Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Twitter twets

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 15 posts ] 
Twitter twets
Author Message
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 497Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Twitter twets

I've received a number of tweets from @Aj2Parkes, @Kingdomfocus1, and someone who created a twitter account out of an obsession to hate on the mythicist, D.M. Murdock. They have all challenged me on twitter. They want me to give in-depth explanations and provide evidence for history, theology, and evolutionary science, and they expect me to do all of this in posts of 140 characters or less. Obviously no sensible person would ever even try to have a serious conversation like that. So I'm opening a new thread here. Where their questions can be dealt with appropriately.

‏@DmMurdockErrors doesn't even know what I'm saying, but still pretends to have shown errors in my logic. Someone asked me whether I discount the gospels as evidence of Jesus. I answered that the contradictory absurdities in the Bible are not evidence that impossible nonsense really occurred in history. The Bible is not a compilation of history but of mythology. I mentioned that even the early church founders dismissed most of the gospel authors as frauds. The Murdock hater then demanded that I reveal which gospels were considered fraudulent and by whom, insisting that they still would have had historical significance. But the gospels I'm referring to are the 16 non-canonical gospels which the early church fathers rejected outright. Once men had decided which fables should be canonized, Bishop Athanasius condemned the use of non-canonical tomes in his Festal letter of 367 CE. Thus, other books would be treated as damnable heresies which must be silenced and put out of sight. So I asked the Murdock hater what historical significance the infancy gospel or the gospel of Thomas could have had. The response was that I wasn't allowed to comment on those, insisting that my answer to their question is somehow a non-sequitor fallacy. It's not my fault if they don't know what I'm talking about, because they can't follow a protracted conversation on twitter. But that doesn't make it a logical fallacy to answer their question correctly.

That person also insists that there is historical confirmation of Jesus, despite the admission that there are doctoral historians who say otherwise. This person thinks Tacitus counts as confirmation of a historical Jesus. Fair enough, lots of people think that, even though its not so. So I was asked whether Tacitus lied or made up a fictional story, as if that were the only explanation here.
Robert M. Price wrote:Tacit Agreement
Cornelius Tacitus (Annals 15:44), writing about 125 C.E., asserts that Nero blamed the Roman Christians for torching the city. He was scapegoating them in order to divert suspicion from himself. In case his readers were unacquainted with Christianity, Tacitus explains they were a sect founded by one “Christus” or “Chrestus” (both versions appear in this or that manuscript).

They got their name from Christ [Christus or Chrestus], who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh – not only in Judaea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home.

Some have suspected this, like the Testimonium Flavianum, to be a Christian interpolation. It is odd that no Christian writers quote this material for two centuries. It must have been of great interest had it been available, so maybe it wasn’t. Maybe it hadn’t been written yet. For me, it’s a toss-up. But the point is moot, since, as in the case of Josephus, even if the text is authentic and original, it does not constitute proof of a historical Jesus. It merely reflects what Christians were saying in the early second century. The same must be said about the second-century humorist Lucian of Samosata: Both were way too late to know any more about a historical Jesus than we do.
Aj2Parkes and Kingdomfocus1 are somehow unaware that the Bible has been proven wrong on every testable claim that it makes. They want me to name which passage of the Bible has been disproved. I said that the myths about the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the Exodus had all been disproved. But they want me to send them "the link" that shows how the Garden of Eden was disproved. Judging by the volume of threads on this forum and all the thousands of links provided here, there obviously couldn't be just one link on the side of reality. And if there were, it would be outnumbered and highly suspect.

Similarly, they told me to send "the link" that proves evolution. I suppose I could send a link to PubMed, which includes tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles proving evolution. But I don't think that's what they're asking for. I told them it wouldn't do me any good to send thousands of links they don't understand. That I would have to explain it.

They also challenged me as to whether I would accept their evidence of God and creation. If they had it, I would be compelled to consider it of course, just like they're compelled to ignore the evidence I'll show them in this thread. The only thing we've discussed so far was whether both sides tell lies. They've already conceded that the religious side lies, but I think they did that thinking that I would make a similar concession. But I told them that I am unaware of any lie told my any scientist promoting evolution, and I'm unaware of any truth told by any believer about religion. Of course they cited Haeckel's drawings as the best example of an evolutionist's lie; every creationist does. But they don't know what they're talking about.

