mouthporn.net
#playing tennis without a net – @religion-is-a-mental-illness on Tumblr

Religion is a Mental Illness

@religion-is-a-mental-illness / religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com

Tribeless. Problematic. Triggering. Faith is a cognitive sickness.
Avatar
Anonymous asked:

Why do you continually insist that a particular random street preacher didn't exist when you have no interest in archeology or knowledge of how historical documentation works before the age of the printing press?

Two reasons:

Firstly, you can't tell me anything about him that isn't in the bible, a book with a man made from dirt, a woman made from a rib, a magical fruit, a talking donkey, a talking snake, a magical zoo boat, demons, witches and other literal magic, and justifies them with absolutely nothing. Jesus is said to have been seen by over 500 people after his death... but can't name them, say what they saw, how they knew what it was, and all of them were believers anyway.

This is literally the entirety of what it says:

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

This is not how history works.

The bible is not a historical document, which is even stated so at times by the authors. Paul, for example, openly states that he lies - he becomes like one of whomever he wants to convince. The author of John, in a section literally calledThe Purpose of John’s Gospel,” claims to have written it so "that you may believe," not to state reliably what happened.

But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

Secondly, I can concede some Jewish preacher roaming about the region roaming about the land preaching about one thing or another without any discomfort. Hell, spend the day walking around the streets of any decently sized city and you'll find dozens of street preachers doing exactly that. Exactly the same thing.

But that's not what you're supposed to be doing, is it? The bible is specific about what it says happens. What you're doing is intellectually dishonest. It's called "playing tennis without a net."

This one relates to the existence of a god, but it's the same principle. You're aiming to get the ball over a net on the far left. Instead of "Timeless first mover" it's labelled "particular random street preacher." You're welcome to get your ball over that net, but you're supposed to be getting it over the one at the far right end.

You need to show that your Jesus/Yeshua existed as described in the bible, in the real world. That he defied physics, history, medicine and death, as described in the bible.

Neil Patrick Harris appears in "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle," drugged out of his brain and looking for "poontang" (his word). H&K Neil Patrick Harris is a fictional version of the real Neil Patrick Harris. H&K NPH doesn't exist, and never did those things. Pointing to a real world Yeshua-equivalent - and none of you can actually find him, let's be clear about that - does nothing, literally nothing, to substantiate the specific claims in the bible. We know NPH exists, so the logic you're using actually means that H&K is more historical than the bible.

It's up to you to prove your thing. The whole thing, as described. And I know you can't. Because it's full of holes, contradictory and claims things that never happened. The crucifixion, for example, is historically inaccurate, and the crucified were left up to rot as a warning.

“When we crucify criminals the most frequented roads are chosen, where the greatest number of people can look and be seized by this fear. For every punishment has less to do with the offence than with the example.”
– Quintilian, Declamations, 274.13, English translation in Quintilian: The Lesser Declamations, 2 vols; ed. and trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey; Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2006), 1:259.

The Romans would never have been concerned with Jewish sensibilities, and Jesus’ carcass would have rotted on the crucifix just like those of everyone who was ever crucified. The entire entombment is ahistorical.

The Cleansing of the Temple violated an important rite of Jewish worship - it allowed pilgrims traveling from afar to buy an animal locally for sacrifice from their own currency, rather than having to drag one all the way from where they came - and was profoundly antisemitic, and would have been as scandalous among the Jews of the time as Harvey Weinstein or Jan 6. And yet it's written nowhere else. No one else noticed this gross, public - and let’s not forget, theatrical - violation of Jewish practices; essentially a hate crime.

Nobody ever heard of or wrote about the bible character while he was alive. And that's the problem you have to solve, not "particular random street preacher."

It's funny how much we do know about everything else prior to the printing press, though, as well as how we came to know it and what evidence we have for it.

Avatar

By: The Spartan Atheist

Published: May 29, 2018

Playing tennis without a net
Let’s try this concept on for a second. You agree to play tennis with someone that claims they are pretty good. Damned near professional, they say. You, on the other hand, played with some friends a few times in college. Eh, it’ll be fun, you figure. At least you’ll get some exercise. Nothing serious, just fun.
You meet this person to play. However, much to your confusion, instead of meeting at a tennis court, you meet at an open park. There is a generally flat surface, but no court. No lines marking fouls, and no net.
Confused as hell, you begin to play. Your opponent calls the fouls. Incoming service clearly out to the wrong side is called in. Service that bounces so low it would have had to go under the net is called in. Your opponent seemingly can not miss, despite an obvious margin of error.
When it’s your turn to serve, they have to be perfectly on target. Without the net, your opponent frequently calls the ball as a net ball. And even if they attempt to return the ball, and botch it, it is retroactively called foul and their point.
It doesn’t take very long to realize that the so-called “nearly professional” opponent is anything but. If there was a competition court with net, they would barely rate as a beginner. But without the net, and calling shots subjectively, their scoring miraculously increases.
This is what it is to debate a theist.
Religious apologists, including many of the defenders of the faith that have commented on my blogs, have exhausted countless words attempting to remove the net from the game. They’re almost proud of it, as if removing the net makes them superior thinkers. But it makes them dishonest.
Many may comment here, and say something like I’m “ignorant” or some other such ad hominem attack.  But they have planted the flag.  They have defined the game.  Here is the net they have established for themselves:
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried. The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified. He spoke through the prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and to life in the world to come. Amen.
This is the net established for all Christianity at the Nicene council in 325 CE.  This net is not a mere “timeless first mover.”  This net isn’t just something to serve over.  This net is to serve a tennis ball 400′ through a hole 4″ in diameter and hit a deuce court that is 5″x8″.  This is exceptionally specific.  And yet the argument served up is so watered down that the arguer could almost serve the ball backwards and try to claim victory.
The cosmological argument, in various forms, is so far removed from the conclusion as to be useless.  Even if the premises were correct (they aren’t), the argument can at best demonstrate that something did something.  That’s a few steps short of even demonstrating and intelligent something.  This low-ball approach covers somewhere around half of the “arguments” for god.
After that, there’s all the other arguments devoid of evidence, such as miracles and prayer and morality.  If you thought the evidence for Kalam was sketchy, you were right.  The rest of these arguments are wishful thinking at best, and they only bat the ball a couple more feet.
Let’s pretend that there really were miracles.  Okay, we have exactly zero confirmed miracles.  But don’t let that stop us.  Let’s pretend there’s been a bunch of confirmed miracles.  At best, that serve gets us over the net of “something intelligent” that we don’t yet understand.  Even with a confirmed miracle in the modern age, it would not prove that pre-teen Mary’s uterus was one-way.
It does not make anyone a professional tennis player to announce the location of the net, and then just calling a fair serve by bouncing the ball around.  It’s a ridiculous game.  They set a mark, and a very specific mark at that, but when it comes time to demonstrate they just chuck random crap out there until something seems to stick.  And it almost always only sticks with believers.  Everyone else rolls their eyes.
The Spartan Atheist

==

This is completely true. I can't even begin to count the number of believers who've done this. As soon as they start on whether things need a cause, a beginning, a creator or can come from nothing, it's clear they have nothing to offer.

Crucially, it means they don't have evidence for their god, only a long-debunked hypothetical. Implying a long-debunked, hypothetical god.

Give them Xianity's definition of Xianity (above) and tell them to come back when they can provide evidence, outside the bible, for the bible's claims.

Source: href.li
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net