Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

If you're willing to fall on the "It's not meant to be taken literally" explanation then there's nothing for me to say.

Then don't say anything, because you don't understand Christianity. I merely said "who's to say." The problem with you is that you don't actually know half the shit you spout. You simply presume to know.

He could have been asking rhetorically for Adam's benefit, unless we're to take Eden as being outside of both Heaven and Earth for some reason.

So this one's not to be taken literally, but the bits that support your narrative should be. You're just as prone to interpretation as the Christians you mock... Even more so. You're predisposed to finding the foregone conclusion you look for.

Apparently so too do most people. Perhaps you're one of the 144,000? 

The 144000 is another bit you don't understand.

tpp said: 

Turncoat said: 

If you're willing to fall on the "It's not meant to be taken literally" explanation then there's nothing for me to say.

Then don't say anything, because you don't understand Christianity. I merely said "who's to say." The problem with you is that you don't actually know half the shit you spout. You simply presume to know.

Seems to me like you're just taking a position of convenience without any actual Biblical knowledge. 

He could have been asking rhetorically for Adam's benefit, unless we're to take Eden as being outside of both Heaven and Earth for some reason.

So this one's not to be taken literally, but the bits that support your narrative should be. You're just as prone to interpretation as the Christians you mock... Even more so. You're predisposed to finding the foregone conclusion you look for.

It is to be taken literally if God's being rhetorical. 

You do know what rhetorical means, right? 

Apparently so too do most people. Perhaps you're one of the 144,000? 

The 144000 is another bit you don't understand.

What's it mean to you? 

Turncoat said: 

Seems to me like you're just taking a position of convenience without any actual Biblical knowledge. 

Yes.

It is to be taken literally if God's being rhetorical.

Was it just your interpretation that it was rhetorical?

What's it mean to you?

It's another nice story brought me closer to God.

tpp said: 

Turncoat said: 

Seems to me like you're just taking a position of convenience without any actual Biblical knowledge. 

Yes.

So you don't actually have anything to contribute then? 

It is to be taken literally if God's being rhetorical.

Was it just your interpretation that it was rhetorical?

If the passages are to be taken literally, then the room for God to have been rhetorical is an Occam's Razor explanation. 

I've heard that reasoning said to me over other words of God that seemingly contradict his powers. 

What's it mean to you?

It's another nice story brought me closer to God.

What's the story about? 

Turncoat said: 

So you don't actually have anything to contribute then?

Did Socrates contribute by exposing the frauds who claimed to have knowledge of a whole lot of stuff they had no clue about? You're welcome.

If the passages are to be taken literally, then the room for God to have been rhetorical is an Occam's Razor explanation. 

No it's not. I'd say I'm not convinced you have any clue what you're talking about. Prove it. The burden of proof is on you anyway. You can't? Then you've been talking out of your ass.

tpp said: 

Turncoat said: 

So you don't actually have anything to contribute then?

Did Socrates contribute by exposing the frauds who claimed to have knowledge of a whole lot of stuff they had no clue about? You're welcome.

It helps to understand the material you aim to argue with/against though. How else are you supposed to be able to tell what does and doesn't make sense within their framework as opposed to merely your own? 

If the passages are to be taken literally, then the room for God to have been rhetorical is an Occam's Razor explanation. 

No it's not. I'd say I'm not convinced you have any clue what you're talking about. Prove it. The burden of proof is on you anyway. You can't? Then you've been talking out of your ass.

Can you think of a simpler explanation that otherwise doesn't contradict the rest of the texts? 

Turncoat said: 

It helps to understand the material you aim to argue with/against though. How else are you supposed to be able to tell what does and doesn't make sense within their framework as opposed to merely your own?

I asked you to prove your claim. You failed to do so, irrespective of my knowledge of the Bible. It is quite clear to me..... And everyone else by now.. That you have no clue.

Can you think of a simpler explanation that otherwise doesn't contradict the rest of the texts?

My ability or inability to come up with a simpler explanation doesn't prove it.

Nor does it say anything about Occam's Razor, which is a statistical argument. Try again.

tpp said: 

Turncoat said: 

It helps to understand the material you aim to argue with/against though. How else are you supposed to be able to tell what does and doesn't make sense within their framework as opposed to merely your own?

I asked you to prove your claim. You failed to do so, irrespective of my knowledge of the Bible. It is quite clear to me..... And everyone else by now.. That you have no clue.

How would you even know if I am or am not proving anything without the foundation of knowledge required to understand the points being made? 

It seems more like you're doing the 'convince me or you're wrong' angle, which is itself quite fallacious. When you can actually reply to the points being made I'll be around to reply to them. 

Turncoat said: 

How would you even know if I am or am not proving anything without the foundation of knowledge required to understand the points being made? 

Because it doesn't take a genius to recognize a flawed argument.... Ask Socrates, my greatest hero. His forte was claiming he knows nothing... Yet he showed how many of the self-proclaimed gurus were wrong once questioned.

You claimed that there is no free will and that Christianity necessiates determinism. When pressed, you failed to back up your claims. Instead:

It seems more like you're doing the 'convince me or you're wrong' angle, which is itself quite fallacious. When you can actually reply to the points being made I'll be around to reply to them.

There is nothing fallacious about asking you to back up your claims. Asking me to disprove claims that you haven't backed up is the fallacy here.

You claimed God is deterministic and all-knowing. I asked you to back it up. You cited Bible verses. I asked you how you knew those verses shouldn't be interpreted differently. You said that the whole interpretation thing was flawed and most people take the Bible literally. I then pointed out that there's a Bible verse which at face value demonstrates that God is not all-knowing. You said you should interpret it differently... which was precisely what you said we shouldn't do. Dingus.

You then finally claimed Occam's razor. Occam's razor is a statistical argument... That the simplest explanation, on the whole, typically is the explanation most likely to be correct. It is more likely that a random dude entering cafeteria has brown eyes than blue eyes, red hair, and a dress shirt. You have not made any such case, and while Occam's razor is useful in scientific pursuits, there's no reason to think that Occam's razor applies to something as fundamental as God. Hence my comment that the Bible is not a scientific book. Not only have you failed to demonstrate that anyone should give a fuck about Occam's razor in this instance, but you also failed to make the case even in the case that we should. If we're talking about the entire story within the Bible, then who's to say the Bible shouldn't be interpreted in the context of the entire Bible, instead of a few cherry-picked lines....

If you're trying to use the scientific method, then use the scientific method, not flawed abductive logic in lieu of a complete understanding, based on premises you haven't justified.

I've heard all of this stuff before. There's nothing impressive about your argument; I've knocked it down a thousand times before.

tpp said: 

Turncoat said: 

How would you even know if I am or am not proving anything without the foundation of knowledge required to understand the points being made? 

Because it doesn't take a genius to recognize a flawed argument.... Ask Socrates, my greatest hero. His forte was claiming he knows nothing... Yet he showed how many of the self-proclaimed gurus were wrong once questioned.

Just reminds me of people who didn't read the material for their English class trying to get one over on the teacher to me. 

You claimed that there is no free will and that Christianity necessiates determinism. When pressed, you failed to back up your claims. 

I did back it up, it's on an earlier page. 

Just how one could use a Chemistry book to prove Chemistry, so too do those who prescribe to Christianity use The Bible. If arguing over their tenants, then it makes sense to visit their material rather than go through the rigmarole of proving God's existence. It isn't about any sort of objective truth, but rather over how their reading material portrays their deity in question. God could be any number of things (or any number of gods), but when going through the Christian belief system you're stuck with what they preach.