Showing posts with label stupid atheist tricks.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stupid atheist tricks.. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Excavating the Atheist lunatic Freinge for Fun and Profit

 photo thumb-funny-alien-cartoons-pictures-1334_zps8443c92e.jpg


My brother and I once invented a pseudo science that we called "wackyoloyg." We had a serious theory about why people go in for things like Elvis has risen, or never died, Bigfoot, UFO's so on. Those all sound so tame now. This was late 70s early 80s. Those were some of the major wacky ideas floating around at the time. We concocted Wackyology to not only keep track of these cultural abrasions but to parody them and it became a comedy routine with us. Now I find is a corner of the atheist world that is wacky it makes wackyology look serious. We need a Wackyoloigcal analysis of the atheist world. I found an atheist site that desreves to mocked and I began following it.

The major argument on the page I found is far too idiotic to be taken seriously, thus need serious refutation. That is the Joseph Atwill thesis that the Roman emperors made up Jesus and Christianity in an attempt to pacify the Jews. Yes, that's what I said. Romans made up Jesus then persecuted their own peole for follwing him a couple of decades latter. They did to pacify the Jews? So they made up a guy who pissed of the Jews by not being enough of a Pharasey and who was so threning to the Sanhedrin that the had to be crucfied, who was cruvieid by the Romans (who made him up) to Pacify the Jews who they wouldn't hate the Raomans and give them trouble (they made up this popular hero and had him be supppossedly killed by them so the Jews would be pancified in their hatred of the Romans? were they retorted?).

Well stepping around that for the moment, the thesis is just like one brought out in the 90s by a guy named Pisso who said the very same kind of thing. It was a big deal for about a year then was never heard form again. If one wants or needs refutation of this insanity see: "No Jo Atwill Rome did not Invent Jesus."  On a blog by a real historian, Thomas Vernna.

But let's excavate the site that pushes this tripe, just to see what we find. There's one called: "Bible Schoalr Claims Christianity Invented...as part of Roman psy ops campaign," (By Travis Gettys) One of the more interesting oddities of these guys, it never occurs to them that the term "psychological" didn't exist in Jesus say. He assumes they instigated psychological warfare by inventing Christianity. Most of the Roman efforts of psychological warfare (they didn't call it that) were about terrifying people, like crucifying thousands in front fo the city. They Romans were not big on subtlety.

Notice they have also taken to calling Joesph Atwill a "bible schoalr" like he really is an academic, he's a computer guy. He studied no theology. He doubted himself a Bible scholars becuase he supposedly figured out this secret code in Josephus. The big deep dark secret is that Josephus' record of the Roman military campaign in Palestine parallels the places of  Jesus ministry.

Verna quotes the ignorance of Atill:

The Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient Jewish texts discovered in caves in Israel in 1947, give a different picture than the idyllic first century Holy Land of the Gospels. From year one, there were battles and confrontations between the Romans and the Jews, the Scrolls note, and there was no turning of the other cheek by the likes of rebel leader Judah of Galilee. And there was nary a mention in the Scrolls of the peaceable prophet Jesus Christ.
“This is where I came into Christian scholarship,” says Atwill, 63, an investor who lives by the proceeds of a dot-com sell off in the 1990s. “There was supposedly this character, Jesus, wandering around in Galilee. Nobody knew anything about him. Galilee is only 30 miles long. Jesus and other historical figures of the time would have known each other.”
Atwill, an admittedly bookish man, dived in headfirst, digging out whatever historical records he could find, studying the Scrolls, and reading Roman accounts, notably that of a family member of the Flavian dynasty of Caesars named Josephus. He found no historical Jesus in any of those writings. But there were some uncanny connections between the story of Jesus as told in the Gospels and the family of Roman emperors who took power after Nero was forced to commit suicide following a coup d’état.
As Verna himself points out, this assumes the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in the first century. The were were spread out over several centuries. They didn't actually have much materiel form the first which was the end of their era.