Here is an excerpt from my book where I talk about Haeckel:

Haeckel studied dozens of embryos under a microscope and interpreted them to promote his idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” suggesting that embryonic development reflects the organism’s evolutionary ancestry. Haeckel's ‘biogenetic law’ of embryological parallelism was one of many notions of biological transcendentalism first proposed by Lamarckian naturalist, Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hillaire in about 1760. Haeckel believed that the developing fetus mirrored its evolution such that it might pass through phases of becoming a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile each in succession before becoming a mammal. To illustrate this, he produced about a hundred drawings of embryos at various stages. But he later admitted that about a half-dozen of them were either false or speculative due to a lack of visual references. In the first edition of his best-selling book Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte (Natural History of Creation), Haeckel used the same image to represent the embryos of dogs, chickens, and turtles. When a reviewer alerted him to this, he said that no one could tell the difference at that stage, which was probably true given the instrumentation of the time. While this is not necessaruily a lie, the fact that any of his drawings were admittedly without reference has disgraced Haeckel’s name in the annals of science despite the fact that these were corrected in each of the later editions.
Creationists now insist that Haeckel was reportedly convicted of fraud by a German court, though that doesn’t seem to be the case. His creationist contemporaries, including Rudolf Virchow and Louis Agassiz, did accuse Haeckel of deception, but the charge of fraud didn’t emerge until 1997 (Science: Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered). No one argues that a scientist shouldn’t promote speculation as fact; leave that to religion. But the drawings Haeckel didn’t have references for in his first edition aren’t the reason for the recent charge of fraud. It was a computerized analysis of his artwork as compared to microphotographs of the same species at the same stages of development. The charge was that he embellished these drawings to imply more resemblance than there was based on a critique of his artistic skill. However, it has been shown that this same analysis would also indict Haeckel’s enemy contemporaries on the same charge, as well as modern embryologists too.

“The historical and biological evidence, however, shows the charge against Haeckel to be logically mischievous, historically naive, and founded on highly misleading photography.”
—Robert Richards, Haeckel's embryos: fraud not proven (2008)

The images now under scrutiny were taken from Haeckel’s hastily assembled first edition of Anthropogenie. However, each of the subsequent editions had the advantage of better instrumentation, and the accuracy of the drawings improved. But there was nothing wrong with those images to begin with. The damning microphotographs published by Michael Robertson in 1997 showed these embryos with yolk and other maternal material which made them look very different. That, and the chicken was photographed at a different angle with a different lens effect while the salamander was a different size. Haeckel clearly indicated that his drawings were only of the embryos, omitting things like yolk, and that he made them all the same size and oriented the same way for ease of comparison, so there’s no foul to fault.
The very author who indicted Haeckel in 1997 seems to have softened his view since then, perhaps after his own errors in the indictment itself were brought to light.

“Haeckel’s much criticized embryo drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution. While some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate, other are more tendentious,”
—Richardson M, Keuck G (2003)
Haeckel’s ABC of evolution and development. Biol Rev 77:495–528
So my first challenge then would be (1) Name one evolutionary scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution over creationism. (2) Name a professional creationist who did not lie when trying to defend creationism or condemn evolution. As creationism is based entirely on lies, and science is based on critical analysis in peer review, no one has ever answered either question despite many attempts. They don't have to take this challenge. I'd rather they ask sincere questions since I am making a sincere effort to help them understand reality and not be fooled by fables.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:43 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 694Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

AronRa wrote:Here is an excerpt from my book where I talk about Haeckel:
(snipped book quote)



Wait, you wrote a book? What's the title? I might buy it.
"If evidence could shake the Protestant Faith, then there would be no Protestant Faith" ~Donovan Lafferty
Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:17 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 497Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: Twitter twets

itsdemtitans wrote:
AronRa wrote:Here is an excerpt from my book where I talk about Haeckel:
(snipped book quote)



Wait, you wrote a book? What's the title? I might buy it.
Pitchstone Publising asked me to 'flesh out' the evidence and arguments presented in the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism video series. So I did. Thus far, I've only gotten one blurb back. But it is a good one.

This book demonstrates once again that Aron Ra is a master of eloquence, and of cutting to the chase with precision. This is an enjoyable read even for the well informed. But we often forget how embarrassingly uninformed Biblical literalists are. This delightfully written take-down will educate and embarrass them all over again.
— Richard Carrier, Ph.D., author of On the Historicity of Jesus.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:43 pm
kingdomfocus1Posts: 4Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:52 pmLocation: Kitchener,Waterloo Ontario,Canada Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

Hi, I'm here! Hello Aron from Twitter I will respond soon just want to spend a little more time in contemplation And study I will engage in your topic very soon thank you for the invite. Very interested in your story and how you came to be who you are today? Specifically on your de-conversion experience from Christianity. Kingdomfocus1
Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:48 am
kingdomfocus1Posts: 4Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:52 pmLocation: Kitchener,Waterloo Ontario,Canada Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

Kingdomfocus1 is unaware that the Bible has been proven wrong on every testable claim that it makes.

