Pitiable and Pwned

You have to feel sorry for them. They have staked their lives and their "future" on society-manipulating lies. They are repeatedly refuted and publically trounced, but they either cannot see this, or they see it but refuse to admit it. Why are they so easily pwned? They are mostly poorly educated, certainly mostly narrowly educated, and are typically logic-deficient. They mostly lack basic comprehension and have zero critical thinking skills. In fact, they appear to believe that critical thinking signifies no greater cognitive challenges than entertaining negative thoughts.

Who are "they"?

They are fundamentalist religionists and creationists.




Here's a pertinent section of a brief dialogue with one. GooTube's 500 character limit and non-consecutive posting of comments necessitates this format. I reproduce it because he is attempting to claim that he did not say what he did, or rather, that he did say what he did not. Considering that this particular creationist frequently accuses others of lying, I think that this is precious:

Creationist:

The New Testament contains several independent sources ...

Response:

Copycats are *not* independent. Pagan writers contemporaneous with Jesus would be considered independent. None of those writers mention any of the events and some falsify the historical references. The NT contains 200,000-400,000 errors, some of them significant and deliberate alterations, some added as late as the early 17th century. The Gospels are cross-contradictory on significant details.

Creationist:

Saying the NT is a "copy" or the Gospels are copies is a lie. And so are your so-called "Bible errors and contradictions". I have already slammed this video's author on that one. Are you wanting to get your ass kicked too? Give me just one of your so called "contradictions" or "errors" in the New Testament. Don't cut and past tons of them from some web page because I'm not going to waste my time answering each and everyone. Just one will do.

I did so. Here. The creationist's denial was predictable.

Creationist:

I already covered these so-called contradictions. These aren't contradicts. They depict each individual's perspective of the incident. I will only waste my time with your first line. You need to explain to me why you think Mt 28:1, Mk 16:1, Lk 24:1 and Jn 20:1 are contradictory.

(Actually, no I do not need to explain any such thing. He requested some evidence, I provided it. There is lots more where that came from.)

Response:

Yes, they are contradictions. They say different things. That's what a contradiction is -- saying something different.You made the claim that the Bible contains no errors and no contradictions. Prove it. Denial is not proof.

Creationist:

No, they don't contradict. That is why I wanted you to explain to me where you think they are contradicting so I can see exactly where you are hallucinating a contradiction.

Response:

It comes as no surprise that you have a problem acknowledging the differences between accounts of who visited the tomb, jeffrey. I take it that you agree with all the other contradictions.

Creationist:

There are differences in the accounts but no contradictions. Exactly where are you seeing this? you need to explain it to me because it's not in the Bible. The contradiction exists in your imagination.

(Interesting that he acknowledges "difference", but denies "contradictions". As I demonstrated, the contradictions, and many more, exist in the Bible and not merely in my imagination.)

Response:

I suggest that you haul out your dictionary and check the definition of contradiction. Not that I would ever expect you to be honest enough to admit that a contradiction is a contradiction. After all, you have already contradicted yourself within your comments.

Btw, who wrote Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

This could prove interesting!

Gospel Untruths - Contradictions

The quoted passages are from the New International Version. You can access other versions by selecting from the dropdown menu at BibleGateway.com.

Needless to say, if Matthew and Luke had not been directly based on Mark, the contradictions would expand exponentially.

After the contradictory accounts of the crucifixion (which, revealingly, are not mentioned independently by any other writers at the time of the purported events):

Who visited the tomb?

Matthew 28:1 : 1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

Mark 16:1 : 1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.

Luke 24:1 : 1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. (Which women?: 23:55 : 55The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it.)

John 20:1 : 1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

So, which was it? Mary? Mary Magdalene and the other Mary? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome?

Where was the stone?

Matthew 28:2 : 2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. (the angel rolled the stone while the women (2 Mary M, Mary, Salome) were there)

Mark 16:4 : 4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. (already rolled away, as in verse 1)

Whom did the visitors see at the tomb?

Matthew 28:5 : 5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.

Mark 16:5 : 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

Luke 24:4 : 4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them.

What was said to the visitors?

Mark 16:7 : 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

Luke 24:7 : 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'

What of this information was passed along by the visitors?

Matthew 28:8 : 8So the women [M,M,S] hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Mark 16:8 : 8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

To whom did whoever pass the information?

Matthew 28:8 : 8So the women [M,M,S] hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Luke 24:8 : 9When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others.

