Ken Ammi – Page 25 – TrueFreeThinker

Cookie cutter Atheists line up back Dr. Josh and Matt Dillahunty’s complaint about “Slavery in the Bible” and fall like dominoes

As you can tell from my first reply below, Atheists were utterly desperate to avoid the key issue when it came to the video Dr. Josh & Matt Dillahunty vs Cliffe & Stuart on Slavery in the Bible posted by the “Modern-Day Debate” Youtube channel.

A certain @Mehki227 commented as follows when I noted that the Atheists failed to begin at the beginning—adding more proof to Ammi’s Law which is that Atheists will begin with conclusions 100% of the time—by impotently complaining about slavery but not bothering to tell us what, on their worldview, is wrong with some accidentally existing apes enslaving other accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against some accidentally existing apes enslaving other accidentally existing apes.

@Mehki227 noted

Who cut and paste that already, and you’re wrong. Haven’t seen one debate where a theist, apologist, or creationist won anything😂

I, @kenammi355, replied

Friend, you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.

“cut and paste”: genetic fallacy.

“Haven’t seen one debate where a theist, apologist, or creationist won anything”: your myopic subjective experience isn’t a standard.

@fastfootedone chimed in with

people who are full of rage are the types you would expect to quit

@kenammi355

Indeed, that’s Atheism 101 ;o)

@ScubaSctimpy

1. accident implies intent to do something else. it’s not an accident there was no intent period.

2. from a logical perspective, it causes harm to the species as a whole. that demonstrable just in the state of the world. every MEDC at one time had slaves, and most LEDC were nations those slaves were taken from. there are relatively few MEDC and relatively many LEDC. it’s almost like slavery had a direct long lasting positive impact for relatively few and a direct long lasting negative impact for the majority of our species. theres also game theory to consider, which demonstrates that long term it is a mathematical inevitability that honest fair but firm interactions between people has the greatest net positive for all involved.

3. but even without the logical side of things we are a species with empathy. i don’t want to be enslaved, i know that generally speaking others don’t want to be either. it would therefore be immoral to take slaves. it’s that simple.

@kenammi355

Friend, it’s too bad you didn’t read this thread since you’re just repeating the well-within-the-box-Atheist-group-think-talking-points that I already debunked.

1. I see you want to focus on word games.

Very well then, what, on your worldview, is wrong with some undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance apes having enslaved other undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance apes within an undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against some undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance apes having enslaved other undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance apes?

2. That’s not the “logical perspective” but is a merely asserted ethical one.

It’s also not logical since you began by merely jumping to a merely asserted conclusion of a mere assertion based on mere hidden assumptions.

You assert it’s wrong because, “it causes harm to the species as a whole” but that’s inconsistent on your worldview (yet, on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to be consistent which is why Atheist are consistently inconsistent) on your worldview “harm” is not only subjective but can be very, very good since it rids us of the less fit, and there’s no universal imperative to avoid harm nor avoid harming an undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance species as a whole—or part.

Also, on your worldview harm is just an undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance’s bio-organism’s emotively subjective interpretation of undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance byproducts of undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance neural reactions within their undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance brains.

3. Rewrite, “…we are a undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance species with undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance empathy” and no universal imperative to adhere to the undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance byproducts of being undesigned/uncreated/having come about due to happenstance.

So, empathy is, at best, an emotively subjective personal preference du jour much like your favorite flavor of ice cream.

As for, your emotively subjective, “i don’t want to be enslaved, i know that generally speaking others don’t want to be either” it’s an utterly non sequitur to jump to, “it would therefore be immoral to take slaves” since I could just as easily argue, “i don’t want to be enslaved, i know that generally speaking others don’t want to be either it would there be a great idea to enslave others so they don’t enslave me first and since they don’t like it they will do what I say.

@trekkiejunk

When all religious people can agree on what that singular moral code is… come talk to me.

@kenammi355

Now, your comment is incoherent on so many levels I will pick one to elucidate: why would “all religious people can agree on what that singular moral code” since morality is subjective, relative, situational, intrinsic, tentative, etc., by definition?

What all people, at all times, in all places, and of all theologies or lack thereof have is a singular ethic which is objective, absolute, universal, extrinsic, etc., by definition.

But, of course, those are just word followed by concepts and it’s the concepts that count since, for example, what I termed “ethics” is termed “universal morals” or “absolute morals” by some so call them 1 and 2 or A and B or whatever, that’s not the point, the concepts are the point, the phenomena.

That’s part of why, in a way, you besmirch anyone who dares to disagree with you: at some level, you discern that there’s truth to which we must adhere even though on your worldview truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others adhere to it.

@trumpbellend6717

Lol how ironic someone who believes our moral status the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being who thinks it moral to execute our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me ) is whinging about “reasoned discourse” 🤭😅🤣🤣

@kenammi355

“how ironic” I don’t know since you didn’t say.

See, you began with an assertion to which you jumped as a conclusion based on hidden assumptions. See, you appear to have implied (since they didn’t get around to saying it) that there’d be something wrong with, “someone who believes our moral status the result of a talking snake convincing a rib woman and mud figurine man to eat a magic fruit against the wishes of an invisible being who thinks it moral to execute our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents” but neglected THE most important part: what, on your worldview, would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape believing that within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for an accidentally ape to not believe that?

Only after elucidating that can you complain about it viably.

I could easily say that you believe that you’re a talking ape and came about as a mud figurine due to rain falling on rocks and magically coming to life.

As for, “moral to execute our unruly rebellious children who disobey their parents ( sounds like most teenagers to me )” is incoherent, you appear to be copying and pasting Atheist group-think talking-points. I’d love to correct you on that but first, again, what, on your worldview, would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape believing that the scenario you misunderstand being “moral” within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for an accidentally ape to not believe that?

Only after elucidating that can you complain about it viably.

@thiagoviana5355

I know of no apes that want to be enslaved, therefore, by using empathy alone, we can declare that it is bad to enslave apes.

@kenammi355

I’m going to guess that you don’t know any apes nor that you know what apes want or don’t want so you’re proposing a dual level fantasy premise.

Yet, let’s to with your imagination: you’re not grasping the difference between “moral” ontology vs. “moral” epistemology and, more to the point, that you’re just piling assertions atop another since your premise is that adhering to empathy is a universal imperative but neglected no mention the most important part: why and how, on your worldview.

Moreover, you’re also implying that your implied hidden assumption is that it’s a universal imperative to adhere to the interpretations of accidental bio-chemical neural reactions within the accidentally existing brains of accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative to adhere to the interpretations of accidental bio-chemical neural reactions within the accidentally existing brains of accidentally existing apes.

@stevenbatke2475

you’re trying to turn the moral question of slavery, back on to atheists. But the god of the bible doesn’t have a problem with slavery, so friend, you’re in the exact same boat as the rest of us.

We evolved, along with our morality, you know this to be true. I understand that bronze aged people considered slavery to be morally acceptable practice. I’m sure you understand this too.

The real key issue and question is: why does an unchanging god, with morality higher than ours, appear to conveniently have the same morality as the men that wrote the words He is supposed to have said?

If your god doesn’t condemn slavery, how can you?

@kenammi355

There’s no, “you’re trying to turn the moral question of slavery” sine there’s two sides to this coin considering that some Atheists merely assert that it’s wrong (whatever they may mean by “slavery”) but are literally incapable of justifying that emotively subjective personal preference, on their worldview—I mean, have you not read this thread?

So, when do you think that we stopped evolving?

But I get your meaning, you’re appealing to utterly arbitrary subjectivity since, “We,” accidentally, “evolved, along with our,” accidental, “morality” and yet, where’s the universal imperative to adhere to the accidental accidents, on your worldview.

And you utterly prove my point about your appeal to subjectivity by stating, “bronze aged people considered slavery to be morally acceptable practice” thus, you disqualified yourself from opining that they did anything wrong: and that has been my point all along so you agree with me: Atheists cannot rightly condemn bronze aged “slavery.”

@stevenbatke2475

I haven’t suggested that bronze aged people did anything wrong. They did what they did with what they had. Is it wrong by our standard now? Yes. Even you would agree.

I am suggesting that God, the unchanging creator of the universe, doesn’t think slavery is wrong, then or now.

What does that say about God?

And save your “friend, you’re like 100% of, blah, blah, blah” spiel. It’s disingenuous.

Again, can you say, in your worldview, that slavery is wrong?

@kenammi355

You clearly don’t like being reminded of verifiable facts but such is the case—as it has been every single time I’ve ever made an attempt to discuss this with Atheists.

So, I’ve seen it 1,001 times: you ignore, avoid, pull styled tu quoque, and refuse to play the game once I put the goal post back to where it was.

So, at least you admit that it’s all subjective thus, on your worldview: there’s nothing whatsoever with “slavery” (whatever that means) in the Bible!!!

Now, there’s also nothing wrong with slavery on Atheism, ever.

So, on your worldview there’s nothing wrong with logical fallacies nor slavery nor an accidentally existing apes believing in whoever the god might be who has always considered slavery to be a-okay so about what are you complaining?