Let me first start by saying," that as one who has never claimed anything as actual fact to your assumptions that I am unaware of the Bible being proven wrong on every testable claim it makes. Is it my actual claim that the Bible is the Inherent Word of God.

and you have first hand In your Real but brief Conversion. Experienced a real and unexplained salvation experience , I think. correct me if I am wrong? Have you have spent your life efforts and mental ability to try to refute and explain away the Active workings of God in your own life ? Your claim to be an atheist is what i dont understand and how you came to this place? It is my conviction that the Word of God is living and active and sharper than a two edged sword even if you have for years reasoned other wise and claim it to be false and wrong . If I was to say to you that I understand beyond a reasonable doubt that everything Aron ra has ever said to be wrong on every testable claim you have made was wrong you would claim otherwise.
God has also revealed Himself clearly through Scriptures thats what I claim is true. Testable and observable. In your own life it is my observation by watching your YouTube videos it has always been about free will and your choice that is the best proof of Gods love for you that it is still at work. I will continue to daily pray for you that you will once again come to the Saving knowledge of the lordship of Jesus Christ. And experience the Love He Has for you!

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,


Ps I have edited and removed some bible vs,s because of the false accusations of other that i was spamming this forum. with the Bible. I will get back to you with your original questions soon.
Last edited by kingdomfocus1 on Thu Dec 31, 2015 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Wed Dec 30, 2015 3:40 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3123Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

Honestly, what is the point of spamming the bible on this thread? Everyone reading this forum is on the internet, thus can read the bible for free and in context if they wanted.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:10 am
YIM WWW
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2917Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Honestly, what is the point of spamming the bible on this thread? Everyone reading this forum is on the internet, thus can read the bible for free and in context if they wanted.

Agreed. I think the best way to reference Bible quotes is to write a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verses with brackets containing the relevant verses with or without a link, so that we can look them up ourselves.

Spamming Bible quotes at length doesn't make for a good debate.



Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Dec 30, 2015 9:53 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3123Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

I got this in a PM and see no point in keeping it private (tis a public forum after all).

kingdomfocus1 wrote:Subject: Twitter twets

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Honestly, what is the point of spamming the bible on this thread? Everyone reading this forum is on the internet, thus can read the bible for free and in context if they wanted.


Well read it then!


What would be the point? If I were going to read an ancient book of myths, I would rather reread the Iliad and Odyssey.

kingdomfocus1 wrote:You can read?


Actually, I am dySlEXiC, thus I have a few different programs that read to me.

kingdomfocus1 wrote:I don't get why you continue to answer or engage others in a discussion or answer questions that are not directed to you.


This is a public forum, thus anyone can engage with any topic at any time. There is a subsection of this forum that restricts who can post. Since you are not in that section, this thread is fair game.

kingdomfocus1 wrote:Do you also cut people off driving and budd in line at the supermarket.


Nope.

kingdomfocus1 wrote:I've seen your comment on a lot of Aron's feeds are you his pet troll?


No, and I am far from a troll. However, feel free to ignore me and anyone else you do not feel like conversing with.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:45 pm
YIM WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2744Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

Greetings,

Welcome, kingdomfocus1, to LoR! :D

Your above post fails to address Aron's two questions.

And, as has been pointed out, posting a whole lot of verses from the Bible doesn't count for anything.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:48 pm
kingdomfocus1Posts: 4Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:52 pmLocation: Kitchener,Waterloo Ontario,Canada Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

Thanks all for everyone's inputs in my above post. I will not need to defend scripture as I believe that it is capable of defending itself. My posts are valid to my understanding. If my understanding of how things are or should be I will be the first to admit I am in error. Unless you are Aron_Ra then you did not ever have the conversion experience that he makes claim to have. And I am totally confidant that He is more then capable of defending himself. I will not engage any further in this line of reasoning thks again all for you input on how I should conduct myself and my posts though it is very helpful.
Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:31 pm
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2917Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

kingdomfocus1 wrote:Thanks all for everyone's inputs in my above post. I will not need to defend scripture as I believe that it is capable of defending itself. My posts are valid to my understanding. If my understanding of how things are or should be I will be the first to admit I am in error. Unless you are Aron_Ra then you did not ever have the conversion experience that he makes claim to have. And I am totally confidant that He is more then capable of defending himself. I will not engage any further in this line of reasoning thks again all for you input on how I should conduct myself and my posts though it is very helpful.


