Refuting Religion - The Writings of K. Crady

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Yes, and I said that what OPs was doing wasn't necessarily eisegesis for the reasons stated above. So what exactly are you saying? That anybody who doesn't have a command of Ancient Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic is not allowed to critically interpret the bible? Why couldn't a man without presuppositions who, let's say, has a command of ancient Hebrew and understands the historical context, come to a negative conclusion about the story of Job? Make a clear statement of your argument.

I understand what you're saying, but eisegesis is not valid and is the basis of all the posts. The bold, hypothetical case makes no sense. If said man had command of ancient Hebrew/Aramaic and understood the historical context/culture, he would have presuppositions.

There's nothing in my post that suggests an objective man who draws OP's conclusions can only do so by "ignoring" the culture.

You forgot language and context which were also both ignored but are vital to drawing any type of critical conclusion concerning the text. One cannot be objective by ignoring pertinent criteria in their analysis.

The bible is not merely a historical document -- it directs people's actions in the present day. The context and culture in which the stories were used merely strengthens the idea that the stories themselves are extremely outdated. The context of biblical times assists us in understanding why the stories made sense THEN, not why they should guide our lives NOW.

People still call singularities 'Black Holes' even though there is no need to refer to them as such and is an outdated term. Should we toss out that descriptor? I think not as it allows people to understand a concept that may be beyond their capability to fully appreciate. Same thing applies here. As far as the biblical stories 'guiding' anyone's lives, I have no issue with it when it's done for 'good' which has been the case for the vast majority of civilization. The 'bad' uses have been very easy to spot and cause for concern. Luckily, they have been very few, but people like to focus on the negative so they seem more abundant and egregious. Like nuclear power, fluoride and guns.

The rest of this thread will be populated by religious trolls and butthurt atheists so I'm gonna leave this discussion with one thought: Trying to replace one 'Noble Lie' with another won't work if said 'Lie' is even more incoherent than what it's attempting to replace.
​

 

[intilectual recipricol]

The presuppositions occurring are from yourself. You presuppose certain shyt, ignoring what the text says. If the text says something different, then by all means show it. The truth is you wont do that, instead stating that you know the text says A, but since you dont believe it then it must mean something else... the very definition of what you posted.


yes, take it elsewhere

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The presuppositions occurring are from yourself. You presuppose certain shyt, ignoring what the text says. If the text says something different, then by all means show it. The truth is you wont do that, instead stating that you know the text says A, but since you dont believe it then it must mean something else... the very definition of what you posted.


yes, take it elsewhere

I have ONE presupposition: 'G-d' is a meaningless, incoherent term that YOU believe means something.

Your boy's arguments are just 'fluff' pieces. They sound good until you actually examine them and realize they're fatally flawed.​

 

[intilectual recipricol]

I have ONE presupposition: 'G-d' is a meaningless, incoherent term that YOU believe means something.

Your boy's arguments are just 'fluff' pieces. They sound good until you actually examine them and realize they're fatally flawed.​

Still you have yet to point out a single flaw, instead posting a definition that fits how christians read the bible and nothing else.

 

[gho3st]

People should read about the origin of religion and make their choice once they find out

I read that shyt in college and was like

 

[714562]

Same thing applies here. As far as the biblical stories 'guiding' anyone's lives, I have no issue with it when it's done for 'good' which has been the case for the vast majority of civilization. The 'bad' uses have been very easy to spot and cause for concern. Luckily, they have BEEN VERY FEW, but people like to focus on the negative so they seem more abundant and egregious. Like nuclear power, fluoride and guns.

I'll respond to the rest of your nonsense a bit later. In the meantime, I'll let the bolded part speak for itself.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Still you have yet to point out a single flaw

I've pointed it out a few times: Eisegesis is not valid and is a fatal flaw.​

 

[Slaimon Khan Shah]

HOW CAN YOU REFUTE THE VERY TRUTH FROM THE OMNIPOTENT CREATOR? FEAR THE CREATOR PLEASE FEAR THE CREATOR.

 

[acri1]

I have ONE presupposition: 'G-d' is a meaningless, incoherent term that YOU believe means something.
​

Just because you're unsatisfied with the word doesn't make it meaningless for everyone. Most people are pretty satisfied with "omnipotent being who created the universe".