@Dethas1991

i’m sure every one reading this comment section will come to the same conclusion 😛

This “issue” exist only in your mind and the way you present it should give you clue on who is actually childish here 😉

@kenammi355

But your tactic is unique so kudos: you merely waved your hand and declared that THE key issue is a non-issue. But, of course, you didn’t argue your way to that conclusion but proved that one of Ammi’s Laws is correct: Atheists will begin with conclusions 100% of the time. You merely asserted.

Fascinatingly, you appeal to your fantasy and couple that with an argumentum ad populum coupled with a genetic logical fallacy coupled with incoherence.

It’s a good thing for you that on Atheism there’s literally nothing wrong with merely asserting, nor appealing to fantasy, nor logical fallacies, nor incoherence, not “slavery.”

“i’m sure”: fantasy.

“every one…will come to the same conclusion”: ad populum based on fantasy.

“only in your mind”: genetic fallacy.

“This ‘issue’ exist only in your mind”: incoherence since just because someone was the first to think of something doesn’t make it illegitimate. And yet, the issue I raised is a commonly raised one even if in other words.

I realize that you attempted to run away from a literal incapability to deal with THE key issue by merely waving your hand but your hand waving is impotent.

@skindred1888

sorry what ? Depends on what you mean by wrong…I take it your understanding of wrong is that it somehow goes against a god ?

Which is ridiculous.

Would you like to be enslaved ?

@instantsiv

It amazes me the lengths atheists will go to defend the indefensible because evolution says so.

Is it a fact that the racist creator of evolution, who wrote that he hoped for the extermination of the savage races, had a cousin who created eugenics?

@skindred1888

…You’re starting off your question with the notion that atheists somehow don’t have any base to say that something is right or wrong…for whatever reason.

It’s classic Christian cult talk that think anyone that doesn’t follow their gods laws…must be evil.

It’s kinda pathetic

@instantsiv

Which comment were you responding to?

@kenammi355 replying to @skindred1888

You hit your own nail on your own head: you realize that on your worldview it’s all subjective so you can’t claim that “slavery” is wrong in and of itself so you ask me about my subjectivism, “Would you like to be enslaved ?” You don’t seem to understand that our emotively subjective personal preferences don’t say a single word about whether an action is or isn’t right or wrong but only tells us about how we feel.

You might as well tell me which ice-cream flavor you like and ask me which one I like: it wouldn’t tell us anything about ice-cream, it would only tell us which one we prefer du jour.

@nakkadu backing up to reply to my comment about accidentally existing apes

this is addressed time and time again….what is wrong with slavery in your world view?

@kenammi355

The question is to “Matt, and his Atheist comrades…what, on your worldview, is wrong with some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes?”

@sonyadonnegan1983

I’m not one of his comrades. I’m just pointing out that MDD has turned into a dumpster fire channel now which is why they are milking MD clips.

@kenammi355

I’d go with you on that. Yet, it’s still a verifiable fact (verifiable time and time and time (and time [and time]) again (and again (and again [and again]) that Atheists are literally incapable of answering the key question and thus, discredit their impotent complaints.

@Big-Papa-Smurf

This is a commonly addressed philosophical question. The difference is secularists are willing to engage with it honestly. In the absence of a universal moral framework, morality becomes subjective and varies from person to person or society to society. The overwhelming consensus in contemporary ethical and moral discourse is that slavery is objectively wrong and morally indefensible. Therefore, it is illogical to argue that a deity, having created humanity with complete foreknowledge of all future events, would provide justification for the institution of slavery. Boom. Simple.

@kenammi355

Ergo, your answer to “Matt, and his Atheist comrades…what, on your worldview, is wrong with some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes?” is, “The overwhelming consensus in contemporary ethical and moral discourse is that slavery is objectively wrong and morally indefensible.”

Thus, it’s a case of “Thus saith contemporary ethical and moral discourse.” And that, of course, being premised upon the unjustified hidden assumption that we ought to comport ourselves as per contemporary discourse amongst some accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative to comport ourselves as per contemporary discourse amongst some accidentally existing apes.

Then there’s the admission that it’s all subjective–which is asserted as an objective fact.

And, it’s an argumentum ad populum: what, on Matt, and his Atheist comrades’ worldview, is wrong with accidentally existing apes committing logical fallacies within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against accidentally existing apes committing logical fallacies.

So, in a decade or century you might find yourself saying it’s a-okay since

“The overwhelming consensus in contemporary ethical and moral discourse” is that it’s a-okay.

But now, since that’s per the zeitgeist whereby “contemporary…discourse” thus saith, that means the Atheist has disqualified themselves from condemning “slaver” (whatever that means) in the Bible since, after all, “The overwhelming consensus in” ancient “ethical and moral discourse is that slavery is objectively” a-okay “and morally” defensible.

@nakkadu

I’ve already responded to this. Atheists have many perfectly logical answers to this question. What is wrong with slavery in your world view?….I’ve not heard a good answer.

@Big-Papa-Smurf

If all of humanity is agreement that slavery is moral and just then they are probably existing in a social dynamic that is completely different from ours. It wouldn’t make any sense for me to assume it is unjust knowing more information. While it’s true that moral standards can evolve and vary across cultures and time periods, it doesn’t necessarily follow that all moral claims are equally valid or that there’s no basis for ethical judgment.

The assertion that contemporary ethical discourse is subjective doesn’t negate the possibility of objective moral truths or principles that transcend cultural or historical contexts. Moreover, the acknowledgment of subjectivity in morality doesn’t render all moral claims equal. It simply recognizes that our understanding of morality is influenced by various factors, including cultural, social, and individual perspectives. The fact that moral views can change over time doesn’t necessarily invalidate them but rather reflects an ongoing process of moral reflection and improvement.

In the case of condemning slavery, one can argue that certain fundamental principles, such as respect for individual rights and dignity, serve as a basis for moral judgment. While specific moral judgments may evolve, the underlying principles can provide a consistent framework for evaluating moral claims.

In summary, acknowledging the subjectivity of contemporary ethical discourse doesn’t necessarily undermine the possibility of objective moral truths or principles, but it does not assert that there are either. It’s essential to distinguish between the evolving nature of moral views and the potential for a foundation of moral principles that transcends subjective perspectives.

@valroniclehre193

Because I care about them. Don’t you? You might not like it, but that’s all we have. The flaws you will no doubt point out with that position, is in fact the world we obviously live in. Lets make it better, simply for the sake of making it better. If your god steps in and helps, great, if not, or if he says to do otherwise, then your imaginary friend should not be followed.

@kenammi355

Friend, when you appeal to subjectivism you prove my point. What’s wrong with it well, “I care about them” so that’s your emotively subjective personal preference du jour much like you may care for one ice cream flavor over another one.

See, you then ask, “Don’t you?” and if I were to reply, “No” then that’s the end of it: one accidentally existing ape says they care and another one says they don’t, “You might not like it, but that’s all we have” since on your worldview both of those accidentally existing apes would just be emotively subjectively interpreting the accidental byproducts of an accidental mixture of accidentally existing chemicals in their accidental brains which, BTW, are acting as per the accidentally predetermined accidental laws of nature.

Thus, on your worldview, “the world we obviously live in” is accidental and there’s no universal imperative to do or not do anything which is why you are forced to appeal to your emotively subjective personal preferences–which are impotent.

You recommend, “Lets make it better” but there’s no way to judge better or worse, on your worldview: maybe better is ridding ourselves of those who are not fit enough to prevent themselves from being enslaved.

As for, “your imaginary friend should not be followed” it’s fascinating that when it came to expressing your childish hatred of God, you instantly went from full blown emotively subjective to dogmatically absolutist, “…SHOULD NOT BE…”

@kenammi355 to @nakkadu

Wow, of all the games people play in desperation to run away from that key issue. Ok, if that’s the way you want to play it then: there are many perfectly logical answers to your question.

@valroniclehre193

“Friend, when you appeal to subjectivism you prove my point.” No I don’t. You don’t have point here beyond an unsupported claim.

Not intentional or objective enough for you?

Suffering is subjective. It seems motivating enough. Accidental ape or not pain still hurts. And I still care.

Being accidental physical apes, in no way cheapens any part of that. Being created with a soul wouldn’t make it any more valuable either.

We are who we are, whatever the form. Could be video game characters and still have the same value if we still laughed and loved.

Riddle me this, and please don’t evade the question.

What if god gave you a direct command as the arbiter of righteousness to do something, but to perform this command would land you in hell, and to disobey would get you into heaven, and no other people would be affected, what would you do?

Let me be clear. The hypothetical is about you, not your god.

“He wouldn’t…” No. Stop that evasion, and any other that bubbles to the top of your mind. I don’t care. Fully and truly your religious phantasms don’t matter to me, but you do. I’m asking about you.

So would you follow his order and go to hell? Or disobey and go to heaven?

You seem semantically clever… I’m sure you see where I’m going with this.