John 20:2 : 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

How do the disciples respond?

Matthew 20:19 : [en route to Jerusalem, Jesus had previously told the disciples] 19 Then they will hand him over to the Romans[c] to be mocked, flogged with a whip, and crucified. But on the third day he will be raised from the dead.”

Luke 24:11 : 11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.

[Obviously, they had not read Matthew 20:19]

John 20:3 : 3So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb.

[Obviously John's disciples also had not read Matthew 20:19! Of interest, John 20:9 9(They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)]

Even if all four Gospels agreed word-for-word on the account of the resurrection, this still does not constitute "historical" proof of the purported resurrection event. Missing bodies constitute proof only of the disappearance of a body, and not of the unknown location of the body, particularly not a heavenly relocation. Even more preposterous are unfounded claims of knowledge of the relocation of that artefact of consciousness that we call "soul".

Retrospectively written accounts, particularly fictitious accounts so clearly modified to fit the author's theological purpose, do not constitute "historical" proof that Scriptures have been fulfilled.

Flawed Fiction

Categorical statements – propositions sporting absolutes such as always, never, all, or none – generate the most easily refuted arguments. Unfortunately for literalists, they seem to be unable to help themselves with regard to making categorical, or universal, statements. They apparently believe – quite mistakenly – that universal statement make their emotion-based arguments stronger. In fact, categorical statements very often render their arguments ridiculous.

Safer are those Christians who accept and acknowledge that the Bible is a flawed document created and copied ... and copied ... and copied by humans. These are the Christians who admit that the Bible is a theological product-of-its-times rather than an inerrant PROOF of whatever theology the fundamentalist favours. These moderate Christians, who are often derisively labelled as not-true-Christians by fundamentalists, keep their beliefs safe by viewing the Bible as a moral allegory.

Judging by the ex-Christians whom one encounters on the Internet, deconversion rates are highest among fundamentalists, and deconversion processes most traumatic amongst fundamentalists. It is no surprise, then, that fundamentalists are pouring so much frantic effort into proselytizing and expounding their beliefs. This effort typically comprises misinformation, irrelevant information (Bible quotes), threats and promises, and a variety of fallacies of logic. When these do not work, religionists resort to a variety of on-line cheating stratagems – sockpuppet accounts, trolling, spamming, false flagging, false DMCA claims, and votebot attacks on YT ratings.

What happened to Jesus' sacrifice?

Suffer the Little Children to believe that they and their loved ones are at risk of eternal punishment in the fires of hell. Why would parents insist that their children be terrified by such images?

In the Western world, where love of children does not seem to be an anti-religious indulgence, fundamentalists believe that they are warning their children when they teach them to fear the admittedly vicious god of their literalist bible. (In Islam, parents seem to be more delighted by children who blow themselves and others to smithereens for Allah.) In Christianity, loving parents warn that, "behave and god will love you, disobey or disbelieve and your'e headed for hell, Jesus' sacrifice or no."

But, scare tactics don't necessarily help. Even though the media is probably more likely to report dalliances by hypocritical ministers and televangelists than those of the average parishioner, such reports come thick and fast.

So what about Jesus' supposed sacrifice to save us from our sins? In essence, from some sins, but not the sin of employing our reason. Why should this sacrifice apply only to those who agree to believe in god, a virgin birth, a crucifixion, and a resurrection? Why would god send his son to die to save a murderer yet not to save a disbeliever?

Why would anyone believe in, still less, worship such a god?

Deflowering the Tree of Knowledge

Arthur Vandelay at Five Opinions points us to a lengthy article on NoBeliefs.com outlining The Myth of Christianity Founding Modern Science and Medicine(And the Hole Left by the Christian Dark Ages). Did I say 'lengthy article'? I should have said lengthy title.

It is standard Christian apologetic fare to counter accusations of vicious antiscience repression (Giordano Bruno, Galileo etc) by claiming that the medieval church kept learning alive during the Dark Ages.

In fact, until the Renaissance, church authorities enforced the same sort of fundamentalist, regressive, power-mongering tactics exhibited by 'modern' Islam, which has desecrated the reputation deserved by its 'flowering'. If it had not been for Islamic scholars, much more of ancient learning would have been lost to Christianity's deflowering the tree of knowledge. Currently, Islamic science is an oxymoron.

Also : Did the Christian Dark Ages hamstring science?

apologetics, Christianity, Dark Ages, Islam, learning,medicine, philosophy, religion, Renaissance, science, theology,