and made up. that you are very confident that you are right, meaning that you know for sure you arent mistaken with the worldview you have. but my question was specifically directed at the atheism/naturalism youre displaying. how possible could it be that naturalism, or to a lesser degree atheism, is false?

Well, if you followed my posts, you will notice that I never claimed absolute certainty about anything, with the possible exception of some analytical propositions, like 2+2=4. That, of course, does not entail that I cannot claim knowledge that there are no gods. Knowledge and certainties are not the same thing at all.

I am not even dead sure that I am really writing to you. I could be a brain in a vet or just dreaming to do that.

How is it possible for naturalism to be false? Simple, show me God, Jesus or a spiritual reality, whatever that is. Another possibility is to show me that something with a natural explanation is indeed supernatural. Usually, the exact contrary happens. Everytime.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Well, if you followed my posts, you will notice that I never claimed absolute certainty about anything, with the possible exception of some analytical propositions, like 2+2=4. That, of course, does not entail that I cannot claim knowledge that there are no gods. Knowledge and certainties are not the same thing at all.

I am not even dead sure that I am really writing to you. I could be a brain in a vet or just dreaming to do that.

How is it possible for naturalism to be false? Simple, show me God, Jesus or a spiritual reality, whatever that is. Another possibility is to show me that something with a natural explanation is indeed supernatural. Usually, the exact contrary happens. Everytime.

Ciao

- viole

Are you familiar with the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism ? Should i give it to you?

 

[viole]

Are you familiar with the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism ? Should i give it to you?

Yes, Plantinga, and I actually agree with it, but not with the conclusions. Mainly, because Plantinga argument is based on a false premise: that we have evolved a brain geared towards truth beliefs that is only one of the many which are adaptive. Ergo, there must be a force outside nature that promotes truth oriented beliefs.

Fact is: Our brains are not naturally geared towards truth beliefs. Period. And that is exactly what we would expect if naturalism was true. As Plantinga would agree.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Laika]

Hey!
I was on YA and saw someone posted a link to this BS site. I skimmed through it and the material provided there is extremely filled with hatred against my religion. It's disgusting.

http://www.exposingchristianity.com

Probably a bit late, but you can write off the sections about Communism as originating from Christianity. There is little or no relationship between Marxist Communism and Christianity, beyond unintended background cultural influences. There were Christian Communists, but these are more along the lines of "blessed as the meak for they shall inherit the earth" from the Sermon on the Mount. (They've stopped using the term "communism" for obvious reasons).

At a glance equating Communism with an "international jewish conspiracy" is also a staple of anti-semitic theories based on the falsified text "the protocols of Zion" which is also important in theories regarding a "new world order" as well as National Socialist ideology (to equate Jews as Communists intent on world domination, etc.). If you click on the link "exposing communism: the twin and real goal of christianity" you arrive at a page with several links with Nazi insignia. it also quotes Goebbels. So from that, without looking at anything else, I'd take it's far-right conspiracy theory stuff.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Probably a bit late, but you can write off the sections about Communism as originating from Christianity. There is little or no relationship between Marxist Communism and Christianity, beyond unintended background cultural influences. There were Christian Communists, but these are more along the lines of "blessed as the meak for they shall inherit the earth" from the Sermon on the Mount. (They've stopped using the term "communism" for obvious reasons).

At a glance equating Communism with an "international jewish conspiracy" is also a staple of anti-semitic theories based on the falsified text "the protocols of Zion" which is also important in theories regarding a "new world order" as well as National Socialist ideology (to equate Jews as Communists intent on world domination, etc.). If you click on the link "exposing communism: the twin and real goal of christianity" you arrive at a page with several links with Nazi insignia. it also quotes Goebbels. So from that, without looking at anything else, I'd take it's far-right conspiracy theory stuff.

The Joy of Satan is a neo-Nazi cult. It's run by Andrea Herrington , who is married to the former leader of the National Socialist Movement (NSM). He got kicked out when it was discovered his wife was leading a Satanic cult.

http://darkthrone85.org/?p=3990
http://occultlibrary.150m.com/Satanism/Anti-Jos.htm

I've had a bunch of run-ins with followers of this cult when I was a mod of a Satanic debate group on Facebook (when I was into Satanism and Luciferianism). They would run in, post a bunch of illiterate anti-Semitic drivel and I would ban them. They're nutcases.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Yes, Plantinga, and I actually agree with it, but not with the conclusions. Mainly, because Plantinga argument is based on a false premise: that we have evolved a brain geared towards truth beliefs that is only one of the many which are adaptive. Ergo, there must be a force outside nature that promotes truth oriented beliefs.

Fact is: Our brains are not naturally geared towards truth beliefs. Period. And that is exactly what we would expect if naturalism was true. As Plantinga would agree.

Ciao

- viole

Why try to rationalize things, which are leading to truth supposedly, when you believe that there is no truth? just for the fun of it? or because there are no other things to do? you have to agree that our human communication is based around truth if this wasnt important why would we 'evolve' it especially if naturalism is true?

 

[viole]

Why try to rationalize things, which are leading to truth supposedly, when you believe that there is no truth? just for the fun of it? or because there are no other things to do? you have to agree that our human communication is based around truth if this wasnt important why would we 'evolve' it especially if naturalism is true?

Do you think my beliefs are geared towards truth?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Do you think my beliefs are geared towards truth?

Ciao

- viole

Unless youre saying that you believe in a bunch of nonsense i dont see why you want to ask such a question. why take all of those comparisons you make of the gods with fairies and pink unicorns serious then? why take you serious at all ?

 

[viole]

Unless youre saying that you believe in a bunch of nonsense i dont see why you want to ask such a question. why take all of those comparisons you make of the gods with fairies and pink unicorns serious then? why take you serious at all ?

What is wrong with my comparisons? Do you think that a God who spawn Himself so that He could kind of die (for no longer than the weekend) and then take off to heaven...is more plausible than Bigfoot?

And I am asking within the framework of Plantinga argument. You addressed it, after all. Either, my brain is geared towards truth beliefes or not. If it is, then God does not exist. If it is not, then his argument falls apart.

It is pretty obvious that our brains did not naturally evolved to grasp fundamental truths. Human basic intuition can grasp only things that are fundamentally wrong, but useful to survive in a very small subset of reality.

And, honestly, if our brains would really be tuned to grasp fundamental truths, then there would not be so many theists around. For belief in invisible agencies is also a plausible natural adaptation. And that puts the final nail on the argument's coffin, so to speak

Ciao

- viole