@kenammi355

Well, typical of Atheists you appear to either not be aware of your worldview’s implications and/or ignore them just so you can keep arguing and so you don’t like to apply your worldview’s implications to your worldview: you made a bed, I’m just asking if you’ll sleep in it, you flatly refuse. I mean look at how desperate you are to move the goalpost round and round and round just to avoid the key issue which I noted Atheist avoid.

So, let’s try this in order to make you face your worldview’s implications:

You emotively subjectively complain, “You don’t have point here beyond an unsupported claim” but you began with a conclusion since on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to support claims.

You emotively subjectively complain about, “hurts” but you began with a conclusion since on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to not cause pain.

And, BTW, on your worldview hurt is merely an accidentally existing bio-organism’s emotively subjective interpretation of the accidental byproducts of accidental neural-chemistry all of which function as per accidental laws of thermodynamics.

You keep missing the point since it’s not about, “Suffering is subjective. It seems motivating enough…Being accidental physical apes, in no way cheapens…” but on your worldview there zero reason to be concerned about such clumps of cells. Thus, you have to beg, borrow, and steal from mine in order to even complain about it. Again, you’re not consistent, you’re just expressing feelings (more interpretations), and it’s a good thing for you that on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to be consistent, not move the goalpost, etc.

I’m disinterested in your category violating incoherent fantasy scenarios—and keep in mind that on your worldview there’s no universal imperative for me to engage your category violating incoherent fantasy scenarios: I know that you utterly hate your worldview’s implications but then a best practice would be to give up your worldview, not to pounce on me for merely making you face your worldview’s implications.

Your ultimate answer to the key question is, “No” and that but you have somehow developed an emotively subjective personal preference for your emotively subjective interpretations of the byproducts of bio-chemical reactions and so, all of humanity ought to do what you say because well, thus saith valroniclehre.

@valroniclehre193

You’re just repeating the same mistake and projecting it onto me.

You seem to require something authoritative and outside the domain of human experience to act as a foundation of all things. I don’t need anything like that in order to determine morals, or act on them.

Nor do either of us have access to it.

The truth is, you (rather a clever and biased philosopher) made up a hole that nobody can see, and filled it with your imaginary god. It’s the same trick as “How do you know anything to be true?”. This breed of argument assumes much and solves little.

I’m not missing the point. The point is you are making an assumption of what morality needs, to justify an assumption about theology. You’re “under your worldview…” followed by an inaccurate, dismissive, reductionist, strawman of something I don’t believe isn’t particularly motivating.

You associate randomness with a lack of value for no reason I can see. You associate chemical with a lack of accuracy witch seems unjustified, and you associate moral imperatives with some kind of objectively determined objective, which your god couldn’t provide even if it was real. Not that I see authority as a moral imperative anyway.

Your misunderstanding of my position is willful and nearly perfect.

@kenammi355

You’re just repeating the same mistake and projecting it onto me. Once again, you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.

I understand that your ultimate is that you have an emotively subjective personal preference whereby you decided that you don’t like “slavery.”

That’s not something you got from your worldview: you actually begged, borrowed, and stole it from mine.

You can’t say that there’s anything wrong with “slavery” but can only tell us about how you feel about it (meaning, how the simulacrum you call “you” emotively subjectively interprets byproducts of chemical reactions that are predetermined) but that’s NOT the issue: that’s just a “My dear diary, today I feel…” level assertion.

In other words, you declare your feelings about “slavery” based on randomness and then tell me that you feel as if randomness results in value for no reason I can see.

I’m afraid you misunderstood since you ignored my question about universal imperatives: I don’t in the least bit “associate chemical with a lack of accuracy” but am pointing out that, on your worldview, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to the accidental byproducts of accidental mixtures chemicals and their accidental reactions.

Unlike you, I’m not a failed mind reader so I can’t say, “Your misunderstanding of my position is willful” but it may be nearly perfect and is a misunderstanding. You made a bed but you don’t seem to want to sleep in it and I just keep seeing if you will do so.

@valroniclehre193

I’m not evading. You disagree with my moral axiom and I disagree with yours.

My axiom is based on the experience of people and yours seems based on your understanding of a gods will.

Either way, we are stuck with our own inferences. You presume to rise above this but you can’t. Even if your religion was true, you couldn’t.

You never answered my hypothetical. What would you do if god ordered you to do something, that would put you in hell forever, where disobeying would land you in heaven?

@kenammi355

Of course you’re evading and moved the goalpost, in fact (not that there’s anything wrong with logical fallacies on your worldview and according to which facts are accidental) since the issue is about how accidental apes enslaving is wrong ON YOUR WORLDVIEW and not according to your emotively subjective personal preference du jour. The only answer you can give is: on my worldview, there’s literally nothing wrong with it but my interpretation of chemical byproducts on the level of telling me which ice-cream flavor is the best.

Now, you appear to have a problem elucidating complete thoughts since you juxtapose our views and have an emotively subjective preference for yours but don’t get around to saying what, on your worldview, is wrong with mine.

Your “axiom is based on the experience of people.”

My “axiom is based on the experience of people” and, “understanding of a gods will.”

The issue with your inference (implication, actually) is that yours is based on that all of humanity ought to adhere to thus saith valroniclehre because you feel like it.

Why should anyone adhere to an accidentally existing ape’s subjective interpretations of accidental byproducts of accidental chemical reactions that are predetermined by accidental laws of thermodynamics?

And, BTW, I did answer.

@trumpbellend6717

You know although you clearly struggle with this whole “logic thing” there can be no disputing your linguistic abilities. Seldom have I encountered someone fluent in SO many dialects of GIBBERISH 🤣😅

@kenammi355

Replacing reasoned discourse with childish taunting: an Atheist 101 tactic I’ve see 1,001 times.

@josephmother2659

”you can’t say there’s anything wrong with slavery” if you think he can’t say it, then I will. Owning other humans as property is wrong by nearly every moral framework (of which there are many), one of the exceptions being the Christian worldview. Morality is subjective to every person that has ever existed; if you want to claim god is the arbiter of morality, you must first demonstrate that he exists which has not been done by any Christian or atheist or Muslim or Jew or anybody.

@kenammi355

Please, please tell me you’re not an Atheist but are just trolling to make them look bad—please.

I suppose I’ll note what I would say to a real Atheist: you’re like 100% of Atheists in this comments section (and all of the one wherein I pose the same questions): you’re just playing a game of distract, distract, distract in order to avowing the issue.

Now, you appear to be unfamiliar with context and categories since this was not about me denying that an Atheist is incapable of pounding keys so as to write words to the effect of that “slavery” is wrong: I mean, please, is that the level at which you’re functioning?

The point was well, actually, you elucidated perfectly since first you claim that you will say there’s something wrong with “slavery,” you then merely assert based on your own self-appointed (pseudo and impotent) authority that, “Owning other humans as property is wrong” (which, BTW, means that you’re only referring to one definition of “slavery”) but then you utterly collapse your very own assertion by admitting that on your worldview, “Morality is subjective.”

And you’re not the only Atheist to have done that. I mean, I couldn’t make this up. If “Morality is subjective” then there’s nothing wrong with “slavery” by definition.

Also, don’t miss this key point: even if you merely emotively subjectively proclaim, “Owning other humans as property is wrong” you’re not telling us that “slavery” is ontologically wrong but are just telling us how you feel about it based on your personal preferences du jour since, “Morality is subjective.”

You might as well demand that your favored flavor of ice-cream flavor is the only good one or tell us, “My dear diary, today I feel…”

As for, “you must first demonstrate that he exists” actually, the “first” is your step to take: the very first step is for you to justify demanding demonstrations, on your worldview. If you can’t do that then it’s a non-issue and you can’t viably complain about it.

@trumpbellend6717

MORALITY” and “right and wrong” are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless.

My “goal” is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reprocity. That is why one “ought” to treat another’s as you would like to be treated, One “ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One “OUGHT” not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our “reference point” or standard.

One “should” or “ought” do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one’s values. These “values” themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions ‘Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values’.

Values are socially approved desires and goals that are internalised through the process of conditioning, learning or socialisation and that become subjective preferences, standards and aspirations a shared idea about how something is ranked in terms of desirability, worth or goodness

Why ‘OUGHT’ one do what your subjective God desires ?? 🙄🤔

@trumpbellend6717

A simple question for you dear…… do YOU regard slavery as immoral and why ??

@kenammi355

I will obviously no longer reply to the thread wherein you collapsed with a mere assertion of “GIBBERISH” peppered with you being childish.

I know you’re desperate to leave your collapsed worldview in the rubbish-bin of ideas and go on the attack but you still don’t seem to grasp the position into which you’ve put yourself by relying on that failed worldview.

“words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome…”: mere assertion.

“said goal”: the only goal your worldview can assert is pure subjectivism which robs you of the ability to condemn anyone of or for anything.

“My ‘goal’ is…”: and there you have it. I never asked about your emotively subjective personal preference du jour, I asked about your worldview and so you keep having to dance around since there’s no such concept on your worldview as that anything at all is actually, ontologically, right and wrong—by any other name.

