Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Leumas]

I read the Buybull (a.k.a. Tanakh) when I was 17 during the summer holidays a century ago.
...

Second, which "Bible"? I believe this is the second time you have mentioned "Bible" and have meant the Jewish Bible/Tanakh.

I am glad to see that you have answered your own question... you may have saved yourself the time of asking it had you read properly the bit of my post that you posted.

First, it's Bible. That is its name.

I am glad to see how CONCERNED you are to defend the name of the Buybull.

1. Question #1... do you think the collection of books is filled with bull or not?
2. Question #2... do you know people buy the collection of books?
3. Question #3... do you know that "buy" can be a metaphor for believe or swallow as in being duped by?

So if the collection of books is filled with bull... and people literally buy it with their money and metaphorically swallow and are duped by its content of bull... don't you think the moniker Buybull is a very apt and appropriate one that describes the REALITY of what the collection of books is?

Besides... what you said is the name of the collection of books... nope... it is not... it is a description for the collection of books bound together into one tome... so it is like saying that book called the Books.... do you see how silly that is?

Therefore my descriptive moniker for the book is more apt and appropriate for the HOAX that it is.

Bi·ble

1. ... the Jewish scriptures, consisting of the Torah or Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or Writings...
2. a book regarded as authoritative in a particular sphere.

Origin

Middle English: via Old French from ecclesiastical Latin biblia, from Greek (ta) biblia ‘(the) books’, from biblion ‘book’, originally a diminutive of biblos ‘papyrus, scroll’, of Semitic origin.​

 

[Thermal]

I am glad to see that you have answered your own question... you may have saved yourself the time of asking it had you read properly the bit of my post that you posted.






I am glad to see how CONCERNED you are to defend the name of the Buybull.

1. Question #1... do you think the book is filled with bull or not?
2. Question #2... do you know people buy the book?
3. Question #3... do you know that "buy" can be a metaphor for believe or swallow as in being duped by?

So if the book is filled with bull... and people literally buy it with their money and metaphorically swallow and are duped by its content of bull... don't you think the modicum Buybull is a very apt and appropriate one that describes the REALITY of what the book is?

Besides... what you said is its name... nope... it is not... it is a description for the collection of books bound together into one tome... and my description is more apt and appropriate for the HOAX that it is.

Bi·ble

That's not how communication works. As soon as you make up words, the reader can't assume that your explanatory words mean what they think they mean either.

For instance, "Buybull' is not "a.k.a./also known as" anything at all to anyone but you. And since you use "Bible" indiscriminately to mean anything from just the Torah to the combined Old and New Testaments, your definitions cannot be taken at face value either.

Do us a favor love, and just use normal words so we don't have to translate from English to Leumas back and forth.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

In times when the pharaoh of Egypt and the Roman emperors were God's in the flesh, and too much disagreement might mean a horrible death. Then "god" had a wider interpretation than today.
The people that handed down the stories that eventually became holy texts lived in times that we can barely guess at how it really was.
Now rewrite, edit and mistranslate that for a millenia or two it's no wonder we can question how this god is or was.
An uneducated bronze age man living in constant fear of invasion, famine, illness or whatever might have seen this horrible god as a reflection of his world.
He wasn't stupid by a longshot,, but our modern knowledge and technology allow us to easily avoid what killed his villages. His gods are now obsolete.

To be fair, the Roman emperors were never living gods. Deification happened after death.

 

[Leumas]

That's not how communication works. As soon as you make up words, the reader can't assume that your explanatory words mean what they think they mean either.

For instance, "Buybull' is not "a.k.a./also known as" anything at all to anyone but you. And since you use "Bible" indiscriminately to mean anything from just the Torah to the combined Old and New Testaments, your definitions cannot be taken at face value either.

Do us a favor love, and just use normal words so we don't have to translate from English to Leumas back and forth.

How do you think new words come into a language??

Besides... I suggest you google Tanakh... also look carefully at the English definition I cited.

So do yourself a favor and try to learn new words that you do not know it is nice to know a lot of stuff.

Besides... do you think the collection of books normally called "the books" and more appropriately titled the Buybull is full of bull or not?




.

 

[Thermal]

How do you think new words come into a language??

Generally, by more than one person using them in a Humpty Dumpty fashion.

Besides... I suggest you google Tanakh... also look carefully at the English definition I cited.

So do yourself a favor and try to learn new words that you do not know it is nice to know a lot of stuff.

Learning new stuff is great, especially if it's useful. Terms like Buybull are not useful.

