Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote: And that stance is negative. Doesn't mean your strawman is accurate, dumb-ass.
No. That stance is “foaming at the mouth.”
Only in the mind of someone as deluded as you are. Mike's negative stance on the
Bible does not automatically extend to every Christian person. His beef is with the Bible itself, you know, this holy book of Christianity, and that
book promotes those negative things, whether people choose to accept them is another thing. You're obviously incapable of distinguishing this difference, Cast-Iron Skull.
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote: Prove it wrong, then.
It’s quite obvious that not every child in America is subjected to the story of “Israelite terrorism.” The fact that you couch the story of Passover in those terms proves absolutely your ridiculous personal bias. You’ve proven nothing at all about Biblical pedagogy worth acknowledging.
And you've provided nothing at all about
anything worth acknowledging in your whole time here. Read impartially, the story of Passover when the Jews escape from Egypt (something that has no historical evidence whatsoever to back it up, by the way) portrays God as someone who uses pure terror tactics to get his way, and after he has gotten his way, he specifically sets up the victims of his terror tactics for murder. Them's the facts, and though you can put a different spin (of blame the victim) on them, they aren't altered.
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote:In other words, you can't find the proof I'm asking for. Concession accepted, asshole. Ultimately, you don't like me bashing the Bible but you can't actually prove me wrong, so you just get whiny and complain that my attitudes are anti-Biblical, as if that's news to anyone. I'm also anti-Mein Kampf too; I guess that means my negative views on it must be invalid?
Your arguments cross the border to ridiculous and you know it. Don’t try to feed anyone this, “My negative opinions are justified!” horse shit.
Actually, you seem to have failed basic reading comprehension all through your life, fuckwit. His opinions are justified, Mike has repeatedly explained his premises and why he has the opinion he does, and they are quite logical. Your failure toi recognize this does not alter that.
Axis Kast wrote:You know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the vast majority of religious institutions condone nothing of the slaughter and rapine that appear in the Bible. It’s not my responsibility to disabuse you of falsehoods uttered out of stupidity.
The only stupidity and falsehoods here are your own, Kast. You fail to recognize that while those religious institutions do not actively condone all the baby-killing and genocide,
neither do they condemn them, as any organisation purporting to be moral should do. They give tacit acceptance and try to sweep it under the carpet, hoping nobody will notice.
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote:Yet another vague refererence without a shred of evidence to back it up. This grows tiresome, Mr. Bullshit Artist. Find one American federal law which is uniquely derived from a Christian basis.
You mean aside from laws prohibiting sodomy or the sale of liquor on Sunday mornings?
Are those
federal laws, you fuckwit? I know several states have laws prohibiting sodomy and sale of liquor on Sunday mornings, but are there
federal statutes to that effect? That's what you were asked.
Axis Kast wrote: And this is assuming you refuse to accept that the Founding Fathers, Deists as they were, actually relied on the Bible for social, moral, and sometimes political commentary they believed worthwhile in the justification of Exceptionalism.
Quite a few of the more important ones expressed utter contempt for the Bible in private correspondence, and if you'd like to debate this, feel free to take it up in the SLAM forum. You'll get slammed to the ground and pulverized if you try.
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote:The commentary in the Bible praises these violent actions! GTA's lack of commentary is actually better than the Bible's disgusting praise for baby-killing. Or are you too fucking stupid to realize that it's not a good thing to openly praise someone for butchering babies?
Almost no focused study of the Bible by children is individual – especially not anything related specifically to atrocities, floods, or other disasters.
Obviously. Given how since we're little kids we are told that hurting others is bad and how God is good and moral and all that, it wouldn't do to let kids read controversial stuff like that on their own, because little children look up to authority figures, and at that age they'll take the authority of their parents over that of a book.
Axis Kast wrote:Not to mention that religious schools feature priests, bishops, rabbis and others whose task it is to provide commentary. The Bible doesn’t stand alone.
No, because if it didn't have real life, tangible authority figures to give a sanitized version of it to the kids, they'd reject it, and indoctrination wouldn't be possible. That's why those priests etc. are there. They're there to push an agenda and smooth over any ripples caused by independent thinking until the indoctrination pattern sets. I figured out we were being told bullshit by the age of seven (and there's mandatory religion teaching at school for members of a denomination), because I didn't get any answers that weren't contradictory to some questions that troubled me.
Axis Kast wrote:Video games do [stand alone].
Yes, they do, which is a damn sight better than what the Bible does. It's the responsibility of parents to provide commentary on them.
Axis Kast wrote:Get it through your fucking head: virtually no study of the Bible by anyone outside the collegiate or university level deals specifically and exclusively with the themes you demonize.
No, they don't, and the problem is specifically that all of the bad stuff is swept under the carpet until indoctrination sets in and the person will be able to invent justifications for anything in the book. This is exactly the point he's making, but you've utterly missed it.
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote:The Bible is a massively BAD moral codex, and your appeals to popularity don't mean shit.
In this specific case? Absolutely not. Thanks Mr. Morality, but in case you hadn’t noticed, the majority sets its own standards.
Yes, the majority sets its own standards, which aside from the prohibition against murder and a couple of other things not in any way unique to the Bible are completely different than what the Bible itself advocates. This is anopther point that has been repeatedly made and which you have invariably missed by several parsecs.
Axis Kast wrote:Society by and large embraces the Bible and has found it quite acceptable as a guide both spiritual and temporal. This is fact. It’s not up for dispute. For most people, it works.
Your "fact" does not bear closer scrutiny. Society by and large is ignorant of the more disturbing aspects of the Bible, and has accepted the Golden Rule and a few other worthwhile things as a guide for spiritual and temporal issues. The rest of it is not much in evidence anywahere that I can see. Not the OT anyway.