“a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires”: refers to what those accidentally existing apes who you selectively subjectively take into consideration are asserting.

Thus, that’s just one reason why you can’t just jump from an argumentum ad populum to an ought: there are no oughts on your worldview–nor on your emotively subjective personal preferences du jour.

“if you wish”: indeed, and that’s a big IF. Ergo, if some don’t wish to then you’re on the outs since their emotively subjective personal preference is on the exact same level as theirs and now well, I suppose it’s a matter on may the fittest win.

So, you merely piled up even more assertion than you have been all along and conclude that thus saith trumpbellend, and those who you select to appeal to, “is our ‘reference point’ or standard” which is incoherent and impotent.

“if Its conducive…with one’s values”: again, you keep hitting your own nail on the head, it’s all purely subjective, “if” and “one’s.” But of course, you know this since you just come out in the open with, “These ‘values’ themselves are subjective by definition” and then you punt to that you and yours can simply declare that your say so goes. Well, sure, anyone can make any claim: what of it?

“subjective preferences”: indeed. But you seem to not want to close that loop where it logically leads you which is that you have literally debunked yourself, you’ve disqualified yourself from condemning “slavery” or God or the Bible me if I do nothing but flounder, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

I’m unaware of possessing a, “subjective God” but the creator sets the rules.

As for, “do YOU regard slavery as immoral and why ??” well, I’m not like the Atheists who are fire and brimstone preachers who instantly launch into a discussion, a condemnatory one at that so I’d have to know to what you’re referring by “slavery” and well, I’m unsure how that matters actually since you as about if it’s “immoral” after asserting that it’s all 100% subjective and also, you can’t condemn me if I say it is or it’s not or am illogical, etc., etc., etc., etc.

@kenammi355 to @Big-Papa-Smurf

Friend, you’re just telling me more stories, just piling up more assertions atop assertions and you, on your worldview, will never be able to do otherwise since you’re just begging, borrowing, and stealing from my worldview because:

On your worldview there’s no universal imperative to adhere to that which “all of humanity” approves of or disapproves of.

On your worldview there’s no universal imperative to adhere to that which makes sense or doesn’t.

On your worldview there’s no universal imperative to adhere to (“the possibility of”) “objective moral truths or principles.”

On your worldview there’s no universal imperative to adhere to “fundamental principles” or “respect for individual rights and dignity” or “to distinguish between the evolving nature of moral views” nor your incoherent jump from subjectivism to objectivism since there’s on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to adhere to logic.

@kenammi355 to @gregory06

That’s irrelevant to the key question away from which Atheists are running as fast as possible: Matt, and his Atheist comrades, consistently fail to tackle the key issue: what, on your worldview, is wrong with some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against some accidentally existing apes having enslaved other accidentally existing apes?

@marouanpater2334

Ask the enslaved existing apes

@kenammi355

Exactly: you’re literally incapable of replying–just like 100% of Atheists.

@EMDS04

no you’re just very incoherent and your point makes no sense

@sincereflowers3218

I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my godless worldview, I personally would not like to be enslaved. It may even ruin my day. As such, it stands to reason that no one else would want to be enslaved by me. Having to explain this to what I assume is a grown adult is upsetting to me. You don’t need God to feel as if you have been wronged. You don’t need God to know when you’ve done wrong. If you do… I mean I am not casting aspersions, but that’s a serious personal issue.

@gabriellps2 to @sincereflowers3218

ok, thats your worldview, but is subjective to you, that doest mean thats right. If a guy wants to slave the entire world thats his worldview and theres absolute nothing in a subjective moral worldview that would justify that being wrong

@sincereflowers3218

Okay? That still doesn’t mean that Religion is an objective measure of morality. God doesn’t exist. People for no reason at all besides being weak get raped to death or robbed and shot and the Religious person closes their eyes and prays as if it has ever once helped. Blaming Satan is also a common tactic. Religion is childish and destructive.

@gabriellps2

yeah, i can tell people are evil cause i have a god that tells me that i need to love and forgive every other human, u dont have that, so those are not evil acts on your worldview, are just people doing their subjective meaning to their lives

@sincereflowers3218

but your God doesn’t do anything. Evil is constantly winning in this world. You as a believer lay that at the feet of some abstract primordial evil or man’s sins, but your God is timeless, omnipotent, and omnipresent. God is also a narcissist on a galactic level, proclaiming himself the greatest among all beings by virtue of power alone. So if he is all these wondrous things, he is also complicit in evil, because it is within his power not only to stop it, but reveal it. He does not. Children are kidnapped and raped in this world by the people who run country’s. God knew that would happen. He created and nursed evil, gave it a convenient face and name, and left man to its whims while he does nothing.

Now. All of that is granting you that there is a God at all, which is a silly thing to believe. I understand though, that the fact that you are essentially born without inherent value or purpose and are ascribed this by the circumstances of your environment may make you a little sad. It’s a cold and purposeless universe we inhabit, but men are more powerful than God’s. We observe and assign value, we create God’s to believe in and thus limit our consciousness.

Religion is a rock around man’s neck. One of many.

@gabriellps2

you wrote a huge text and didn’t adress the main thing that i asked you and double down and this nonsense. if you say that life has no purpose at all, how come those things like baby rape are wrong? where do u get this idea that doing something in a purposeless life is wrong?

@kenammi355 to @EMDS04

Then let’s simplify: on Atheism there’s nothing wrong with slavery.

@kenammi355 to @sincereflowers3218

Well said since you admitted that, on your worldview, there’s literally nothing wrong with slavery but you emotively subjectively don’t like it: much like you might say you don’t like a certain flavor of ice-cream.

Perhaps, “You don’t need God to feel as if you have been wronged” but you do need one to make the thing in and of itself wrong. See, otherwise you have some people saying, “My emotively subjectively opinion based on interpreting accidental bio-chemistry is that I personally don’t like it” and another group saying, “I just had a great idea: I will enslave people to benefit me and mine!”

And both are just stating likes and dislikes.

Thus, the question becomes: why should all accidentally existing apes adhere to the emotional outbursts of the accidentally existing ape who goes by “sincereflowers”?–but before answering, keep in mind that you admitted there’s nothing ontologically wrong with slavery, on your worldview.

@skindred1888

ahhh you’re just copy and pasting bull[****] I see 😂😂

@kenammi355

Please mind your manners and please take that cheap and used to death Atheism 101 tactic elsewhere: you realize you’re literally incapable of dealing with issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and so you opt for childish taunting–seen it 1,001 times.

@skindred1888

buddy, I’m not the one that believes in magic because I can’t cope with death

@skindred1888

na, because childish taunting against morons that believe in magic is fun sometimes, nothing to do with dealing with issues.

Away and pray to magic man that he’ll give you some understanding.

This is basic religion stuff…I’m right, you’re wrong because my religion says you’re wrong. It’s pathetic.

@kenammi355

You realize you’re literally incapable of dealing with issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and so you opt for childish taunting–seen it 1,002 times now.

So then, you turn to your fantasy imagination based on ignorance and prejudice to move the goalpost to something about me being unable to cope with death. Yet, on your worldview there’s literally nothing wrong with an accidentally existing ape believing in magic because it can’t cope with death: right? I know that during rare moments of clarity you realize that which must be why you merely vaguely implied there’s something wrong with it–according to your emotively subjective personal preference du jour–but didn’t get around to elucidating how or why, on your worldview–since you can’t since it’s not.

I appreciate that you admit you’re not here to discuss the issue–since you’re literally incapable of doing so–which is why you are just monkeying around.

Ironically, you’re arguing “I’m right, you’re wrong because my emotively subjective interpretation of accidental chemical reactions within my accidentally existing ape brain that are predetermined says you’re wrong. It’s pathetic.”

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Scripture Savvy site on 17 Bible Verses About the Nephilim (With Commentary)

The Scripture Savvy site’s article 17 Bible Verses About the Nephilim (With Commentary) was written by a certain Jamie Wilson. Having published some dozen books on Nephilology, I was impressed to find that we’re told there’s 17 verses about them since historically, it has been known that there are 2—although some add more to the mix when they mistakenly count instances of the root word naphal as references to Nephilim.

Jamie Wilson begins with a list of, “Bible Verses About the Nephilim” the first of which is the Gen 6 affair, as I term it. Genesis 6:4 is quoted thusly, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” Fairly enough, it’s noted that they, “existed on the earth during the time when the sons of God intermingled with human women” even though we’re not told when that was, and that they “were mighty men of great reputation and strength.”

The next one is Numbers 13:33 quoted as, “There we saw the Nephilim (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

This time, the elucidation—the With Commentary part—is problematic since it doesn’t interact with the narrative. Wilson notes, “This verse is part of the account of the spies sent by Moses to scout the land of Canaan. They reported that they saw the Nephilim and described them as descendants of Anak. The presence of these giants instilled fear and a sense of insignificance among the Israelite spies.”