Vernna:

Let’s start with the blurb itself. Just the little snippet above should put anyone off from even considering this hypothesis.
  1. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not all written in the first century, but spread out over many. There are more than 200 years of texts here, from the terminus a quo of the earliest manuscript to the terminus ad quem of the latest (3rd Century BCE – 1st Century CE). So no, Atwill, you’re not going to find a match to the Gospels because these were written after the Dead Sea Scrolls had been hidden away in the caves of Qumran. In fact the site was probably destroyed by Romans during the First Jewish War–prior to when it is generally believed Mark wrote the first Gospel around 70 CE.
  2. The Gospels follow a pattern of what is called ‘Biblical Rewriting’ which was a common Jewish practice, just as ‘Homeric rewriting’ was common with Greek and Roman writers. So actually the Gospels fit quite well within the scribal framework of the Jewish community at the time.
  3. Why would the Dead Sea Scrolls mention Jesus when the settlement where these scrolls were probably written is over 130km (80 miles) away from Galilee? That is the distance between New York City and Philadelphia. Additionally, the sect at Qumran seems to have kept to themselves, living strict pious lives of obedience to god and to their laws. I do not believe them to have been Essenes–though probably quite close to them.
  4. Who else would have mentioned him? We have no contemporary attestation to anything from the 30′s CE from Galilee beyond archaeological finds (coins, epigraphical evidence, etc…). But that does not mean to suggest none existed from the region. Between the Jewish wars, the passing of time, we’re lucky we have anything from the region. This is a weak argument from silence.
  5. If you’re coming ‘into Christian scholarship’ from this position, you’re doing it wrong.
  6. Your argument that “Nobody knew anything about him” is incredible (Fixed!) since we have Gospels and epistles probably dating to the First Century CE. These may not have been accounts of what Jesus said and did, but they certainly demonstrate that a figure of Jesus was well-known to at least some people in the First Century.
  7. If you’re claiming to have ‘dived headfirst’ into the sources, does that mean you have a grasp of Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Nabataean, and Hebrew? What about just Greek–since you predominately use Josephus? I suspect that, given your book only has something like 7 footnotes and almost all of them are from Josephus, you haven’t quite managed to take into account all the sources. (ibid).
 If we look furhter down on the Gettys page we see him describe Atwill as "self professed American Bible scholar." What makes him a scholar? He says he is. The page is nothing but a sting of propagandist slogans and catch phrases about how Jesus was made up and religion is evil, all linked to more such pages. What site is it on? The bottom of the page shows a link, it's on "the Real History of Christianity: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_biblianazar.htm#inicio

This is a page of links, here just a few of the treasures they have:


Español
 -  Christianity - Extraterrestrial Religion? - Reflections on Von Daniken and Biblical UFOlogy
Español
Italiano
Español
Español
 -  Desintoxicando el Auto-Engaño - Se Puede Probar Que Jesucristo Nunca Existió
 -  Detoxifying Self-Deception - It can be proven Jesus Christ never existed


The first there is the Atwill theory that Jesus was made up by the Romans. Further down the true birth of Jesus ("A true Account of Jesus' birth") is information that makes Jesus out be a real figure but places the son of Mary and Joseph as a guy who was taken to be Jesus but was not him. This true son of Mary was named Jeshewua.how do they know this? Their explanation of that is quite insane.

Energy patterns of perception and understanding relating to qualities and higher perception are being filtered off and diverted, bringing about a programmed mind with fixed thinking and subject to thought control. An objective mind without the subjective link being recognized will simulate more a machine or robot.
A civilization operating on objective understanding only, will consider itself advanced, in particular, since nearly all its knowledge is at the objectively-provable level and anything outside this spectrum is not perceived and is considered nonexistent. Any knowledge outside this establishment territory is ignored or ridiculed. The inner-workings of life and true knowledge can be experiential with an expanded and balanced consciousness.