Besides... do you think the collection of books normally called "the books" and more appropriately titled the Buybull is full of bull or not?

I am not aware of any collection of books normally called "the books", nor of any credible retitling of "Buybull". That's kind of the point.

 

[Leumas]

Generally, by more than one person using them in a Humpty Dumpty fashion.

Buybull..... QED!!!

For instance, "Buybull' is not "a.k.a./also known as" anything at all to anyone but you.

The above statement is very evidently not true... because of the above Wiktionary entry... and because this

First, it's Bible. That is its name.

clearly shows that someone else here did indeed know it albeit is CONCERNED to make me refrain from using the word Buybull... but clearly knows what it is a.k.a.

And since you use "Bible" indiscriminately to mean anything from just the Torah to the combined Old and New Testaments, your definitions cannot be taken at face value either.

The above statement is also very definitively not true given this very precise indication of what it is

I read the Buybull (a.k.a. Tanakh) when I was 17 during the summer holidays a century ago.

So as I said.... do yourself a favor and try to learn new words that you do not know it is nice to know a lot of stuff.

Besides... do you think the collection of books normally called "the books i.e. Bible" and more appropriately titled the Buybull is full of bull or not?



.

 

[Thermal]

Buybull..... QED!!!

The above statement is very evidently not true... because of the above Wiktionary entry... and because this

You rely on Wiktionary? Seriously? What a dozen or so individuals user-input is worthless. I have more people in my family who repeat nonsense words my kids made up. Maybe I could write up a Wiktionary entry for them and start QEDing all over the place?

clearly shows that someone else here did indeed know it albeit is CONCERNED to make me refrain from using the word Buybull... but clearly knows what it is a.k.a.

But it makes us sound a little older than 12 if we don't use such goofy terms.

The above statement is also very definitively not true given this very precise indication of what it is

Precise to someone who uses words normally. But we are talking about your usage.

So as I said.... do yourself a favor and try to learn new words that you do not know it is nice to know a lot of stuff.

Repetition, as it has been pointed out to you many times, does not make your point stronger.

Besides... do you think the collection of books normally called "the books i.e. Bible" and more appropriately titled the Buybull is full of bull or not?

Already answered. But to expand, no, I don't. "Bull ****" is when someone is intentionally deceptive. I think the scriptural authors were recounting what had been handed down to them, and they believed it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In 24 pages of just the most recent version of a discussion going back forever more time has been wasted nitpicking every piece of arguing or language and talking about literally everything else but proof of god.

If god actually existed in all this time someone would have by accident introduced some actual real evidence for him.

 

[Thermal]

They have. Beer.

 

[Leumas]

Generally, by more than one person using them in a Humpty Dumpty fashion.

You rely on Wiktionary? Seriously? What a dozen or so individuals user-input is worthless.

QED!!!

I have more people in my family who repeat nonsense words my kids made up. Maybe I could write up a Wiktionary entry for them and start QEDing all over the place?

But it makes us sound a little older than 12 if we don't use such goofy terms.

Precise to someone who uses words normally. But we are talking about your usage.

Repetition, as it has been pointed out to you many times, does not make your point stronger.

Fascinating CONCERN for defending the Buybull... thanks!

Already answered. But to expand, no, I don't. "Bull ****" is when someone is intentionally deceptive. I think the scriptural authors were recounting what had been handed down to them, and they believed it.

First... seriously!!

Second... you're confusing the word bull with the word lie... look up the difference.

Third... a collection of books that contains lies and bull is not absolved of containing lies and bull because its benighted charlatan fabricators were too benighted to not know the lies and bull they were writing.

Fourth... an interestingly concerned defense of the Buybull... albeit mistaken on so many levels.

 

[Thermal]

Can we at least have one common point of agreement: if there is a god who was for whatever reason interested in us and our compliance, he would make himself better known, so it seems he wants to be left the **** alone and we have no reason not to accommodate that?

 

[Thermal]

QED!!!






Fascinating CONCERN for defending the Buybull... thanks!







First... seriously!!

Second... you're confusing the word bull with the word lie... look up the difference.

Third... a collection of books that contains lies and bull is not absolved of containing lies and bull because its benighted charlatan fabricators were too benighted to not know the lies and bull they were writing.

Fourth... an interestingly concerned defense of the Buybull... albeit mistaken on so many levels.

It's interesting how you quote and bolden and highlight posts, yet have no clue what the words mean.