I will reproduce that statement along with elucidating facts, “This verse is part of the account of” 10 of, “the spies sent by Moses to scout the land of Canaan” within their evil report, “They reported that they saw the Nephilim and described them as descendants of Anak” but it’s actually the opposite, “the descendants of “the man named, “Anak” so, the Anakim, “come from the Nephilim” which is literally impossible and reference to Anakim is missing from the LXX version of that verse. “The” merely asserted, “presence of these giants” for some reason Wilson jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word, “Nephilim” to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” which, “instilled fear and a sense of insignificance among the” 10 unreliable, “Israelite spies” who made up a fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale and were rebuked by God.

There’s literally zero reason to believe them and many reasons to disbelieve them. For example, any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc. See, fallacious Nephilology negatively effects theology proper.

Also, post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood and Wilson will have to do that.

This describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).

I’ve written whole books debunking them such as, Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.

Also, Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.

Some key questions are:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s Wilsons’ usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

We then get a taste of how it is that Wilson counted 17 since the next one up is Genesis 6:2 and while it’s related to, “Bible Verses About the Nephilim,” it’s more like a premise for them since it reads, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.”

Indeed, Wilson notes, “This verse provides context for the mention of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4” and notes, “these ‘sons of God’” may be, “fallen angels or supernatural beings” although that seems like a false dichotomy since fallen Angels could be categorized as supernatural beings (as a systematic biblical paranormologist I would opt for paranormal rather than supernatural).

It’s likewise with Wilson’s inclusion of Genesis 6:5 since it reads, “Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Thus, we could consider this to record a byproduct.

The next text is Deuteronomy 2:10-11, “The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. They were also regarded as giants, like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim.”

Now, Wilson’s elucidation is, “This passage describes the Emim, another group of people who were considered giants like the Anakim. Although they are not explicitly referred to as Nephilim, their stature and reputation align with the general understanding of Nephilim as giants.”

Note that we’re told, “Emim, another group of people who were considered giants like the Anakim” but Wilson inserted whatever giants means into the text, a text that references that, on average, they were tall (with tall being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants)—and that is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days—plus, we’re told they are, “another” without indication of another besides whom since we the only relevant thing Wilson has done thus far is merely to swap the word Nephilim with the word giants without any indication as to what that was done.

But, it is noted, “Although they are not explicitly referred to as Nephilim, their stature and reputation align with the general understanding of Nephilim as giants.” This only makes matters worse since the only indication of, “their stature” is strictly exclusively from one single sentence from an evil report by the 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Thus, we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim.

Also, Wilson is concluding whatever is meant by giants based on whatever is meant by tall thus, we’re dealing in generic vagaries. And also, mere appealing to some unknown level of subjectively unusual height to correlate it to another unknown level of subjectively unusual height so as to claim a, “general understanding” (by whom?) of relation is a non-sequitur: for example, I’m only related to other people who are my height because we’re all descendants of Adam and Eve but nothing besides that.

Having made that unsupportable move—along with not commenting on how there could possibly ever be post-flood Nephilim (and/or Nephilim relatives)—Wilson then fills in the rest of the 17 Nephilim verses with non-Nephilim.

“Joshua 11:21-22…Anakim” but by now, by merely appealing exclusively to one single (non-LXX) utterly unreliable sentence, Wilson reiterates the assertion, “Anakim were descendants of the Nephilim

“Joshua 15:13-14…sons of Anak” along with the comment, “Anakim were descendants of the Nephilim…facing the giants.”

“Judges 1:20…sons of Anak”

“2 Samuel 21:16-22 ‘Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels, who was bearing a new sword, thought he could kill David. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah came to his aid, and struck the Philistine and killed him.’

The comment is, “a confrontation between David and Ishbi-Benob, one of the sons of the giant. Ishbi-Benob, with his impressive size and weaponry, posed a threat to David, but David’s loyal companion, Abishai, intervened and defeated the Philistine. This account showcases the ongoing presence of descendants of the Nephilim and the heroic actions of God’s chosen servants.”

Note that biblically contextually, “one of the sons of the giant” reads as, “one of the sons of the Repha,” not Nephil. Wilson then merely invents a concept of Ishbi-Benob’s, “impressive size” since no such description of him exists: Wilson is simply misreading the single word giant. Thus, this was not about, “descendants of the Nephilim” nor even about, subjectively, “impressive size.”

A subsection is titled, “Bible Verses About the Nephilim” and begins with a another text that has nothing to do with Nephilim.

“Amos 2:9 ‘Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was as strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath.’”

Wilson can clearly see that it’s not about Nephilim and so admits, “This verse references the Amorites” and comments, “Though not explicitly identified as Nephilim,” because they weren’t, “their towering height and might draw parallels to the Nephilim” which is another pile of asserted fallacies. That includes that Amos telling us that they were big and strong must have something to do with Nephilim but that’s a stretch (pun intended).

For some reason, Wilson then takes us back to Num with a few added verses, “Numbers 13:28-33 ‘Nevertheless, the people who dwell in the land are strong; the cities are fortified and very large; moreover, we saw the descendants of Anak there… We were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.’”

The comment is, “In this passage, the spies sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan report the presence of the descendants of Anak, who were considered to be Nephilim. The spies describe them as powerful and intimidating, causing the Israelites to feel small and vulnerable in comparison. It emphasizes the fearsome reputation and physical stature of the Nephilim.”

What Wilson has done here is, without telling us, to mash together the two reports recorded in Num 13: the original one that is accepted as is and the evil one that’s a tall-tale.

Note that the original/as is report refers to, “strong,” not giant and even the 10 unreliable guys initially refer to that the peoples are, “stronger” but since that didn’t do the fear-mongering scare-tactic trick, they took it up a notch by merely asserting, “We were like grasshoppers…”: they literally merely embellished the original report (as well as contradicting it).

Thus, here’s the accurate way to relate this, “In this passage, the spies sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan report the presence of the descendants of Anak, who were” merely asserted by the 10 unreliable guys to be, “considered to be Nephilim. The” 10 unreliable, “spies” whom God rebuked, “describe them as powerful and intimidating, causing the Israelites to feel small and vulnerable in comparison. It emphasizes the fearsome reputation and physical stature of the Nephilim” that was either the stuff of myth and legend already or was literally invented on the spot by those guys.

“Deuteronomy 3:11…Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants. Indeed his bedstead was an iron bedstead. (Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits is its length and four cubits its width, according to the standard cubit.”

In this case, Wilson reiterates, “Og, the king of Bashan, who was known as one of the last remaining giants or Nephilim” but doesn’t seem to be aware that what was stated is, “remnant of the Rephaim” and, of course, nothing to do with Nephilim. As for that with which Wilson follows, “the massive size of his bed, providing further evidence of his extraordinary stature” is a non sequitur based on assumptions about a man whose height we don’t know and followed by that this jump to a conclusion, “serves to highlight the exceptional dimensions of the Nephilim and their existence at that time” which is a non-issue since we don’t have a reliable physical description of Nephilim and so that entire assertion is just that—coupled with still not being told how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.

Assuming that Og’s, “bed” correlates to his height and that his height has something to do with Nephilim is actually based on various assumptions about which you can see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

“Deuteronomy 9:1-2 ‘Hear, O Israel: You are to cross over the Jordan today, and go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than yourself, cities great and fortified up to heaven, a people great and tall, the descendants of the Anakim, whom you know, and of whom you heard it said, ‘Who can stand before the descendants of Anak?’’”

Wilson’s comment is, “Moses addresses the Israelites, reminding them of the formidable nations they would encounter upon entering the Promised Land. He specifically mentions the descendants of Anak, emphasizing their imposing stature and the reputation of invincibility associated with them. The mention of the Anakim contributes to the portrayal of the Nephilim as a people of great strength and power.”

It appears that Wilson missed a huge point here: the 10 unreliable guys who presented an evil report, were rebuked by God, and upon whom Wilson relies fully merely asserted that Nephilim (who as per their tall-tale would have been the most awe inspiring beings on the planet at the time) were in the land.

Yet, when Moses relates that event, he utterly disregards them, he completely ignores them, he (as well as Caleb, Joshua, God, et al.: the rest of the relevant texts) all affirm that Anakim were in the land but never say a single word about Nephilim. It appears that Moses was being too practical, he’s not concerned about some tall-tale but only about the real challenges on the ground.

As for, “imposing stature” well, that’s Wilsons’ way to refer to being vaguely generically and subjectively, “tall.”

“1 Samuel 17:4-7…Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail, and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. And he had bronze armor on his legs and a bronze javelin between his shoulders. Now the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his iron spearhead weighed six hundred shekels; and a shield-bearer went before him.”

Wilson notes, “Goliath…noted for his immense size and powerful weaponry. Goliath’s physical attributes align with the characteristics associated with the Nephilim, further illustrating their significance in biblical narratives.” Do you see how for post-flood-giant Nephilologists the one single sentence in Num 13:33 becomes a worldview-philosophy and hermeneutic? Anything to do with subjectively unusual height is automatically merely asserted to be Nephilim related even when there’s zero reliable indication that anyone post-flood are them or are related to them.

Wilson also fails to note that the Masoretic text has him at 6 cubits and a spam/just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft.

