Protestant v. Atheist Debate

[Ray Martinez]

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.ori ... 1781/66ben

The above link is where an atheist has asserted an ad hom argument by his Protestant opponent, but created a special topic titled with an ad hom call-out - go figure.

Ray Martinez (Protestant) v. Longfellow (Atheist).

I cite the LXX as it appears to be the benchmark against which both the Christian and Jewish Bibles have been developed. The Christians bought it pretty much as is, with the rejection of certain texts that did not serve their purpose. Same with the Jews, of course.

This commentary is snide and betrays the first signs of overt secular bias appointing itself referee.

Longfellow: *This* is your opening response? An argumentum ad hominem? "Overt secular bias"? I'm disposed to disqualify you as a debater and claim a win by default!!! But I won't. If you need more rope to hang yourself, I don't mind


Ray Martinez: Like I said, he asserts ad hom under the very umbrella of creating an ad hom topic title = hypocrite.

Its not a matter of opinion. Anyone can plainly see that we have an atheist setting himself up as a "objective" judge of both Christian and Jews.

How can an atheist, that is an unbeliever, with all the known biases an atheist will have against people who accept the facts about God - how can these type of people objectively judge the source for God or believers ?

Of course, this is rhetorical. Common sense says if you want accurate information about the Bible do not consult an atheist.

My analysis pointing out the obvious stands as accurate: we have an atheist asserting and appointing himself judge of Christendom and Judaism.

Atheists are ineligible to objectively judge or decide the validity of the Source which falsifies their worldview - this is self-evident axiomatic truth.

The atheist worldview is a premise which predictably predetermines all their conclusions about the Bible, christians, and Jews.

Keep reading as my atheist opponent will basically admit and deny this bias all at the same time.

In any case, I'm looking at the Torah, which is the core of the Hebrew canon, both for the Christian Old Testament and the Judaic Tanahk. It is my custom to look first at the oldest evidence, as later evidence seems always influenced by earlier evidence. What I wish to avoid in any case is any interpretive material, which is always of later
origin.

Everything needs interpretation Longfellow.

Longfellow: No. Primary material is just exactly that. No interpretation is acceptable until an interpretation is addressed in the context in which it was made.

Ray Martinez: Slippery double speak, but I generally agree, IF he means text without context is error. But Longfellow, I believe, is talking about the context of the time era the text was written in AND NOT the context of a verse WITHIN the text itself.

Longfellow wants to assert that surrounding Canaanite cultures, that is their existence, and textual correlations with the Torah, means the Holy Writ was derived from heathen.

This is tantamount to arguing a person who happened to be in a public place where a crime was committed to be a legitimate suspect. No, he was dropped off at the curb by a taxi, and unbeknownst to him a robbery took place 20 minutes prior and our falsely accused happened to be a man about 30 years old just like the suspect description.

In times of antiquity there are NO modern communication abilities; no radio, newspapers, TV - nothing.

The Hebrews are in Egypt/Sinai - not in Canaan, they have no idea what the heathen are writing or claiming, and vice-versa.

As was previously established by myself:

Theist archaeologists predicted and proved all of mankind began worshipping one universal Deity known as Elohim. The Torah reports this fact and it is corroborated by Longfellow who has argued that Canaanite cultural texts retain Elohim.

If Longfellow wants to maintain, what I think he is arguing, that is "face value text means what it says and says what it means" THEN, he must accept as fact that the Hebrews were in Egypt and Sinai just like the texts say. But undoubtedly, he being a Darwinist, will depart from this ploy that text needs interpreting when it declares God created Adam and Eve.

I predict Longfellow will maintain his absurd "non-intepretive" stance only when it suits his agenda and goals.

But if you are an axe grinding atheist these distinctions and facts are irrelevant to the predetemined goal of inventing arguments to twist facts that make the Torah reflect the validity of atheism worldview.

This basic protocol is pretty much standard in any scholarship, and is mandatory in science. I understand why: look at the evidence itself and the objective reality it presents is most clearly expressed. Then look at the most recent interpretive data to get a handle on what is the current thinking. Finally, examine a representative cross-section of the historical interpretive commentary to see how the evidence itself was perceived down through history, and how that interpretation
changed over time.

That is a decent first scan protocol. After that, a full study has
some structure of context to serve as a representation of the objective reality of interest, here: the origins of the canonical sources of the Hebrew religious stream; Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Now, you have specified an inclusion of Ancient History as a rational
base. So we will hold the evidence of Ancient History as a reference
and benchmark for our investigation.

Whatever is said above seems to be a long-winded way of asserting yourself objective.