This dumbing down of qualitative perceptions, which are direct, and involve resonance and expansion of consciousness, prevents us today from detecting phenomena outside the objectively enforced band of frequencies, and common knowledge (from periods of ancient history), such as Earth portals, are not recognized today.
The Earth apparently has countless such electromagnetic or etheric gateways which lead to Inner Earth. This is not hollow Earth, but a frequency modulation zone between our Earth and its anti-universe pair, referred to as parallel Earth or antiparticle Earth, forming a separate ’Inner’ Earth.

What the hell are they talking about? Your guess is as good as mine. Now let's try to find the major site this is on. The link on the bottom of that page is about a guy Noel Huntly, I guess it's his page. He has such topics as:


Español
Español
 -  El Arca de la Alianza - ¿La Tecnología Más Fantástica en el Universo?
Español
Español
Español
Español



cosmic maps as seen by advanced ET's?

The Huntly page has a sattment about Huntly:

 Primarily a truth seeker, pushing out the frontiers of knowing has been a lifelong passion of Dr. Huntley; even taking precedence over his remarkable talents as a painter and musician. Amongst many areas of extensive study, Noel Huntley has investigated UFO and ET reports, channeling and spiritual phenomena. With a background in physics from Leeds University and formerly employed at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston, he later acquired further doctorates externally in psychology and parapsychology and has developed the foundations for a higher-dimensional physics that embraces life, mind, the universe, and the spirit.

This, he considers, will reconcile physics and religion into a spiritual science, in addition to aligning the viewpoints of the atheist and the religionist. While a dedicated scientist, he dares to cross the line between objective investigation and subjective investigation. His contention being that scientific investigation must not be confined to the material and that which is exterior to self.
He has written technical manuals and numerous books, articles and papers. Studies also included many other subjects, attaining qualifications in art, music, metaphysics and computers. In addition, research has been conducted in the field of physical mobility, coordination and skills with an evaluation of the true scientific principles involved.


Bottom of the page, his book:
that goes to Amazon page where his book is described:

Humanity’s extraterrestrial connections go back a long way. The book covers the main ETs directly involved with Earth and the human evolutionary purpose, including continued interferences from unenlightened ETs. In the latter category there are aliens who have for millions of years been



Remember a woman who argues for Jesus as fictional, a Jesus myther named Ashyra S? She also claimed that her mission was given her by aliens. A lot of atheists refused to believe that at one time. But she subsequently came out with a huge website that talks about it. Apparently this is all hooked together. the Jesus myther movement has connections, although I'm not saying all Jesus mythers, with, what shall we say? Let's say people whose grasp on reality is dubious.


I'm not saying that all Jesus myther types are talking to aliens. There does seem to be a growing faction that pretend that they are. I think it's appropriate that they choose as their focal point of exigence the most technologically scientific sort of image we have, the advanced scientific civilization form another star. They cast the whole soteriological drama in terms of a struggle between factions of advanced scientific types. They are just filtering their innate need for God and religious faith through their cultural construct of scientism and science worship.




Sunday, September 8, 2013

Talk About Dense! Athiest Think God Can Be Measured!

Incredible though it seems, there are atheists who were Christians who think God can be measured!

Not only that but they clearly don't understand the concept of metaphor.

Both of these guys are very intelligent and know a lot of philosochy. If you ask me for a to 10 list of the smartest CARM atheists these guys would be on it.

Originally Posted by Whateverman View Post
This exchange between the two of you is a good example of how discussions lose focus (unintentionally).

Unless I've missed out on cosmological developments of the last 5 years, nothing about a 'brane is measurable. It's theoretically measurable, but we can not quantify an actual 'brane's properties until we actually find one - and so far, we haven't.

 Occam
That's consistent with my position. Metacrock needs God to be impossible to measure in principle, not just for practical reasons.
Whateverman



I think this is what Metacrock was referring to when he brought up M theory. That branch of physics is almost purely theoretical, which seems to violate the premise of science being based on empirical data (and other stuff). In Metacrock's favor, there was (and still is) debate as to whether M/string theory should be considered science.
But, for the very same reason, M/string theory is a bad example of supposed failures in your approach (re. the OP).
 Occam
Good point.
That's consistent with my position. Metacrock needs God to be impossible to measure in principle, not just for practical reasons.