Also, as noted, he had a guy assisting with the equipment. Regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from an 7.5 ft. Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23). Also, you can search for strongman or weightlifting competition vids and see guys who are around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.

There’s a subsection titled, “What does the Bible say about the Nephilim?” which is about, “various interpretations and debates among scholars and theologians” including, “that they were fallen angels or supernatural beings who cohabited with human women, producing offspring that were giants” but Wilson still hasn’t told us what the usage of that term is: but clearly something subjectively vaguely generic about height.

Thus, the answers to the key questions are:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

It merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in 2 verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

What’s Wilsons’ usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Something about subjectively unusual height.

Do those two usages agree?

No.

And so, out of a supposed 17 verses we got 2 about Nephilim (one reliable and one not), 2 that don’t mention them but pertain to them, and 13 that has utterly nothing to do with them.

See my various books here.

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

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.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Is the Only Post-Flood Nephilim Verse Right or Wrong About the Land?

FYI: I just published the paper Is the Only Post-Flood Nephilim Verse Right or Wrong About the Land? as a draft paper at the Academia site.

Here’s a snippet:

Num chap 13 has 12 men being sent into the land of Canaan to reconnoiter it. Upon their return, a report is presented that is accepted as is. A division occurs when Caleb, one of the 12, encourages the people while the 10 discourage them (and with Joshua siding with Caleb, as is seen in chap 14).
Since the discouragement was not enough, we are then told that the 10 presented an evil report and it is therein where they make five assertions that are not supported by even one single over verse in the entire Bible. They also contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible.

See my various books here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Claim: Cain and Lamech “were attacked by men sent by the watchers”

Such was the claim asserted in the comments section of the video Christian Underground Podcast – The Nephilim Looked Like Clowns by the “UnderstandingConspiracy” Youtube channel.

As for the literal clown show which is the assertion that, “Nephilim Looked Like Clowns,” see my article Is Paul Stobbs right? Did Nephilim Look Like Clowns?

A certain @justice8718 commented as follows to the vid

Cain definitely wasn’t ever in the Watcher’s side nor was Lamech.

They were attacked by men sent by the watchers since they remained loyal to God after the banishment and were beginning to see massive blessings in their land that defiled the elitisms of the Seraphim. Turbocain’s entire existence granted mankind a mastership on construction, while God given the Nephilim or even Noah none of Cain’s blessings. Instead, the accursed of Noah’s generation (Ham) perverted everything Cain established under his love of God into a pagan worshipping nightmare, Babel.

God’s people are normally accursed that their love for God and is grown, tested, and strengthened from repeating Cain’s journey.

So even if the daughters of Cain mated with the fallen angels, God would not consider them the daughters of Cain because they chosen these strange Gods over Cain’s god.

I, @kenammi355, replied

But there’s no indication that Cain was ever attacked by anyone and no indication that Lamech was “attacked by men sent by the watchers.” To what are you referring by “elitisms of the Seraphim”?

@justice8718

Dude, they literally attacked Lamech at the end of genesis 4. The fallen angels hate them and have their followers try to slaughter them.

@kenammi355

Okay, so at least you already agree with me that, “But there’s no indication that Cain was ever attacked by anyone.”

So, let’s work on Lamech: you had asserted that Lamech was “attacked by men sent by the watchers” and now you say, “they literally attacked Lamech at the end of genesis 4.”

Let’s try providing quotations and citations rather than assertions, please, since that simply doesn’t exist anywhere in the whole Bible.

God’s Word records Lamech as stating, “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me” (Gen 4:23) without any indication that they were sent by anyone, especially not the Watchers.

Thus, there’s also zero indication, “The fallen angels hate them”—them who, Cain and Lamech?—“and have their followers try to slaughter them.”

You didn’t reply to, “To what are you referring by ‘elitisms of the Seraphim’?”

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming. This stalled discussion was more just an example of how modern Nephilology, and it’s various rabbit holes, has become the stuff of which un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales is made.

See my various books here.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Atheist eruditely elucidates, “Where did God come from?…You’re an idiot”

Such was part of a statement posted by to the video A Christian Response to Atheism by the “Matt Powell OFFICIAL” Youtube channel

A certain @positronichypersonic4928 commented

So, a rock can’t come out of nowhere. That would be magic, which doesn’t exist. Ok. Where did God come from? Nowhere, right? Who made God? No one, right? Hmmm. Sounds like magic. Oh, no, I know, God is God and can defy that logic of needing an origin, a creator. He can exist without an origin, a creator. Says who? Why should I believe them? You’re an idiot.

I, @kenammi355, replied

So, “a rock can’t come out of nowhere” but do you believe that the entire universe came out of nowhere?

“magic” whatever that means, “doesn’t exist” is a merely asserted positive affirmation.

Indeed, when we are dealing with existence without time, space, and matter then it’s cogent that God came from nowhere–which is actually incoherent since it’s a faulty premise since God didn’t come from anywhere to begin with.

As for the last statements, note that your premise is, “logic” but how and why is there some sort of implied universal imperative to adhere to logic, on your worldview?

@positronichypersonic4928

so I’m not really sure I understood what the Hell you were saying but here’s the point. If a rock can’t have come out of nowhere and the universe can’t have come out of nowhere then how can it be that God can have come out of nowhere? It can’t be. And if it can be then why can’t it be that the universe did? Believing that anything including God came out of nowhere and didn’t have a creator is either insane or it isn’t. If it is then it’s just as insane to believe in a God that didn’t have a creator as it is to believe in a universe that didn’t. If it isn’t, then, fine, it isn’t, and we can believe the universe came out of nowhere.

@kenammi355

Well:

“a rock” and “the universe” and “God” are different categories of phenomena so you wanting to mash them all together is fallacious.

Since they are different categories of phenomena then one can do things the others cant: for example, you can make “rock soup” but not “universe soup” nor “God soup.”

Likewise, it’s unknown that a rock can “come out of nowhere” and there are theories about how the universe can “come out of nowhere” and it’s a non issue when it comes to God.

Now, when it comes to the universe what’s unknown (or, also unknown) is how it can come out of nowhere without a cause since what is known is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

But note that you began with merely jumped to conclusion of an assertion since you’re basing your demands about what can and can’t be on logic or else claiming insanity but the very first step is for you to justify adhering to logic, on your worldview.

In other words, on your worldview logic is accidental, as is our ability to adhere to it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor for demanding that others adhere to it.

Therefore, you’re disqualified from rejecting a view because (you subjectively and mistakenly) merely assume it’s illogical.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The Times of Israel on “A Giant Mystery: Nephilim, Rephaim, and Anakim in the Bible”

The Times of Israel article (a blog post, really) A Giant Mystery: Nephilim, Rephaim, and Anakim in the Bible was coauthored by Roger D. Isaacs (“independent researcher specializing in Hebrew Bible studies”) and Adam R. Hemmings (“Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society and graduate of the University of Chicago and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London”).

The article begins by noting, “Scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible are a selection of words that refer to peoples who were interpreted to be giants.” This instantly begs the question: if they are interpreted to be giants (by whom, BTW?) then the key questions are:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s Isaacs’ and Hemmings’ usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

Perhaps we will get replies within the article, perhaps not—we shall see (or not see).

They note, “Three words: nephilim, rephaim, and anakim” have, “roots…buried deep and are almost impossible to dig up” and yet, “they refer to groups rather than giants” which seems like a false dichotomy since they could refer to groups of (whatever) giants (means).

They write, “Nephilim…are described as the offspring of the ‘sons of God’ and human women in Genesis…The root verb from which this word is constructed is n-p-l meaning ‘to fall.’”

They view that as a problem since, “Scholars suggest that this might be because the ancient authors thought these being so large they were liable to fall, or make others fall (TDOT, v. 9, 497).” I’m unsure who the unnamed and unenumerated plural scholars are but I’ve never heard of any such thing—and they don’t inform us to what the citation refers. But note that we had a reference to, “being so large” without indication of why we should think that they were and with, “large” being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as, “giants.”

For whatever reason, they opt to go about, “looking to other languages. In Egyptian there is the word npr.tyw, which means ‘Shore/Bank/Edge Dwellers’” so that, “If,” and that is a big IF, “nephilim is a loanword from or at least in some way related to Egyptian, then…Nephilim may therefore have a relationship to a group of people living on a shore or edge of something”—or something, for whatever it’s worth.

Roger D. Isaacs and Adam R. Hemmings tell us that, “Another group, who some say like the Nephilim also had giant qualities, are the Rephaim” yet, since they haven’t told us that Nephilim possessed any, “giant qualities” (whatever that means) nor who the, “some” are nor that Rephaim possess whatever, “giant qualities” are.

Yet, they go on to refer to Rephaim as, “mythical giants” even though the only relevant biblical statement about them is that they were, “tall” (רוּם rûm) on average (Deut 2)—subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Again, for some unknown reason, they opt to that, “In Egyptian, we find the word r-pꜥt (hereditary prince – a variant of the more full jrj-pꜥt), which might indicate the leader or leaders of the group in question.” Ergo, “Perhaps the Rephaim were considered nobles” well, the noble ones were, such as King Og of Bashan. For details on this, see Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.