Longfellow: Yep, boilerplate.

Ray Martinez: Like I said earlier, he we have an atheist asserting himself objective and unbiased towards the Bible !

How ridiculous.

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/nambla.htm
This is tantamount to recruiting from the North American Man-Boy Love Association to find Scout leaders.

I have had MANY debates with atheist scholar Brian Johnston of Scotland:

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000060.html

(The above link does not contain a debate between us but I paste it to confirm his identity.)

I am fond of Brian even though I think he is angry at me for my views about atheists that are generally well known around Internet debate forums.

When we debate, Brian and I have an agreement, he is an atheist and I am a christian based on the evidence. This starting assumption removes arguing worldview bias.

"There is no such thing as an objective historian....history truly is his story, that is the historian's....everyone has an axe to grind, objective persons state their bias up-front so when it creeps into their conclusions the audience will know it" [source: Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University]

ROFL!!!!! The talking head from LA!!! Well, he was one of the better of a really bad lot, I think. Died recently, I noticed.

Ray Martinez: Could one expect an atheist to say anything else about the greatest theist scholar of all time ?

But the Dr. Scott quote was stating an axiomatic fact: that everyone has an axe to grind.

In reply, Longfellow evades by insult because he is an atheist attempting to grind his predictable atheist axe against the Bible.

In accordance with Dr. Scott's objective precept to state ones bias up-front, and what atheist scholar Brian Johnston does anyway, I then stated my bias:

My bias:

Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, I am as such because of the
evidence.


I expect you to state your bias up-front in your next post.


DO NOT CLAIM AGNOSTICISM.


Dr. Scott, talking about the absurdity of agnosticism:


"It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form an opinion."

Ray, I don't give a damn about your bias. I'm looking at matters of demonstrable fact and you're out there somewhere tilting at windmills!

If you want to contribute to this debate, critique my assertions of
fact!

Ray Martinez: Again, this atheist refuses to even admit to a bias.

If Longfellow will not admit to being an atheist then it is because he knows that admission will eviscerate all his points and conclusions about the Bible. I only seek an honest dialogue that includes the integrity to admit what everyone has - a bias - not a matter of opinion.

What Longfellow the atheist asserts to be facts are in reality predictable atheist opinions about the Bible packaged as facts produced by pseudo-scholarship that equally attempts to assert they are "objective" with the source/Bible that refutes their worldview.

THEN LONGFELLOW ARGUED STANDARD ATHEIST JEDP

Here was my response:

> Finally, you arrive at JEDP.


> What is JEDP ?


> Answer: The biggest quote mine of all time.


> Who produced JEDP ?


> Answer: Atheists, could one expect their groundless assertions to say
> anything else ?


> What is the evidence for JEDP ?


> Answer: The Torah.


> Don't they have any mss outside the Torah ?


> Answer: None.


> You mean they have no evidence, but biased selection of text chopped
> into 4 pieces ?


> Answer: Yes.


> JEDP was invented by GERMAN "scholars", and the basis of their
> conclusions predictibly assert the age-old blasphemy that the Jews
> conspired to fool the world, IOW, JEDP is just another Jewish
> conspiracy theory produced by the intellectual proto type of Nazi's.
> Decades later their philosophic pupils - the Third Reich, would take
> these conspiracy theories to a genocidal extreme.

> JEDP says the Jews conspired to fool the world and luckily atheist
> GERMAN scholars were smarter to expose their conspiracy - LOL !


> The many different names of God in the Torah is God naming Himself to
> reveal a certain attribute about Himself to meet a need of Adamkind -
> thats all, its theological, but German atheists concoct a Jewish
> conspiracy theory out of it. What else could one expect German
> atheists
> to do ?


> The Torah = the word of God, but the obvious brilliance was recognized
> and judged to be impossible, which is the measure and prediction of
> Divine involvement.

Longfellow confirms that he and his German "scholars"/JEDP are saying the Jews conspired to fool the world:

We can reasonably gather from this that the corruption we originally noted is not accidental, but deliberate.

Ray Martinez

 

[Quath]

I agree with you that you did not issue an adhominem attack. You were basically saying secular sources are biased and may not qualify to analysize the data well. You were not saying secular people are evil therefore their theories are wrong. It is legitimate to "attack the man" if a characteristic of "the man" logically plays into the argument.

I can tell if you see Christians or Jews as being objective about the Bible.

I agree with you that there are biases in secular thinking, but I think that the goal of secular thinking is to try to identify the biases and remove them. In essense, it is trying to follow the evidence where it leads you and seeing what makes sense. The reason people typically dismiss miracles is because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." It doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but a secular review requires more proof of a miracle than a religious review.