How could teh infintie be measurable. I did make that point. to my amazement he argues that:
  Whateverman [the Bible]asserts that God can be measured by sound.  i asked where he get's it.

 Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
where? I haven't heard it.
Whateverman
You don't read the Bible?

John 12:28
Father, glorify your name!" Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again."

Quote Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
Besides that's not a measurement.
Whateverman
The energy of sound waves isn't a measurement? Then you're committing the fallacy of equivocation.

At the risk of stating the obvious, God can be measured according to the Bible. You're the one speaking heresies, not me.



 Originally Posted by Whateverman View Post
Metacrock: you have no objective basis for that statement.

The Bible clearly and unequivocally describes God as literally speaking to people. If you're going to deny this, then I'm not so sure you can even call yourself a liberal Christian.

Meta:
 all religious language is analogical. that is an objective fact. we certainly have more than amble reason to assume that.

"my ways are not your ways. My thought are not your thoughts. you cannot understand me, says the lord."

what does he say to Job when Job think he has it all figured out. He say "did you hang the stars in the north? did you bind the cord of origin and lose the pelades?" I'm quoting form memory so I may have it backwards. the point is He's saying "hey didn't make the universe, you dont' know what you are talking about you cant' compete with me you can't understand me.

atheists have so derided and degraded the notion of God that they just have it down to God as a big stupid slob that we can out do. that's utter idiocy.

 job 36:26

New International Version
How great is God--beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out.

 Job 37:5

New International Version
God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding.

 Phil 47: 7

7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding.

Friday, January 25, 2013

It just gets worse and worse


 Remember last time I talked about how the idiots on carm said I was stupid for liking theology. Like a fool I fed the trolls and angered by their ridicule I informed them that m y IQ is 142. Unfortunate my finger don't move as fast as my big mouth so I typed "42." Of cousre you can imagine what they have done with that. I tried to slouph it off at firt by using the hitcher hikers guide joke about 42. this is too good for them to let go. Then i got angry and said I wanted to give them a number they could count to. then they began saying things like this:

 Pablopiccante


Hmm, did you read the post that held the quote in the OP? It appears that metacock was trying to boast about his intelligence, whilst insulting frikki and his intelligence. Tell me, do you consider metacrock to be a jackhole too? If not, why not? where's the difference in behaviours?
 The other guys says "you are stupid for liking theology" but I'm boasting because I say I'm not stupid?


Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
that's ridiculously silly. IN this day and age to know nothing at all about dyslexia is stupid. to know about it and still write it off as laziness is inexcusable.

who is being lazy now? not to know anything about such a widely used concept.
 
Drugstar:
 
shut your face. my sister has it. she struggles with it too. however, she takes her time and you cannot even tell. what is your excuse? the only reason i'm calling you out on this is that you boast so much about how much better you are than everyone else - when in fact, you're just an angry, lazy slob. you have such low self esteem that you spend your days here talking down to people, picking fights and playing the victim. wow, what a life you've created for yourself. No job, no kids, no wife ... where is the transformation in your life? if you're an example of what RE/ME can achieve, color me underwhelmed.

Meta:

 "shut your face?" taking the high road of reason I see.

here's the problem genius, I made a typo and left out the 1 in 142. they were implying that I'm stupid to like theology so I did the logical thing. I showed that I'm proved not to be stupid by the official way what intelligence is detriment in our modern society. like it or not that's the way it is.

anyone who thinks that a typo is a reliable guide to ether intelligence or industry is an absolute fool. Just as anyone who think knowing theology is a sign of being stupid is a jackass.

 Sylar:

 There's an automatic spell checker in every major browser. So, yeah, it does come down to lazy or stupid.

Its' numbers! the typo was 42 rather than 140. you have a spell check that would know to score that? what a stupid thing to say.