Roger D. Isaacs and Adam R. Hemmings then qualify a statement thusly, “As described in Numbers 13, the Israelite spies who scouted the Land of Canaan were terrified of the huge stature of the inhabitants, including the Anakim, although Moses’ lieutenants, Joshua and Caleb, did not report this, perhaps suggesting it was an exaggeration.”

There’s no suggestion and it was more than an exaggeration, it was a straight up fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale. See, when they generically say, “As described in Numbers 13” that fails to elucidate that they’re referring to one single sentence from an, “evil report” by 20 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. The reason why Joshua and Caleb did not report that in their report, which was accepted as is, is what I just noted about the 10.

Since they misstated the sentence, let us add key details, “As described in Numbers 13, the Israelite spies who scouted the Land of Canaan” 10 of them, “were terrified” at the prospect of confronting what the as is report noted which is that there were multiple strong (not, “huge”: with “huge” being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants, large, and tall) people groups inhabiting large and well-fortified cities and about whom that they were all, “of the huge stature” was part of the evil report—also, note that reference to Anakim is missing from the evil report in the LXX version.

Once again, Roger D. Isaacs and Adam R. Hemmings tell us that, “The Egyptian Execration Texts mention Anak as a name of enemies of Egypt in the Levant, which would be extrabiblical evidence for the group. Other hints are also available in Egyptian: ꜣnq (aneq) is a priestly title (Wb 1, 11.8), whilst Ynk (Yenek or Yanqa) is a place in Syria” and no, they also don’t tell us to what this citation refers.

They note, “The words Nephilim, Rephaim, and Anakim above all refer to peoples, tribes, or groups. Some Bible interpreters have seen them as giants, but the words themselves would not support this theory.”

Now, it’s accurate to say that those are, “tribes, or groups” since Anakim were a clan or the Rephaim tribe but and we could call Nephilim a tribe, I suppose, yet, Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

As for, “Some Bible interpreters have seen them as giants” again: we’re not told who are the, “Some” nor to what, “giants” refers nor why they see them that way—whatever way that may be.

And we are left hanging since the article ends with unexplained appeals to Egyptian and is peppered with watered down vaguely generic terminology that is never elucidated.

Thus, I will have to attempt to answer the key questions for them:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

It merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in 2 verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

What’s Isaacs and Hemmings usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Apparently, something about subjectively unusual height.

Do those two usages agree?

No.

See my various books here.

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

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.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The Catholic “New American Bible” on Nephilim giants

The Catholic “New American Bible” has Genesis 1:3, 4 reading thusly:

When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose…At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

The footnotes read:

[1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation – the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.

[2] The sons of heaven: literally “the sons of the gods” or “the sons of God,” i.e., the celestial beings of mythology.

[4] As well as later: According to ⇒ Numbers 13:33, when the Israelites invaded Palestine and found there the tall aboriginal Anakim, they likened them to the Nephilim; cf ⇒ Deut 2:10-11. Perhaps the huge megalithic structures in Palestine were thought to have been built by a race of giants, whose superhuman strength was attributed to semi-divine origin. The heroes of old: the legendary worthies of ancient mythology.

So, according to this official Catholic Bible, “The sacred author incorporates,” “an old legend…from ancient mythology.”

This is said, merely asserted actually, to have been done so as to, “account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim…”

Well, the, “giants of Palestine” were not Nephilim.

The key questions are:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s the note writer’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

The claim that, “the Israelites called the Nephilim” those, “giants of Palestine” is based on one single sentence from an, “evil report” not by, “the Israelites” as a whole but by merely ten unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

As for, “sons of heaven…sons of the gods…sons of God” being, “beings of mythology” well, Job 38:7 has them being non-human beings but then we need to know if by, “mythology” the endnotes are employing the academic meaning or the common parlance meaning.

As for, “As well as later” by directing us to post-flood days, that’s a tragic misreading of a text which does not even imply any such thing.

Gen 6:4 states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

The question becomes: when were those days?

Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”

The next question becomes: when was afterward?

Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”

Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.

Yet, we are told, “According to ⇒ Numbers 13:33” rather than, “according to one sentence in an, ‘evil report’ by ten unreliable guys’ whom God rebuked so no one should believe them.

As for, “found there the tall aboriginal Anakim” et al., actually, which the endnotes don’t note.

The ten actually merely asserted that Anakim are (in some unknown and un-biblical way) related to Nephilim which is impossible since Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form: and that’s only in non-LXX versions.

As for, Deut 2:10-11: that’s all about Rephaim, not about Nephilim: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

Sure, “Perhaps the huge megalithic structures in Palestine were thought to have been built by a race of,” whatever, “giants” means, “whose superhuman strength was attributed to semi-divine origin” but there’s not even a hint of any such thought in the entire Bible.

Now, the, “Revised New American Bible” has the key text as:

When human beings began to grow numerous on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw how beautiful the daughters of human beings were, and so they took for their wives whomever they pleased….The Nephilim appeared on earth in those days, as well as later, after the sons of God had intercourse with the daughters of human beings, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

See, what I mean? Even going from, “(as well as later)” to more normative, “those days, as well as later” that’s still pre-flood, of course.

The notes are:

[6:1–4] These enigmatic verses are a transition between the expansion of the human race illustrated in the genealogy of chap. 5 and the flood depicted in chaps. 6–9. The text, apparently alluding to an old legend, shares a common ancient view that the heavenly world was populated by a multitude of beings, some of whom were wicked and rebellious.

It is incorporated here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation—the constantly increasing wickedness of humanity.

This increasing wickedness leads God to reduce the human life span imposed on the first couple. As the ages in the preceding genealogy show, life spans had been exceptionally long in the early period, but God further reduces them to something near the ordinary life span.

[6:2] The sons of God: other heavenly beings. See note on 1:26.

[1:26] Let us make: in the ancient Near East, and sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth (1 Kgs 22:19–22; Is 6:8; Ps 29:1–2; 82; 89:6–7; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). This scene accounts for the plural form here and in Gn 11:7 (“Let us go down…”). Israel’s God was always considered “Most High” over the heavenly beings. Human beings: Hebrew ’ādām is here the generic term for humankind; in the first five chapters of Genesis it is the proper name Adam only at 4:25 and 5:1–5. In our image, after our likeness: “image” and “likeness” (virtually synonyms) express the worth of human beings who have value in themselves (human blood may not be shed in 9:6 because of this image of God) and in their task, dominion (1:28), which promotes the rule of God over the universe.

[6:4] As well as later: the belief was common that human beings of gigantic stature once lived on earth. In some cultures, such heroes could make positive contributions, but the Bible generally regards them in a negative light (cf. Nm 13:33; Ez 32:27). The point here is that even these heroes, filled with vitality from their semi-divine origin, come under God’s decree in v. 3.

Much the same assertions. Note that the (il)logic is that such is the premise for the flood but Nephilim (by any name) get past the flood, past God. Yet, I suppose it matters not since as per the notes, this is all just made-up stuff anyhow.

As for, “The sons of God: other heavenly beings,” the “note on 1:26” read:

This scene accounts for the plural form here and in Gn 11:7 (“Let us go down…”). Israel’s God was always considered “Most High” over the heavenly beings. Human beings: Hebrew ’ādām is here the generic term for humankind; in the first five chapters of Genesis it is the proper name Adam only at 4:25 and 5:1–5.

In our image, after our likeness: “image” and “likeness” (virtually synonyms) express the worth of human beings who have value in themselves (human blood may not be shed in 9:6 because of this image of God) and in their task, dominion (1:28), which promotes the rule of God over the universe.

I would have actually appealed to Psalm 8:5 which is about that God created us, “a little lower than the angels.”

Well, we finally got an answer to key question 2, “What’s the note writer’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’?” sine reference is made to, “gigantic stature” (with “gigantic” still being vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage) yet, Gen 6 doesn’t provide us a physical description of them and the only other biblical reference to Nephilim is the, “evil report” which has them as being very, very tall so that’s unreliable.

The answer to key question 3 is, “No” since the answer to key question 1 is that, “the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’ in English Bibles” is that it renders, doesn’t even translate, “Nephilim” in two verse and/but, “Repha/im” in the other 98% and never even hints at anything to do with height whatsoever.

See my various books here.

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 all which are available here.

VIDEO: Eric Rolon & Ken Ammi sharpening iron with iron on Nephilology

Well, at least at the time it was, “sharpening iron with iron” but I have come to find that when we seek to sharpen iron with iron, someone tends to get cut.
Since then, Eric wants nothing whatsoever to do with me.
As you will see, his premise and argumentation are faulty and so is his conclusion.
I published a transcript of this discussion, along with commentary, in my book The Great Nephilim Giants Debates: Featuring Gary Wayne, T.J. Steadman, Rob Rowe, and Eric Rolon.

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 all which are available here.