Quath

 

[Heidi]

In order for one to outwit his opponent, one has to know his opponent. An arrogant general who goes into battle underestimating his opponent will be as defeated as an arrogant attorney who goes into the courtroom underestimating the opposing attorney. Since atheists don't know God, they don't know their opponent and will end up contradicting themselves to try to make their case. They will also find out just how much they underestimated their opponent when they die. :

 

[Quath]

In order for one to outwit his opponent, one has to know his opponent. An arrogant general who goes into battle underestimating his opponent will be as defeated as an arrogant attorney who goes into the courtroom underestimating the opposing attorney. Since atheists don't know God, they don't know their opponent and will end up contradicting themselves to try to make their case. They will also find out just how much they underestimated their opponent when they die. :

Would you buy this argument from a Muslim? If a Muslim says "You don't know Allah, therefore you don't know you opponent and you will just contradict yourself," would you say "Oh Yeah. Makes sense."?

Quath

 

[Heidi]

I agree with you that you did not issue an adhominem attack. You were basically saying secular sources are biased and may not qualify to analysize the data well. You were not saying secular people are evil therefore their theories are wrong. It is legitimate to "attack the man" if a characteristic of "the man" logically plays into the argument.

I can tell if you see Christians or Jews as being objective about the Bible.

I agree with you that there are biases in secular thinking, but I think that the goal of secular thinking is to try to identify the biases and remove them. In essense, it is trying to follow the evidence where it leads you and seeing what makes sense. The reason people typically dismiss miracles is because "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." It doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but a secular review requires more proof of a miracle than a religious review.

Quath

If unbelievers truly want to remove their biases, the first one is the notion that anyone is good. Jesus says we are all evil. Who is qualified to say that we are good? We human beings, would of course, be the first ones to think we are good. That's why so few people go to heaven. :

 

[BabbageCliologic]

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/cb66dd6f78561781/66ben

The above link is where an atheist has asserted an ad hom argument by his Protestant opponent, but created a special topic titled with an ad hom call-out - go figure.

Ray Martinez (Protestant) v. Longfellow (Atheist).

Hello Ray,

I have been unfortunate enough to actually read the your responses in this debate as well as read a number of your other posts on talk.origins and I'll admit my bias up front. I dislike liars, cowards and bullies, whether they are Xians or not. This is my view on your "debate" style:

1. Cowardice: Why did you post this response here, rather than on talk.origins? Was it because you could not access talk.origins? No, you posted the links there so it could not be that. You started the debate there, why couldn't you finish it there? Where you scared to debate there? Why aren't you brave enough to continue on the ground you started? WWJD?

2. Bullying: You have label those who disagree with you as "atheists" when you have no evidence of their beliefs. How do you know they are atheists? Is anyone who disagrees with you an atheist in your view? Are you going to call me an atheist because I am pointing this out? If you do, what basis do you have to make that statement when you don't know what I believe? Isn't this name calling just bullying behavior? WWJD about bullying?

3. Lying: Did you quote the post from Longfellow accurately, or did you conveniently leave out parts? I read both posts and IME you have left out parts. Why would you do that? Isn't that like lying? Bearing false witness? Aren't the 10C good enough for you? WWJD?

In a number of your other posts you have used vile language when talking to others. Why? Why do you feel the need to do that? Sure, some have used vile language with you but does that justify it? Again, WWJD?

How do you represent Xianity when you lie, bully and act the coward? How do you represent Jesus? Will you simply state that I'm an "atheist" and this is just another "atheist rant," or will you actually take to heart correction for this immoral behavior? Do we not have the duty to rebuke each other if we stray? I rebuke you, Ray, and ask you to pray for correction - Be truthful, be brave and be just, not lying, bullying or cowardly.

Matt 18:15-17 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

BabC

 

[BabbageCliologic]

It is legitimate to "attack the man" if a characteristic of "the man" logically plays into the argument.

How is ad hominem legitimate? No, it never is. If you can't refute the argument, you can't, plain and simple - go away and learn something and think about the issue. Attacking your opponent is never right.


Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

BabC[/i]

EDITED: removed "in most cases" from "character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not have bearing"

 

[Quath]

If unbelievers truly want to remove their biases, the first one is the notion that anyone is good. Jesus says we are all evil. Who is qualified to say that we are good? We human beings, would of course, be the first ones to think we are good. That's why so few people go to heaven. :

"Good" is a biased opinion. Is a Satanists that cares for the elderly and feeds the homeless evil? Is a Muslim that is a suicide bomber that believes he is protecting his country and religion evil? Is a Christian that kills abortion doctors evil? Is a Christian that kills Muslims because the Pope said to evil?