 

[Leumas]

In 24 pages of just the most recent version of a discussion going back forever more time has been wasted nitpicking every piece of arguing or language and talking about literally everything else but proof of god.

If god actually existed in all this time someone would have by accident introduced some actual real evidence for him.

A deity who needs humans to present evidence of its existence to other humans is not a god worthy of the epithet.... if not a demon more likely even when such human alleged evidence is ever taken seriously.

 

[Leumas]

Can we at least have one common point of agreement: if there is a god who was for whatever reason interested in us and our compliance, he would make himself better known, so it seems he wants to be left the **** alone and we have no reason not to accommodate that?

So that would make the whole of the Buybull and the New Tall tales nothing but bull then... no??? And lies too... no???

 

[Thermal]

So that would make the whole of the Buybull and the New Tall tales nothing but bull then... no??? And lies too... no???

No.

 

[Leumas]

Can we at least have one common point of agreement: if there is a god who was for whatever reason interested in us and our compliance, he would make himself better known, so it seems he wants to be left the **** alone and we have no reason not to accommodate that?

So that would make the whole of the Buybull and the New Tall tales nothing but bull then... no??? And lies too... no???

No.

Yes...

Your own assertion is that if there is a god then

..if there is a god who was for whatever reason interested in us and our compliance, he would make himself better known,

But you are saying that he has not done so and...

... so it seems he wants to be left the **** alone and we have no reason not to accommodate that?

Now this implies that you do not consider the Buybull or the New Tall tales to be an evidence for a god... no???

Which would imply that the Buybull and New Tall tales which claim to be such evidence are a lie and the alleged claims in them for the actions and utterances of the alleged god which you know is hiding, nothing but bull... no?

So I am afraid you are wrong... your statement definitively implies that the the Buybull and the New Tall tales are nothing but bull and lies.

 

[sphenisc]

Too many points to summarise in one go, I'm afraid! But I'll try:

1. To say that a group that is against modern scientific consensus is "against science" is wrong. Those who argue against the consensus do so by arguing that it is they who are doing science right, and the consensus group doing science wrong.

2. ID proponents argue they are doing science correctly. They don't "reject science". They believe that the scientific consensus is wrong. But it doesn't mean they think therefore computers and planes don't work (paraphrasing someone's comment much earlier in the thread).

3. ID proponents are following the scientific method by (1) making an observation (flagellum), (2) proposing a hypothesis (IC), (3) submitting into peer reviewed publications. That's all good! That's science at work!

4. ID is a failed hypothesis, since the flagellum doesn't show IC. ID can be rejected as unproven. That's all good also! That's science at work!

This is very important to acknowledge. Science is under attack like never before. When one man can declare "I am the Science! To attack me you are attacking Science!" you know that science is in trouble. When science is devolved into "science is just those things that I agree with", then you get the same result if you devolve free speech into "you are free to say anything I agree with."

There seems to be an ideological line whereby even admitting that ID has had peer reviewed articles presented somehow means that science has failed. It hasn't. Quite the opposite.

It's a small hill, but one that I'm willing to die on. Hope that answers your question!

4. Is a denying-the-antecedent fallacy. It is possible for the flagellum to not show IC, and ID to be a confirmed conjecture.

 

[Thermal]

Yes...

Your own assertion is that if there is a god then




But you are saying that he has not done so and...




Now this implies that you do not consider the Buybull or the New Tall tales to be an evidence for a god... no???

Which would imply that the Buybull and New Tall tales which claim to be such evidence are a lie and the alleged claims in them for the actions and utterances of the alleged god which you know is hiding, nothing but bull... no?

So I am afraid you are wrong... your statement definitively implies that the the Buybull and the New Tall tales are nothing but bull and lies.

Let me check...

Nope. Still no.

 

[Leumas]

Let me check...

Nope. Still no.

I am glad you checked... so let me see if I got right or not...



Nope... from my viewpoint it seems that you have not checked the logic of your concerned defenses for the Buybull and the New Tall tales.

You are arrantly mistaken... unless, of course, you believe that those two piles of mephitic bull and fetid lies for a HIDING GOD (or no god at all ¿do you know which?) are indeed peddling and hawking for a REAL GOD... ¿do you?




.

 

[psionl0]

In 24 pages of just the most recent version of a discussion going back forever more time has been wasted nitpicking every piece of arguing or language and talking about literally everything else but proof of god.

If god actually existed in all this time someone would have by accident introduced some actual real evidence for him.

Proof that this thread has gone on for too long. You have actually forgotten what this thread is about (hint: check the title).