Drug star

he gives a link to the following:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[2]
It says "unskilled." This form of problem strikes those who are "unskilled." I have a feeling this guy wrote that himself (it's on wiki) and  he really means "undegreed" but it says unskilled. It's so ironic he doesn't even consider that it might be that he's the unskilled and I"m the competent one that has upset him. so Listed a few of my skills:



french
Greek
Ph.D. level work in history of ideas
Masters in theology
type 40 words a minute
play recorder (flute not tape)
draw real well and illustrated children's book
I can read
published academic journal
I know study methodology really well
I've written 3 books
debated in NFL and college (won 70%)
in youth played defensive tackle


It keeps on this way. I made a foolish typo and they treat it like a federal crime. Maybe they are all suffering form that deal.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Stupid Atheist Trick of the day: Help meet

Arguing about Genesis as "sexist" an atheist on CARM (Dark Lady) said that by assigning woman to be "helper" he was creating her to be second place. I pointed out that this word is used of God several hunkered times in the OT so it can't be mean side kick or subordinate. It imply a stinger figure to whom a weaker figure looks.

Help Meet

Some try to use the phrase "help meet" as the basis for female submission. There is nothing about this term that implies submission: the term is "ezer" and it baiscally means "succor" "aid" "help" "to strengthen." From an on line version of Driver and Briggs as well as Vines Hebrew lexicon we see that this word is used of God in the psalms, and in other ensconces where the "ezer" was greater or more important or stronger than the one being helped.

Translated word: Ezer; help, soccer, support


Pslams20:2 "Send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion;"

Ps 33:20 "Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield."

Ps 70:5 "But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, make no tarrying."

Ps 89:19 "Then Thu spikiest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people."

Ps 115:9 "O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."

Ps 115:10 "O house of Aaron, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."

Ps 115:11 "Ye that fear the LORD, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield."

Ps 121:1 "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.

Ps 121:2 "My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth."

Ps 124:8 "Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth."

Ps 146:5 "Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God."

In all of these verses God is the help.This is the very same word translated "help meet" in Gensis the second chapter. One can see that it is nota word which denotes any sort of submissive or subservient position. The only other major claim is that submission was the consequence of the fall, a curse put upon woman for sinning and eating the fruit. Let's examine that idea on page 2.

In their cunning enginuity, never give up dought if there is breath left in the body. they found a way to try and continue the line of doubt:


Originally Posted by nmanning View Post
The phrase "help meet" shows up 4 times in the KJV of the bible.

Yet nowhere is this odd phrase defined.

Why?

Were the bible writers ignorant of what it meant? Were they trying to hide something?

Was it just made up?

It seems that an "help meet" was a pretty important thing - Yahweh made the animals and then paraded them before the man made of dirt for him to choose from, yet nowhere is "help meet" defined.

Something seems fishy...

 It's totally odd the things these people come up with. why didn't they define a word that was part of their language and they knew the meaning/ doesn't kind of assume they knew about us reading their words 3000 years latter?

that would have to assume they knew about English and understood how "help" would throw us off.
How often do we define every term we use?

Saturday, December 17, 2011

stupid atheist trick of the week

I can't believe anyone would be this dumb. yet here it is. In a discussion on carm where an atheist is drawing an analogy between spreading the gospel and passing a chain letter (I figured "they must be hard up for hate speech if they have to use this--but the fact that it was an analogy is important) another atheist chimes in:

Not just fundies engage in chain letters. Regular ole people do. They get an email saying something like "If you believe, pass this on and you will be rewarded witernal life and ice cream every day while you count your billion dollars, or if you don't pass this on, you get dirt to eat and suffering for all eternity."

Lots of people pass it on. This has to be how Christianity started. The original chain letter. Good example, troxel.

He actually takes it literally and claims that people are really willing to pass on letter believing they get eternal life. These guys must be really hard up to find things to criticize Christianity about if they have to resort to such balderdash. This was by "Diest" who has graces these pages with similar brilliance in the past.