 

[Bud Bundy]

will read later.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

God damn atheists spend a lot of time thinking about God.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

God damn atheists spend a lot of time thinking about God.

How can you think of something that has no definition? I would argue that believers spend much more time thinking about God than anyone else. If there weren't other religious folks surrounding me I wouldn't ever think about "God" (whatever that may be).

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

How can you think of something that has no definition? I would argue that believers spend much more time thinking about God than anyone else. If there weren't other religious folks surrounding me I wouldn't ever think about "God" (whatever that may be).

Oh so a religious person made this thread posting dissertation after dissertation about God written by another religious person?

 

[714562]

I understand what you're saying, but eisegesis is not valid and is the basis of all the posts.​

Still haven't proven why, or why a non-eisegetical analysis could not come to the same conclusion.

The bold, hypothetical case makes no sense. If said man had command of ancient Hebrew/Aramaic and understood the historical context/culture, he would have presuppositions.​

An unhelpful and immature way of looking at thngs. Language is used to shape certain ways of thinking about things, but ultimately it is used to describe physical and emotional phenomena common to all human beings. To say that all language creates impenetrable presupposition that cannot be overcome is to stop running the race before you ever get on the track.

You forgot language and context which were also both ignored but are vital to drawing any type of critical conclusion concerning the text. One cannot be objective by ignoring pertinent criteria in their analysis.​

People still call singularities 'Black Holes' even though there is no need to refer to them as such and is an outdated term. Should we toss out that descriptor?

You're comparing a colloquialism to direct biblical commands. "Stone disobedient children" is not a colloquialism for "discipline children."

I think not as it allows people to understand a concept that may be beyond their capability to fully appreciate. Same thing applies here. As far as the biblical stories 'guiding' anyone's lives, I have no issue with it when it's done for 'good' which has been the case for the vast majority of civilization. The 'bad' uses have been very easy to spot and cause for concern. Luckily, they have been very few, but people like to focus on the negative so they seem more abundant and egregious. Like nuclear power, fluoride and guns.

Like I said, this just speaks for itself.

The rest of this thread will be populated by religious trolls and butthurt atheists so I'm gonna leave this discussion with one thought: Trying to replace one 'Noble Lie' with another won't work if said 'Lie' is even more incoherent than what it's attempting to replace.

There is no "noble lie" in atheism. Atheism is the absence of a noble lie. And it would have no problem coexisting next to faith, if religious people merely acknowledged that they were operating on faith and nothing else. But they try to ground it in other things -- science, logic, philosophy, etc. -- even though it is not compatible.

Hence the problem.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Still haven't proven why, or why a non-eisegetical analysis could not come to the same conclusion.

Foundational Bias + Eisegesis, no need to discuss 'What if.....?' when we can discuss 'What is.....?'.

An unhelpful and immature way of looking at thngs. Language is used to shape certain ways of thinking about things, but ultimately it is used to describe physical and emotional phenomena common to all human beings. To say that all language creates impenetrable presupposition that cannot be overcome is to stop running the race before you ever get on the track.

Language evolves. We use the word 'cottage' today to describe a type of house. 100 years ago, it was where homosexual men used to go to engage in sexual liaisons. It is 'unhelpful and immature' to say that what a term is used for now is the ONLY way in which it should be used.

You're comparing a colloquialism to direct biblical commands. "Stone disobedient children" is not a colloquialism for "discipline children."

Nowhere did I do such a thing. You, however, just did.

Like I said, this just speaks for itself.

Which is the truth based on the preponderance of several thousand years of history.

There is no "noble lie" in atheism. Atheism is the absence of a noble lie. And it would have no problem coexisting next to faith, if religious people merely acknowledged that they were operating on faith and nothing else. But they try to ground it in other things -- science, logic, philosophy, etc. -- even though it is not compatible.

The 'Lie' is that atheism is 'true'. 'Faith' is required in science, logic and philosophy. Stating these things are incompatible with 'faith' is another 'lie'. Stating that theists operate on 'faith' and nothing else is yet another 'lie'. Atheism is a BELIEF system, not a KNOWLEDGE system. Do you BELIEVE 'G-d' doesn't exist or do you KNOW that 'G-d' doesn't exist?

​