Humanity's Punishment: If it was a court case.

[Creed of Heresy]

Catfish, if it is not obvious, takes most of his stuff from the Old Testament, given what little he is willing to reveal about his stance (suggesting a severe self-consciousness about the potential frailty of his stance; nothing more transparently self-conscious than criticizing the views of others without explaining one's own). Given that he IS a cherry-picker, he takes no real accepted or vindicated point of interpretation, leaving him with no tenable ground to work from other than his own subjective stance, leaving his denial of others' . Common court-room procedure would show that cross-examining the witnesses by merely saying "you're wrong" without ever describing why would prove a very poor defense.

I do state that the case is flawed if not taken against Christianity and Islam; examining their source-material shows just how utterly inadequate, faulty, and contradictory their claims are, especially when taken in context of the time-frame of their establishment. However, if one is displaying this case against them, then it's quite relevant.

However, if we work against the Judaic, Old-Testament view, the case is faulty because the Old Testament never had an eternal punishment. Yahweh basically did just kill you for your transgressions and that was it. What happened afterwards is anyone's guess, of course. I mean, to be honest, the case against Judaism itself is ridiculously easy to completely toss out the window involving Yahweh's existence and the idea of heaven, anyway:

The term for heavens in the Tanakh is shamayim, located above the firmament (a solid, transparent dome which covered the earth and separated it from the "waters" above). The God of Israel (Yahweh) lived in Heaven or in the "Heaven of Heavens" (the exact difference between these two, if any, is unclear) in a heavenly palace. His dwelling on earth was Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, which was a model of the cosmos and included a section which represented Heaven.

*sourced on Wikipedia, and sourced from there to the Tanakh, which is the canon of the Hebrew Bible*

This is simple enough to dismiss, given that the Temple of Solomon has no archaeological evidence for its existence. And it was apparently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Yahweh, for being omnipotent, sure didn't seem to be able to defend his home-on-earth. And let's just look at the whole firmament thing; a solid, transparent dome which covered the earth and separated it from the "waters" above. Because, you see, it was once thought that Yahweh opened the firmament to let the rain fall. But what with the whole rocketry thing allowing us to go into space, we understand, quite quickly, that there is no solid, transparent dome over the planet...nor is there any water above that, even if we are generous and allow it to be understood as the atmosphere, since rain forms WITHIN the atmosphere, not OVER it.

Overall, none of the religious views hold any water. If there WAS a court-case, it would be against religion's very validity, and would be a suit against false claims.

[catfish]

Catfish, if it is not obvious, takes most of his stuff from the Old Testament, given what little he is willing to reveal about his stance (suggesting a severe self-consciousness about the potential frailty of his stance; nothing more transparently self-conscious than criticizing the views of others without explaining one's own). Given that he IS a cherry-picker, he takes no real accepted or vindicated point of interpretation, leaving him with no tenable ground to work from other than his own subjective stance, leaving his denial of others' . Common court-room procedure would show that cross-examining the witnesses by merely saying "you're wrong" without ever describing why would prove a very poor defense.

I do state that the case is flawed if not taken against Christianity and Islam; examining their source-material shows just how utterly inadequate, faulty, and contradictory their claims are, especially when taken in context of the time-frame of their establishment. However, if one is displaying this case against them, then it's quite relevant.

However, if we work against the Judaic, Old-Testament view, the case is faulty because the Old Testament never had an eternal punishment. Yahweh basically did just kill you for your transgressions and that was it. What happened afterwards is anyone's guess, of course. I mean, to be honest, the case against Judaism itself is ridiculously easy to completely toss out the window involving Yahweh's existence and the idea of heaven, anyway:

The term for heavens in the Tanakh is shamayim, located above the firmament (a solid, transparent dome which covered the earth and separated it from the "waters" above). The God of Israel (Yahweh) lived in Heaven or in the "Heaven of Heavens" (the exact difference between these two, if any, is unclear) in a heavenly palace. His dwelling on earth was Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, which was a model of the cosmos and included a section which represented Heaven.

*sourced on Wikipedia, and sourced from there to the Tanakh, which is the canon of the Hebrew Bible*

This is simple enough to dismiss, given that the Temple of Solomon has no archaeological evidence for its existence. And it was apparently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Yahweh, for being omnipotent, sure didn't seem to be able to defend his home-on-earth. And let's just look at the whole firmament thing; a solid, transparent dome which covered the earth and separated it from the "waters" above. Because, you see, it was once thought that Yahweh opened the firmament to let the rain fall. But what with the whole rocketry thing allowing us to go into space, we understand, quite quickly, that there is no solid, transparent dome over the planet...nor is there any water above that, even if we are generous and allow it to be understood as the atmosphere, since rain forms WITHIN the atmosphere, not OVER it.

Overall, none of the religious views hold any water. If there WAS a court-case, it would be against religion's very validity, and would be a suit against false claims.

So, you strawman my "views" to refute them?

[Mystical]

haha the fishy's got me on block!!!!!!

Or he's a dick.

Either way he's gettin lazy as fuck, I wouldn't bother with him if I were you guys

[Creed of Heresy]

Cat, I didn't strawman your views. You're not THAT important that my entire post was about you, in fact I largely stopped referring to you after the first paragraph. Not my fault if you're so insecure you interpreted the rest as being directed at you specifically, if your views got caught in the barrage...well, maybe you should stop believing silly bullshit.

Luckie: The first part, maybe. The second and third part, DEFINITELY true.

[catfish]

haha the fishy's got me on block!!!!!!

Or he's a dick.

Either way he's gettin lazy as fuck, I wouldn't bother with him if I were you guys

You're not on block, you just say gibberish most of the time and are not really looking for a discussion. You claimed to make a "point" earlier when all you did was post vids. You use appeals to emotions quite often too.

---

Cat, I didn't strawman your views. You're not THAT important that my entire post was about you, in fact I largely stopped referring to you after the first paragraph. Not my fault if you're so insecure you interpreted the rest as being directed at you specifically, if your views got caught in the barrage...well, maybe you should stop believing silly bullshit.

Luckie: The first part, maybe. The second and third part, DEFINITELY true.

You most certainly did strawman my views. You claimed I got most of my stuff from the OT and then went on to refute the OT. Obvious strawman is obvious in case you didn't know.

[Mystical]

As I stated earlier and have yet to get a proper rebuttal: any judgement is injustice indeterminate of the time or severity.

gibberish? where? *looks around
you said blade's argument was null because the punishment is not eternal. I said any punishment is uncalled for. Now if you want me to give reasoning I can.
I haven't appealed to emotion once in this thread and just fyi: your god appeals to emotion as a mode of operation.

[catfish]

As I stated earlier and have yet to get a proper rebuttal: any judgement is injustice indeterminate of the time or severity.

gibberish? where? *looks around
you said blade's argument was null because the punishment is not eternal. I said any punishment is uncalled for. Now if you want me to give reasoning I can.
I haven't appealed to emotion once in this thread and just fyi: your god appeals to emotion as a mode of operation.

Find your quoted post, then show me where you "stated earlier" what you claim.

[Mystical]

dude go read the flipping thread fgs.
you seem to be biased in your assessment of my arguments based on predisposition that you have towards me. Just debate me like a normal human being mmmk?

[catfish]

dude go read the flipping thread fgs.
you seem to be biased in your assessment of my arguments based on predisposition that you have towards me. Just debate me like a normal human being mmmk?

I've read the thread a few times. I debated whether or not I should post your quotes, but I really figured that you were capable of reading on your own.