Your answers vary based on your religion and what side of the issue you stand on. So getting rid of the concept of "good" helps get rid of some bias.

How is ad hominem legitimate? No, it never is. If you can't refute the argument, you can't, plain and simple - go away and learn something and think about the issue. Attacking your opponent is never right.

Wow. Take your own advise. You even state this in your quote "in most cases." So is it never ok or do you agree with what you quoted?

Quath

 

[Heidi]

In order for one to outwit his opponent, one has to know his opponent. An arrogant general who goes into battle underestimating his opponent will be as defeated as an arrogant attorney who goes into the courtroom underestimating the opposing attorney. Since atheists don't know God, they don't know their opponent and will end up contradicting themselves to try to make their case. They will also find out just how much they underestimated their opponent when they die. :

Would you buy this argument from a Muslim? If a Muslim says "You don't know Allah, therefore you don't know you opponent and you will just contradict yourself," would you say "Oh Yeah. Makes sense."?

Quath

Allah is an admitted figment of Mohammed's imagination. He was never mentioned before the 6th century. The Muslims also don't believe in God's spirit. So they cannot then have any access to God, only the fallible human mind. And of course, no non-Muslim ever curses allah because they know he has no power over them. But non-Christians do curse God and Jesus Christ everyday. So they do indeed know he has power over them. :D

 

[Quath]

Allah is an admitted figment of Mohammed's imagination. He was never mentioned before the 6th century. The Muslims also don't believe in God's spirit. So they cannot then have any access to God, only the fallible human mind. And of course, no non-Muslim ever curses allah because they know he has no power over them. But non-Christians do curse God and Jesus Christ everyday. So they do indeed know he has power over them. :D

So you believe that no Muslim thinks Allah is real then? If they do, then my argument still stands. If not, I think you should talk to some Muslims becuse the ones I have met believe He is real.

Quath

 

[BabbageCliologic]

How is ad hominem legitimate? No, it never is. If you can't refute the argument, you can't, plain and simple - go away and learn something and think about the issue. Attacking your opponent is never right.

Wow. Take your own advise. You even state this in your quote "in most cases." So is it never ok or do you agree with what you quoted?

Quath

OK, I was wrong and misspoke. I disagree with "in most cases" and instead re-state that ad hominem is "never ok."

I have edited the previous post to reflect this.

BabC

 

[Quath]

Ad hominem is an attack against the person and not against the subject of the debate. However, it is legitimate to attack the person if they are part of the subject of the debate. An example of this is found at Fallicies of Relevance:

But not everything about a person is irrelevant to every possible topic. Sometimes, it is quite legitimate to bring up a person's expertise in some subject as a reason to be skeptical, and perhaps even dismissive, of their opinions about it. For example:

• George is not a biologist and has no training in biology. Therefore, his opinions about what is or is not possible with regards to evolutionary biology do not have a lot of credibility. [/*:m:6226e]

The above argument rests upon the assumption that, if a person is going to make credible assertions about what is or is not possible for evolutionary biology, then they really should have some training in biology - preferably a degree and perhaps some practical experience. Because biology is a very technical area, this is a reasonable position to take.

Quath

 

[Heidi]

If unbelievers truly want to remove their biases, the first one is the notion that anyone is good. Jesus says we are all evil. Who is qualified to say that we are good? We human beings, would of course, be the first ones to think we are good. That's why so few people go to heaven. :

"Good" is a biased opinion. Is a Satanists that cares for the elderly and feeds the homeless evil? Is a Muslim that is a suicide bomber that believes he is protecting his country and religion evil? Is a Christian that kills abortion doctors evil? Is a Christian that kills Muslims because the Pope said to evil?

Your answers vary based on your religion and what side of the issue you stand on. So getting rid of the concept of "good" helps get rid of some bias.

How is ad hominem legitimate? No, it never is. If you can't refute the argument, you can't, plain and simple - go away and learn something and think about the issue. Attacking your opponent is never right.

Wow. Take your own advise. You even state this in your quote "in most cases." So is it never ok or do you agree with what you quoted?

Quath

Serial killer, Aileen Warnos thought she was a good person and the Ku Klux Klan think they are good. Again, only the Father and the Son are qualified to judge who is good, not human beings because we are biased.

And your answers are based on the human being's limited perceptions of reality. Again, only God is qualified to judge anyone.

 

[ThinkerMan]

And your answers are based on the human being's limited perceptions of reality. Again, only God is qualified to judge anyone.

Then how can you possible be qualified to judge Quath's comments?