“Agnostic atheist” cannot premise truth, logic, or ethics contra Megadeth’s Dave Mustaine

atheism last supper.jpg

The following discussion ensued due to my video Alex Jones & Megadeth’s Dave Mustaine on conspiracy, Christianity & hypochristians
Alex Jones & Megadeth’s Dave Mustaine on conspiracy, Christianity & hypochristians

A certain Non Progredi Est Regredi commented
I’ve loved Megadeth’s music since Peace Sells and saw them on the Rust tour, the Countdown tour, and the Thirteen tour. I didn’t realize till this interview that Dave is Christian. I’ve got to say, I’m surprised. While I see his theology as archaic and unwarranted of belief, I still see him as a musical genius.


The following discussion ensued due to my video Alex Jones & Megadeth’s Dave Mustaine on conspiracy, Christianity & hypochristians
Alex Jones & Megadeth’s Dave Mustaine on conspiracy, Christianity & hypochristians

A certain Non Progredi Est Regredi commented
I’ve loved Megadeth’s music since Peace Sells and saw them on the Rust tour, the Countdown tour, and the Thirteen tour. I didn’t realize till this interview that Dave is Christian. I’ve got to say, I’m surprised. While I see his theology as archaic and unwarranted of belief, I still see him as a musical genius.

I, Ken Ammi, replied
I am not certain when, as far as a timeline matching when those albums were released, be became a Christian. I am curious about you stating that you view “his theology as archaic and unwarranted of belief” which sounds like beginning with a conclusion: can you elaborate?

Non Progredi Est Regredi
Yes, I can elaborate and no, I’m not beginning with a conclusion. For some disclosure, I am nearly fifty years old, was raised in a catholic household, have been reading and listening to scholarship on the contextualized historicity of the Hebrew and Christian bibles for nearly a decade, and am currently an agnostic atheist. I referenced the Christian theology as archaic in light of its age and its assertions in light of what the evidence bears out about its origins. I asserted that the beliefs are unwarranted also due to the evidence that demonstrates the origins of the religion and lack of evidence demonstrating the accuracy of christianity.

There is ALOT I could go over but I’ll give the Reader’s Digest version. There are two very key claims that christianity makes; the existence of the primary god of the bibles, Yahweh/Jehovah, and the claim that a man named Jesus of Nazareth resurrected from a tomb after being crucified by the Roman empire. The main accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth are described in the canonical gospels, which for various reasons, I don’t believe are historically reliable.

They are anonymous omniscient accounts which contain contradictions, both externally and internally, don’t make sense in terms of the Roman practice of crucifixion or Jewish rituals from antiquity, were written almost certainly decades after the events described within, they use verbatim copying(which doesn’t happen with independent accounts), and use concepts and narratives from the Septuigant, Greek mythology, Flavius Josephus, and Homer.

If a Jewish teacher we call Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by the Roman empire, there’s no historical reason to believe that he would have been given a proper burial. There’s a list of reasons as to why I assert that, which I won’t go into now. Regardless, I think the resurrection is legendary and didn’t happen other than as possibly a visionary experience.

When it comes to the existence of Yahweh/Jehovah, scholars, historians and archaeologists have demonstrated how the concept of said deity is basically a conflation of the Canaanite pantheon gods El and Baal, along with some attributes of the Babylonian god Marduk. The p were almost certainly an offshoot of the Canaanites. Hebrew is actually a Canaanite dialect, there is Canaanite literature in the Hebrew and Christian bibles that was written about Baal and repurposed to be about Yahweh/Jehovah.

The Israelites “borrowed” and “adapted” many, many traditions, narratives, concepts, and rituals from the surrounding cultures. I could go on and on and on about all of this, but hopefully this gives you a very brief synopsis of why I am not convinced of christianity or Judaism, for that matter. If you want more elaboration or a comprehensive list of scholars, let me know. As I stated earlier, I’m definitely not beginning with a conclusion; I’m fascinated by history and genuinely enjoy learning about this.

And btw, in the video, Dave references the Israelites crossing the Red Sea. That’s NOT what the story actually says; the Hebrew description is that the Israelites crossed the Yam Suph, which translates to the sea of reeds. It’s an early mistranslation that many Christians are ignorant of. There are several other mistranslations I could cite, but I am short on time.
Also, I don’t know why the timeline of albums is relevant to this. Take care.

Ken Ammi
Appreciate the reply, friend, but you did begin with a conclusion based on hidden assumptions to first back up and tell us how does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?

Non Progredi Est Regredi
What the…..? I’m guessing that you’re aware of what a red herring AND a strawman argument fallacy are; if so, I’m wondering why exactly you’re employing them in your comment. I didn’t say anything about a worldview or ethics. You asked me to elaborate about why I find christianity archaic and unwarranted of belief, so I gave you a quick overview. To provide a “premise for truth”, as you phrased it, I depend upon an assessment of the evidence per the historical methodology in this instance.

We cannot recreate the past so it’s a matter of looking at the evidence and making probabilities of what likely happened. In terms of logic, it’s most logical to withhold belief until empirical evidence demonstrates the truth of a claim; especially when the claims involve the supernatural and are an unfalsifiable proposition. The only thing I “adhere to”, in this context, is examining evidence that is available and assessing the likelihood of a claim in light of said evidence. And please, I implore you, show me exactly where said that I “demand that others do likewise” relative to what I am or am not convinced of.

That’s quite a strawman argument there and it’s disingenuous. You may not like my assessment of the topic, but it’s dishonest to assume my “hidden assumptions”. The irony seems to be that your accusing me of having hidden assumptions, while simultaneously making unwarranted assumptions about me. It’s very telling.

Ken Ammi
Indeed, I asked you to elaborate about why you find Christianity archaic and unwarranted of belief, so you gave you a quick overview and I noted that you began with a conclusion, it was based on hidden assumptions, and I am asking you to reveal those assumptions as a first step since without truth, logic, and ethics you have nothing at all upon which to accredit or discredit, condemn or praise anything.

By a “premise for truth” I first mean how/why it exists in the first place, then how/why you consider adherence to it to be an imperative, and then how/why you take it upon yourself to demand that others do likewise.

Same thing when it comes to logic since when you say “In terms of logic, it’s most logical to…” is purely circular and when you say that we should “withhold belief until empirical evidence demonstrates the truth of a claim,” etc. because “it’s most logical” then you are begging the question.

Thus, you cannot yet examine and assess since you have not yet established why any of it matters.

If you are not demanding that others adhere to truth, logic, and ethics then you have just obliterated any possibility of a discussion that goes beyond “Well, I feel…” and “Oh yeah, but I feel…”

Another example, you subjectively assert that I am being “disingenuous” but you jumped to that as a conclusion without telling me what is wrong with being disingenuous, unless you want to claim that there is nothing objectively wrong with it in which case all you have done is stated that you “feel” I am disingenuous the problem with which becomes: what if I say that I do not care about your impotent feelings?

And, by the way, observing the fact that you have hidden assumptions is the exact opposite of “making unwarranted assumptions about” you since my point is that you reveal those hidden assumptions so I do not have to assume anything about you. But if you are claiming hypocrisy then well, you first have to tell me what would be wrong with that–unless nothing is wrong with it which would then be self-defeating.

That ended it since he and/or she and/or it did not reply anymore.

See my book on Atheism.

atheism last supper.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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 out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites listed on the left hand menu and/or on the “Share/Save” button below the tags.