YEC Bullshit

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-03-04 04:01am

On another forum, I have recently gotten into a debate regarding the existence of god. Since the forum rules there are stricter regarding rudeness than bullshit, I've been advocating the "No rational reason to believe in the existence of god" tact. Rather more recently, I got into a duel with a particular YECer, and I'm having a tough time of it (since I can't flame the hell out of my opponent as he deserves, since that would result in a banning and it would not be worth a ban merely to lay into one idiot), not because I'm having trouble shooting down his BS, but because I'm having trouble forcing him to recognize as such, though I should expect this sort of thing, I suppose.

To get you in the mood of things, he's a YECer, a biblical literalist/ innerantist, and enjoys invoking a conspiracy of silence. His basic tenet is that the bible is obviously right, and anything which casts doubt on it is thereby not. He's deliberately IGNORED many of my arguments to nitpick and strawman the weak ones (thanks to much of this site, I've learned how to ID and deal with these tactics, so much thanks, all).

However, I realized just how bad it was when- after mentioning that there was no real evidence for the Biblical Geoflood, he linked me Here. I have since linked him to Mike's creation page. Wonder how that one will turn out...::rolls eyes::

Lastly, I would like to ask for some assistance. While I've got a decent grasp on the subject, I'd like to request for assistance in acquiring all the evidence against a literal interpretation of the bible you can provide me, since he's the sort that seems to require repeated bashings over the head to get the point across.

Anything you have against the literalism of Exodus, disagreements with the archeological records, etc. would be appreciated, since these are the major points of discussion at the moment, along with the supposed scientific foreknowledge in the bible and the idea that I'm merely Slandering god (I've mentioned the error of his confusion several times, he refuses to use Libel), and am merely disagreeing with it because I'm an atheist.

But yes, particularly bad examples on request, and thanks in advance for your assistance.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-03-04 06:38am

God can't defeat iron chariots and thus breaks his promise. Then he gets pissed off because his people break their end of the bargain afterwards.

That's my favorite story and yet the literalists always try to tell me "I've read the wrong version".

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-03-04 07:21am

VT-16 wrote:God can't defeat iron chariots and thus breaks his promise. Then he gets pissed off because his people break their end of the bargain afterwards.

That's my favorite story and yet the literalists always try to tell me "I've read the wrong version".

They tell me that because it says God was "with" the people of Judea when they lost to iron chariots it doesn't meat anything. Because being "with" someone doesn't mean you can't be defeated, even for an omnipotent being. That of course presumes that God was just standing there watching, even though the passage implies that Judea defeated other people (who didn't use iron chariots) when God was with them.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-03-04 07:30am

mr friendly guy wrote:
VT-16 wrote:God can't defeat iron chariots and thus breaks his promise. Then he gets pissed off because his people break their end of the bargain afterwards.

That's my favorite story and yet the literalists always try to tell me "I've read the wrong version".
They tell me that because it says God was "with" the people of Judea when they lost to iron chariots it doesn't meat anything.

Haha, meat.

Yeah, the idea as I understand it, was he was with them, much like Odin was with some old school danes in some far off battle.

Because being "with" someone doesn't mean you can't be defeated, even for an omnipotent being. That of course presumes that God was just standing there watching, even though the passage implies that Judea defeated other people (who didn't use iron chariots) when God was with them.

Exactly. Victories are put down to his vague presence being with the victors in the same sorts of language, so it would seem that Tacitus had it right. You could paraphrase it as "no matter how many deities you have on your side, you're still a primitive fuck with a spear," though that's likely not the intended lesson.

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-04 07:32am

Try showing him the passage where it says believers can drink poison and be unharmed. Then ask him to try it.

Mark 16:18, I believe.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-03-04 07:47am

Rye wrote:
mr friendly guy wrote:
VT-16 wrote:God can't defeat iron chariots and thus breaks his promise. Then he gets pissed off because his people break their end of the bargain afterwards.

That's my favorite story and yet the literalists always try to tell me "I've read the wrong version".
They tell me that because it says God was "with" the people of Judea when they lost to iron chariots it doesn't meat anything.
Haha, meat.

Yeah, the idea as I understand it, was he was with them, much like Odin was with some old school danes in some far off battle.

Heh heh heh. I have no idea how mean ended up being typed meat.

Rye wrote:
Because being "with" someone doesn't mean you can't be defeated, even for an omnipotent being. That of course presumes that God was just standing there watching, even though the passage implies that Judea defeated other people (who didn't use iron chariots) when God was with them.
Exactly. Victories are put down to his vague presence being with the victors in the same sorts of language, so it would seem that Tacitus had it right. You could paraphrase it as "no matter how many deities you have on your side, you're still a primitive fuck with a spear," though that's likely not the intended lesson.

This allows the apologist to claim God's omnipotence without being falsifiable. When you win God was actively helping you. When you lose despite God being with you, well God was just cheering from the sidelines only. You can't expect God to fight all your battles can you? Or maybe you did something to piss God off, so he didn't fight with you despite being with you (of course they don't explain why if God was pissed off, he would like you know, not turn up in the first place).

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-03-04 12:33pm

Check out The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It points out all the Bible's stupidity and immorality.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-03-04 01:13pm

Lastly, I would like to ask for some assistance. While I've got a decent grasp on the subject, I'd like to request for assistance in acquiring all the evidence against a literal interpretation of the bible you can provide me, since he's the sort that seems to require repeated bashings over the head to get the point across.

So, you want us to do all the work of gathering evidence for you?

Meh, just point him out to the talking snakes in Genesis and demand proof of talking snakes anywhere in the world.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-03-04 01:32pm

Jim Raynor wrote:Check out The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. It points out all the Bible's stupidity and immorality.

