(March 17, 2015 at 10:53 am)abentwookie Wrote: Well, it can be useful in debates about a wide variety of subjects. For example, if they argue that there can be no morality without the Bible, you can easily provide countless examples of extremely immoral acts in the book. ...
...at which point, they go into "when the Bible says... it really means..." and you get to listen to some fantastically obtuse interpretations, which may be so elaborate as to include a custom fanfic they've created, purely based on their imagination and ad hoc fallacious reasoning in order to work backward to their preconception that the Bible is good.
At this point, I'm guessing you don't accept their ridiculous interpretations, preferring to read what's actually on the page and favoring Occam's Razor ("the reason there SEEM to be contradictions is because there ARE contradictions and the reason there SEEM to be immoral things in the Bible is because there ARE immoral things in the Bible").
At which point they perform psychological projection and accuse you of reading the Bible with an agenda.
I've danced this dance many times.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