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote:People want to act like the role models they are told to look up to in the Bible. We know this. It only stands to reason that prolonged killing, raping, terrorism, and genocide by those same role models will have a negative impact on their public following - which begins its indoctrination even earliier than 11-18.
Bull and shit. People want to act like the role models they see in the Bible, but nobody in the mainstream is confirming child slaughter as an acceptable mode of life. Stop with the fucking red herrings already.
The only bullshit here is your own, Kast. People want to act like the role models
they are told appear in the Bible, not the ones they would actually see if they bothered to read for themselves. Most people don't know the supposedly just King David was an asshole who murdered his neighbors and stole their property and then lied about raiding his enemies. Instead, we hear about how he fought the evil Goliath and was a just king. Something there doesn't jive, and it's the latter perception that is held to be the hero, because people don't know the truth, as set in the Bible itself.
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote:Obviously, you think I respect psychologists, even though any idiot can take and pass psychology and their standard of proof is uncontrolled correlations.
It’s a fucking branch of science, you moron.
A lot of things these days masquerade as science when the truth is different. You're just digging your own grave if you're trying to claim that the results from psychology can be repeatedly and reliably measured the same way we can measure e.g. gravity, mechanical stress, pressure, reaction speeds, kinetic energy and other things that physics deals with.
Axis Kast wrote:We know certain thought processes actually occur and behaviors develop because of prolonged observation and testing.
Yes, and any results you get apply to that individual only, and can only be generally and with caution applied to other individuals rather than making a blanket statement, because while some trends will tend to generate similar results in the same circumstances, there are several exceptions to the rule in every test that are not the result of measurement errors. This does
not apply in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics or any other hard science.
Axis Kast wrote:But I guess it’s okay to dismiss professional opinion just because you don’t agree despite not having had a formal education in that specific field. If that’s so, everybody’s wrong and I win. Game over. You lose.
Idiot.
You're the idiot here, Kast. Professional opinion that is based on dodgy or inconclusive data or poor methods is worth exactly nothing, but you wouldn't recognize poor methods or questionable data if it came labelled as such.
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote:<snip description of flawed studies>
It’s published in an academic journal. Obviously, somebody important thought highly enough of these appraisals to validate them with circulation among other professionals in the field.
Obviously that someone was a fucking moron, and your appeal to their authority does nothing to advance your argument, as you're committing a logical fallacy here. But doing that is your specialty, isn't it?
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote:Wow, you know how to Google search! Now explain how any of the studies on this search page are any more useful than the first one you tried to use.
If you’re so interested, read the second link I provided. It validates the theory that media impacts child development.
Provide the relevant arguments from it yourself. We're not required to do your legwork for you.
Axis Kast wrote:Article wrote:Conclusions: The primary effects of media exposure are increased violent and aggressive behavior, increased high-risk behaviors, including alcohol and tobacco use, and accelerated forms of sexual activity.
While the article goes on to say that the research is now gradually becoming date – there are references mostly to the 80s –, there’s no reason to assume a systemic change in the overall pattern of child development.
Conclusions based on what data? Show us the fucking causal connections or shut the fuck up. You're just using your conclusion as its own justification, which simply does not fly, because it's circular logic, another fallacy. But you're the expert on committing fallacies, aren't you, Kast?
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote:No, but you are making the argument that videogames can be held at least partially responsible, while the Bible cannot. And when challenged, you just splutter that I'm being "anti-theological" (wow, just label your opponent and all of his arguments magically evapourate into the wind!) Best of all, you simply ignore the fact that there is a stronger correlation between religious fervour and violence than there is between video gameplay and violence.
It’s not that the Bible isn’t responsible for anything negative – it’s that there’s far more guidance out there regarding that topic. Video games don’t come complete with commentary.
Yes, far more guidance on
why committing the atrocities is supposedly justified, which the video games lack, and thus the video games are obviously superior in this respect. You just sunk your own argument, Kast.
Axis Kast wrote:I “sputter that you’re being anti-theological”? No. I see very clearly that you’re being anti-theological. Introduction to “Israelite terrorism” my fucking ass – or didn’t you realize that the terms you use are specifically value-laden?
And yours are any less so? Mike has never once hidden the fact that his premise for assessing the Bible is humanism, and his statements flow from that premise, and of course they are going to be harsh on the Bible, they could not be otherwise and retain the premise. You, on the other hand, fail to provide any logical arguments for your position and resort to hand-waiving and spluttering every chance you get in order to try and distract people from the real point.
Axis Kast wrote:Darth Wong wrote:What evidence? That pathetic study you cited, in which they prefaced their work by admitting that there was no evidence and then tried to remedy that problem with that goofball study in which they had people blowing air horns at each other in an attempt to determine who was more violent? Don't make me laugh.
I don't know what's worse about that study; its almost comically ridiculous methods, or the fact that you are so goddamned ignorant of the scientific method (not to mention simple logic) that you actually took it seriously. Face it; you talk a good game but you're nothing more than a poster boy for the failure of science education in your region.
There are plenty of other studies, Wong – specifically the one you failed to read.
Provide the relevant arguments, weäre not required to do your work for you.
Axis Kast wrote:“The failure of science education?” I’m not the one claiming to have more authority than trained, published psychologists.
If the trained, published psychologists asmit up front their "study" is nothing more than a collection of unsubstantiated hoopla, they can be dismissed as irrelevant in this case.
You know, Kast, you're fucking pathetic, and you seem to be sinking towards a new low, which, after the display of idiocy that got you your current title, would be a truly noteworthy achievement. You're not quite there yet, but keep up this blustering against Mike long enough and you'll eventually get there. I'll know we'll be getting close when you dig out the "This is the internet where everyone lies by default" excuses.
Edi
