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 None of those writers mention any of the events and some falsify the historical references.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!

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?