If the bible is a person's measure of morality, then it can't be immoral, no matter how outrageous and terrible some of the things in it are.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-03-04 03:02pm

No, not all the evidence gathering. I'm doing plenty of that on my own. I was just asking for what you all thought to be exceptionally good in this regard.

As for pointing out talking snakes, he'd come up with some inane goddiddit. He did for the striped rods bit.

And I've been using the SAB already, and pointed out a number of basic internal contradictions, and places where it gets science quite wrong, and have recently stepped up the ante a notch as far as actual quoting.

Of course, any time I badmouth the christian god or cast any aspersion to the omnipotence thereof, I get accused of slander, which basically says like Zero mentioned, and that he's holding Biblical morality above all else. He's pulled the "cannot know god's true intentions BS twice now. If he does it one more time, I'm going to pull the "prove I'm not god" schtick on him.

Thanks for the help so far, BTW

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-04 04:53pm

Have you tried the poison thing yet?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-03-04 04:57pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Have you tried the poison thing yet?

That doesn't work, because you're not supposed to test God (empiricism is bad, yo!). The only way to truly test the poison hypothesis is to find a "true believer" and slip them some poison without them knowing, and that's murder. Even then, if they die it'll be judged that they somehow weren't a "true believer". Ah, unfalsifiability...

Stile · Post by **Stile** » 2006-03-04 05:31pm

OmegaGuy wrote:Have you tried the poison thing yet?

There is a religious sect based out of the American Appalachian mountains called the Snake handlers: +http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia. ... nakes.html.

They regularly handle poisonous snake and drink strychnine laced liquids.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2006-03-04 08:18pm

what is the scripture about the iron chariots?

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2006-03-04 10:00pm

I really ought to go through the dates thing sometime, the numbers don't even agree within the Bible.

An easy one to begin with is "What were Jesus' last words? What was written on the cross?"

In addition to the SAN, which often does a poor job of arguing towards the Christian mindset

http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/

I don't use that site much, though. The following site started a large amount of research for me:
http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/corrupt.html

And is told from a Christian perspective. It prompted me to do a lot of research about the history of the Bible.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-04 10:33pm

Stile wrote:They regularly handle poisonous snake and drink strychnine laced liquids.

Just how diluted are these substances? Further, they should be able to drink "any deadly thing" and it shouldn't harm them. That includes pure sulfuric acid, cyanide, liquified shit, poison from the skin of cane toads and certain Amazonian frogs, urine, magma, pus etc.

Stile · Post by **Stile** » 2006-03-04 11:29pm

wolveraptor wrote:
Stile wrote:They regularly handle poisonous snake and drink strychnine laced liquids.
Just how diluted are these substances? Further, they should be able to drink "any deadly thing" and it shouldn't harm them. That includes pure sulfuric acid, cyanide, liquified shit, poison from the skin of cane toads and certain Amazonian frogs, urine, magma, pus etc.

Heh, stop being logical about it. Logic has no place in religion. I think they get away with using minute amounts of strychnine because you can taste it in as low as 1 ppm.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-05 01:10am

Since it's used in coke and LSD, I assume that small amounts of strychnine are surviveable, if damaging. These assholes cheat. Had they true faith th'lord, they'd be sucking down my cum. Dog knows that's enough to kill a regular human.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-03-05 03:27am

wolveraptor wrote:Since it's used in coke and LSD, I assume that small amounts of strychnine are surviveable, if damaging. These assholes cheat.

You need to ingest more than an entire cup to feel ill effects, IIRC.

If they really want to demonstrate it, then what they do is this:

1) Allow me the time to procure several toxic substances.
2) Fly here (out of their pocket).
3) Sign a legal document absolving me of any responsibility if they should suffer any ill effects.
4) I inject them and/or have them ingest a toxin.
5a) They will be closely monitored, and if they suffer NO ILL EFFECTS in 72 hours time(simply not dying is not enough, remember the Bible verse...), then I will give them another toxin... if they manage to go through them all without any ill effects, then I guess we can say the experiment was a success. I'd reimburse them for their plane ticket and convert to Christianity.
5b) If they suffer ANY ill effects, then their claim can be considered bunk, and they leave. Of course, there's the chance they might become seriously sick, which is where that legal document comes in play.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-03-05 06:08am

You people with your uber poisons.

If they wanted to do this test, I would just suggest good old paracetamol. Marketed in Europe, Australia as panadol and in North America as tylenol and easily available. To be on the safe or should I say unsafe side convince them to take 30 g ie 60 (500 mg tablets) tablets. Now all they need to do is keep the stuff down and don't turn up to hospitals (where the antidote n-acetyl cysteine is available).

OmegaGuy · Post by **OmegaGuy** » 2006-03-05 06:28am

I'm still partial to liquid nitrogen, myself.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2006-03-05 05:27pm

Since it's used in coke and LSD, I assume that small amounts of strychnine are surviveable, if damaging. These assholes cheat. Had they true faith th'lord, they'd be sucking down my cum. Dog knows that's enough to kill a regular human.

Ummm? Is there a particular reason yours is more deadly than other peoples?

Or are you suggesting volume. lol.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-05 08:13pm

No, I just want a BJ.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-03-05 08:53pm

You can't secure a waiver, because they can't be aware that they're being poisoned. If they injest it knowingly (unless you force them to) it becomes a test and God won't bail them out.

And then, even if you do surprise them and they do die, they just weren't a "true believer".

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-03-05 08:57pm

While I do occasionally enjoy smacking creationist fundies aroung, I am well aware that they have completely burried their heads in the sand and will never acknowledge any problem with the bible. The book could just as well say "cut off your own head" and they will insist you've "interpreted it wrong".