I think the issue is spamming passages from a book that people don't believe in support of beliefs they don't have. It doesn't achieve much. Most people here have a passing knowledge of Christianity and what it professes, and we aren't convinced by the Bible.

Say I posted a whole lot of quotes from Bertrand Russell against Christianity. That isn't likely to convince you of anything, and you're probably not even likely to read it all. So it wouldn't really advance a discussion.

Maybe a good start would be if I asked you, what reasons besides the Bible you have for believing in Christianity?
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:41 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 694Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

kingdomfocus1 wrote:Thanks all for everyone's inputs in my above post. I will not need to defend scripture as I believe that it is capable of defending itself. My posts are valid to my understanding. If my understanding of how things are or should be I will be the first to admit I am in error. Unless you are Aron_Ra then you did not ever have the conversion experience that he makes claim to have. And I am totally confidant that He is more then capable of defending himself. I will not engage any further in this line of reasoning thks again all for you input on how I should conduct myself and my posts though it is very helpful.


Hi Kingdomfocus

For clarity and smoothness in the discussion, it'd be helpful for you to use the quote function if you ever quote Aronra's words. It's pretty easy to do, and improves the quality of one's posts immensely.

And welcome to LoR.
"If evidence could shake the Protestant Faith, then there would be no Protestant Faith" ~Donovan Lafferty
Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:49 pm
kingdomfocus1Posts: 4Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:52 pmLocation: Kitchener,Waterloo Ontario,Canada Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

itsdemtitans wrote:
kingdomfocus1 wrote:Thanks all for everyone's inputs in my above post. I will not need to defend scripture as I believe that it is capable of defending itself. My posts are valid to my understanding. If my understanding of how things are or should be I will be the first to admit I am in error. Unless you are Aron_Ra then you did not ever have the conversion experience that he makes claim to have. And I am totally confidant that He is more then capable of defending himself. I will not engage any further in this line of reasoning thks again all for you input on how I should conduct myself and my posts though it is very helpful.


Hi Kingdomfocus

For clarity and smoothness in the discussion, it'd be helpful for you to use the quote function if you ever quote Aronra's words. It's pretty easy to do, and improves the quality of one's posts immensely.

And welcome to LoR.


So you mean bla bla bla just an example to see is I have this right

For clarity and smoothness in the discussion, it'd be helpful for you to use the quote function if you ever quote Aronra's words. It's pretty easy to do, and improves the quality of one's posts immensely.


And so forth. Ok thks I think
I understand :lol:
Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:47 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Twitter twets

I'm still not sure what conversion experience you are talking about.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:16 pm
GlossophilePosts: 12Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 6:57 pmLocation: Florida, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Twitter twets

SpecialFrog wrote:I'm still not sure what conversion experience you are talking about.


As I recall from watching Aron's videos, a friend of his from his youth once convinced him to become a born-again Christian and managed to evoke what he thought at the time was a spiritual encounter or awakening. The whole thing came crashing down, however, when Aron asked how he could be sure and his friend responded, "Just keep telling yourself it's Jesus 'til you believe it!" The brevity of Aron's born-again Christianity is actually comical in the way it reveals one of the faith's starkest fallacies.

Feel free to correct me, though, if my summary is inaccurate or the experience in question was a different one. I don't want to step on any toes. I just wanted to help move the conversation along if I could.

Speaking of which, on the subject of BIble-quoting, I think it bears mentioning what I think is the core of the problem. Believers have often taken the Bible's supposed authority so thoroughly for granted that, even if they're consciously aware that non-believers don't operate on that assumption, they may tend to fail in extricating it from the subconscious presumptions that guide their apologetic strategies. I wont presume to know that this is what's going on in Kingdomfocus1's mind, but it's the best hypothesis I have as to why they so persistently quote Bible verses and seemingly expect them to automatically carry much more weight than they actually do.
The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. – Carl Sagan
Sōla vēritās sancta in philosophiā nātūrālī est absentia vēritātum sanctārum.
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστίν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις.
Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:31 am
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 15 posts ] 
Return to General Scepticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
cron