“evilbible.com, blah, blah, blah, evilbible.com, blah, blah, blah, evilbible.com, blah, blah, blah,
evilbible.com, blah, blah, blah”
—ExChristian.Net commentator
I again attempted to communicate that no one was bother to deal with the issue at hand:
Well, I try, I diligently try to find a truly skeptical atheist, particularly amongst the loudest, angriest most militant activist types; but alas. What has been going on in this comments section is what in logic is knows and the red herring fallacy or perhaps even the ignoratio elenchi. I claimed that evilbibe.com is faulty on various levels and provided the evidence. As far as I can tell not one single atheist in this comments section has considered the evidence. Apparently, evilbible.com said it so it must be true and none of you will even imagine questioning it. Due to this lack of skepticism those of you who kept commenting committed the red herring / ignoratio elenchi by bringing up various issues that are superfluous to my claims. This is why: let us say that I grant you that the Bible is pure man-made malarkey, miracles are impossible, etc., etc., etc. What does this due to my claim? Absolutely nothing. This is because my claim is that evilbible.com is misunderstanding, misapplying, misinterpreting, misstating and otherwise misrepresenting the Bible’s contents. Thus, even if the Bible is man-made, no god(s), no miracles, etc., it still states what it does, evilbible.com still manipulates its contents towards their ends and I have still proven that they do so.
The point is how they treat the text (regardless of whence it came), how I point out their fallacies and now, how you are all pseudo-skeptics and logically fallacious.
What would it do to the claim of God’s existence if the Bible were proved to be nothing but man-made malarkey? Nothing at all; it would merely mean that one particular theology is in error, that one particular concept of what God is like is false.
Thus, I again stated that the many highly intelligent atheists did not even consider considering the evidence that I presented yet, one claimed that some actually did so:
I (and others here) have looked at both websites. Your collection of illogical apologetics doesn’t say anything we haven’t heard a bazillion times before and rejected.While your website may forestall the deconversion of some christians [sic] who are beginning to confront doubts but are not yet ready to examine the true history of the cult and let go of their delusion, you’re not going to drag anyone here back into the darkness. So stop wasting your time and ours. And stop using this website to try to peddle yours…
I checked your website, but didn’t get very far before it caused my computer to crash. What I did see were just the usual christian [sic] lies, distortions, and twisted/convoluted “logic.” Ho. Hum.
I suppose that this means that they were communicating with each other outside of the confines of the ExChristian.Net comments section and affirming that this one and that one had considered both websites. Sadly, since not one single example is mentioned I cannot determine if this is so—this is an argument from the vague and its vagueness makes it meaningless; emotive yes, but vague, generic, and meaningless.
The second statement above actually began with, “Evilbible.com is still online and still presenting factual information…because the bible is still evil.” Yet, again, not providing any specific responses to my claims and not providing an absolute premise upon which to condemn the Bible for being “evil” (nor providing any example of this “evil”) leaves us with a vague, unscholarly, evasive and painting with a broom non-response.
In other words; their minds are made up and no objection to atheism or their misconceptions of the Bible’s contents, concepts or contexts is even possible.
There came a point at which the above conversation simply died and someone brought up another issue in stating,
I disagree with the Evil Bible’s definition of Atheism. Otherwise, I quite enjoy it
And so, I made an attempt again in stating,
Do you mean where the author of evilbible.com refers to atheists who define atheism as a mere lack of belief in god(s) as being a “few morons” who are “so damn stupid” for doing so?If you enjoy being manipulated, drawing conclusions based of purposefully partial information, replacing scholarship and reasoned discourse with emotionally charged assertions then sure, there is a lot to enjoy at evilbible.comHowever, if you are interested in exercising skepticism and see just how they manipulated their readers you may want to read the very many ways in which evilbible.com has been discredited.
And I, again, provided the URL to EvilBible.com is Dead. As for the definition of “atheism” and characterization of atheists presented by evilbible.com see here.
The response to this brought about a brand new litany of red herrings or perhaps, as we shall see, red tofu (I will parse the comment and my response):
Thanks but no thanks, dear. I checked out your site.
No thanks to what? My invitation to exercise skepticism? They checked out my site and found what that they did not want to challenge their preconceptions? Who knows?
They continue,
Human and ANIMAL sacrifices are repugnant to me.When Yahweh orders massacres, he is sacrificing lives. Each massacre is a sacrifice to the weird machinations of the freaky biblegod [sic]. Heck, even his own son/(himself) was mutilated in a freak accident for which no one must be blamed.I also cringe when the Hebrews torture an animal and slaughter it for Yahweh’s pleasure…They take pigeons and rip them in half!!! This behavior is worthy of a raving sociopath. Mutilating animals is reprehensible.Yahweh even takes pleasure at the stench of animal fat wafting through the desert breeze and demands his slice of flesh. Repugnant…
I am a vegetarian. Thus, the bible, a bowl of endangered caribou stew and undercooked veal trigger the gag reflex. I won’t touch them.
I am afraid that they repeated some common and some uncommon misconceptions.
Human sacrifices are likewise repugnant to the God of the Bible who—as they saw if they checked out the evidence that I provided—condemns them.
Hebrews never tortured animals and in fact, they had a very, very carefully regimented manner in which to slaughter the animal with the express purpose of making it as quick and painless as possible–this is the historical and cultural context that should be considered.
As for taking pigeons and ripping them in half; here is the relevant text:
And if the burnt sacrifice of his offering to the LORD is of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves or young pigeons. The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off its head, and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out at the side of the altar. And he shall remove its crop with its feathers and cast it beside the altar on the east side, into the place for ashes. Then he shall split it at its wings, but shall not divide it completely; and the priest shall burn it on the altar, on the wood that is on the fire.
“Mutilating animals is reprehensible” and is nowhere prescribed in the Bible. Unless you are a militant vegetarian and consider any sort of animal slaughter “mutilating” and ripping in which case I would need to learn what absolute and binding standard you are imposing upon everyone with whom you disagree in this regard.
The statement, “Thus, the bible, a bowl of endangered caribou stew and undercooked veal trigger the gag reflex. I won’t touch them” is confusing. Apparently, they gag at the very thought of, and will not touch, the Bible, endangered caribou stew and undercooked veal—whatever the correlation is supposed to mean.
I do not think that the caribou was endangered all of those millennia ago but I would love to be made aware of the historical reference for this claim. I attempted to guess that they were referring to Jacob and Esau, since Esau was a hunter, and stated that “there is no indicant that the veal was ‘undercooked.’” Yet, I was mistaken in that the text of Genesis 25:34 states that Esau ate what Jacob gave him and this was, “bread and stew of lentils.”
In any regard I also wrote,
Look , I can dig it: I was a vegetarian for 7 years and one very important lesson that a vegetarian needs to learn is celebrating diversity and practicing tolerance.
Your references to “…repugnant…weird machinations…freaky…mutilated…freak accident…cringe…torture…rip them…raving sociopath…reprehensible…stench…Repugnant…endangered…gag reflex…” are exciting but obviously arguments from outrage and arguments to ridicule and emotive.
According to common descent evolution every living thing on earth is related. In fact, according to Richard Dawkins if you doubt, even dare to doubt, that human beings are related to “bananas and turnips” you are to be likened to a Holocaust denier.
So is this vegetarian a speciesist? What gives them the right to rip apart plants, vegetables, fruits, legumes, roots, etc. (and we do not even know if they are a vegan or lacto-ovo).
Pull thou the chopstick out from betwixt thy teeth before thou attempt to pull the toothpick from betwixt the teeth of thy brethren.
There is one more point to be made about the vegetarian and we will consider it in the next segment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.