Giant Aliens in Peru and Giants in Lovelock Cave

What do recent (as of 2023 AD) reports of giant aliens in Peru and reports of giants in Lovelock Cave have in common?

Let’s begin with the sorted tale of the former which begins with mysteriously flummoxing and emotively frightening reports such as Armed 7-Foot-Tall Green Aliens Allegedly Removed a Man’s Face in Peru by MSN which reported, “The small rural district of Alto Nanay in Peru is under attack…The Ikitu indigenous people who inhabit the region claim that seven-foot-tall translucent green aliens have been terrorizing the town…launching nightly assaults on residents.”

Community leader Jairo Reátegui Ávila noted, “These gentlemen are aliens. They appear to be armored like the Green Goblin from Spider-Man. I shot one of them twice and he wasn’t injured; he rose and disappeared. We’re very frightened about what’s happening here in our community.”

Also, “a 15-year-old girl was reportedly cut on the neck” and, “a photo of a mutilated Peruvian man, with some alleging that he’d ‘had his face removed with surgical precision’ by one of the aliens. However, that image was taken from a video shared months ago, with many attributing his appearance to a piranha attack.”

Thus begins the blurring of the lines between claims and click-baiting grifts.

MSN published a follow up titled Mystery of 7ft-tall ‘aliens’ dubbed ‘Face Peelers’ attacking Peruvian villagers solved wherein it’s noted, “what villagers called ‘goblins’ or ‘aliens’ was actually hooded men wearing jetpacks and armor” since, “The Ikitu population that lives in these dense forests is surrounded by gold…The men are part of a crime syndicate that’s been terrorizing the region for decades. Branches of drug cartels also dabble in the gold-mining business. According to prosecutors, they’re working on a terror campaign so the locals stay in their homes and away from the cartels’ illegal gold pits.”

So, this went from, “the Ikitu tribe…stated that these forest creatures have terrorized them” to (likely Western click-bait inspired) interpretation of the creatures being not from the forest but being aliens, to the revelation that they are just very human (even if inhumane) domestic terrorists—depending of what any given person, or culture, means by aliens. “Some villagers have likened the ‘aliens’ to the mythical ‘pelacaras’ from folklore, creatures said to feast on human faces, fat, and organs.”

Dávila also noted, “Their shoes are round-shaped, which they use to float… Their heads are long, they wear a mask and their eyes are yellowish. They are experts at escaping…His face is hardly visible. I have seen his whole body floating at a height of one meter…”

Here is a photo of the floating alien/pelacara from a local woman’s cell phone.

7-ft-peru-giant-aliens-1

Here’s a nocturnal image.

7-ft-peru-giant-aliens-2

Thus, this was much ado about nothing regarding other-worldly giant alien but about a land grab?

As I have written about in Lovelock Cave Giants: lost or found? and Review of “Did 14-foot giants exist Did they differ from humans Author explores these ancient beings” the Peruvian situation is tantamount, in some ways, to the assertion of giants in Lovelock Cave and a Smithsonian coverup conspiracy—due to something to do with evolution and the Bible, or whatever.

Well, the Lovelock cave claims have been very, very lucrative to un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales giant post-flood Nephilologists. That is because they claim that Nephilim who lived in North America were cornered in a cave, summarily killed, and then the Smithsonian stole away their bones so as to hide the truth about the Bible (whatever that has to do with anything) and to deny evolution.

It’s a great click-bait scam that mashes together various tantalizing real data points with folklore and modern conspiracy mythology.

The bottom line is that the real conspiracy is that people who make a living selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians are the conspirators—wittingly knowingly or going along with the ignorant flow unwittingly and unknowingly. Such is because it comes down to European racists denied Native their ancestral lands by stealing away skeletons/bones so as to claim that there was no indication of any ancestral presence thereon. Also, they denied them credit for building structures such as burial mounds by claiming that such primitive savages couldn’t have been sophisticated enough to build any such things—and the pop-Nephilologists still play into that by demanding that it must have been built by Nephilim.

Note also how smoothly and quickly the Ikitu correlated/(mis)identified the (supposed) otherworldly beings with the pelacara.

This is just like Nephilologists who suffer from what I term Gigorexia Nervosa do (the obsessive desire to see giants and just making them up where they are nowhere to be seen): any tall-tale that even hints about subjectively unusual height is watered down and sold as Nephilology news (including Bigfoot). Consider that pop-Nephilologist LA Marzulli was scammed by seller of wild and wacky tales of all sorts, Jaime Maussan and/or his comrades by being presented with a small scary-fairy-like being. Marzulli instantly correlated it to the being described in Revelation chap 9 even though the only similarity is that both feature wings.

la-marzulli-fairy-nephilim-giants

Another pop-Nephilologist, posted a video titled Peru Alien Attack Expedition Report the info section for which reads, in part, “after-action report and analysis of Timothy Alberino’s expedition into the Amazon jungle of Peru to investigate the alleged alien attacks and face peeler (pelacara) phenomenon of internet fame.” And I LOVE the, “of internet fame” part as if that has anything to do with anything—besides the tacit admission that this was a click-bait opportunity.

A pinned comment by Alberino notes, “Although I cannot say for certain who the face peeler perpetrators are in Peru, I can confirm, unequivocally, that the phenomenon is real and ongoing. My hypothesis is that they are nefarious humans with reverse-engineered alien tech, and possibly working with a nonhuman faction.” So, humans but still with an alien angle: apparently jet packs are, “reverse-engineered alien tech.”

BTW: Peruvian drug cartels have jet packs?!?!?!? Where’s my jet pack?!?!?!?!?

A follow-up pinned comment by him reads, “I want to clarify that, in my opinion, the face peeler attacks in Peru have nothing to do with the alien abduction phenomenon perpetrated by the grays. The grays do not hoover on platforms and are perfectly capable of incapacitating abductees without force or chemical agents.”

So, after being an on-the-scene investigator, he concluded, “nefarious humans with reverse-engineered alien tech” but not do so with, “alien abduction phenomenon perpetrated by the grays” since he’s some sort of expert on the grays.

Thus, overall, Alto Nanay in Peru and Lovelock Cave in Nevada, USA have in common landgrabs and scary tall-tales.

See my various books here.

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

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.

You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Atheist demands “evidence leprechauns don’t exist” and notes “sorry for asking for evidence for your fairy tale mate”

One of my Facebook Atheist trolls, Charlie Reid, commented thusly on my post here:

got that evidence leprechauns don’t exist or are you going to continue to be dishonest by asking me for evidence your fairy tale doesn’t exist?

I, True Freethinker, replied:

I will leave you to deal with your Lucky Charms. You claim that I am “dishonest” without evidence and after having stated “I do not condemn lying” so you have discredited yourself again.

I am not aware that I have ever asked you for evidence that my supposed “fairy tale doesn’t exist.” Rather, you have repeatedly positively affirmed, merely asserted, that God is imaginary, etc. so I have asked for proof and you have failed every single time so you have discredited yourself again.

Now, as to this issue of alleged contradictions in the Bible: you are yet again beginning with a conclusion. Your position is known as “emotivism” which means that all you are doing is expressing that you do not like something but you have no premise upon which to claim that, that something is actually wrong, bad, or whatever you may term it. Thus, your condemnation of contradictions is tantamount to you condemning chocolate ice cream simply because you do not like it (in your case, as per your worldview, it is because predestined random bio-chemical neural reactions resulted in the byproduct of you expressing such an opinion).

Thus, you reject the Bible for supposedly containing contradictions, but you cannot condemn condemnations even if they were there, so your emotivism is invalid and yet, you reject the Bible for supposedly containing contradictions thus, your entire endeavor is invalidly and you discredit yourself again.

This denotes that you literally suffer from cognitive dissonance in that you hold to two mutually exclusive views which are in tension but fail to recognize that they are in tension and/or simply ignore it and in this way you discredit yourself again. You condemn without a premise, so your condemnation is invalid and yet, you rely on your invalid condemnation.

Charlie Reid:

“I am not aware that I have ever asked you for evidence” … “so I have asked for proof” 😂

True Freethinker:

You cannot take me out of context to myself and also with the discussion being available for all to see.

Firstly, you should educate yourself about the difference between evidence and proof.
Secondly, you will note the difference between evidence and proof as follows, quoting from above, “I am not aware that I have ever asked you for evidence that my supposed ‘fairy tale doesn’t exist’” issue one and “Rather” marking a transition to issue two, “you have repeatedly positively affirmed, merely asserted, that God is imaginary, etc. so I have asked for proof and you have failed every single time so you have discredited yourself again” and you just failed again and discredited yourself again, on two levels.

Charlie Reid:

i did condemn lying you semi literate halfwit

True Freethinker:

Superiority complex and schools yard level childish taunting: right on schedule. Again, read the comment about which you are supposed to be replying: indeed you did condemn lying and did so after having stated “I do not condemn lying” so you outed yourself as also being a contradictory hypocrite and so have discredited yourself again.

Charlie Reid:

the rest of that is just gibberish, you really need to see a quack mate, your indoctrination has overpowered any iota of rational thought. You either haven’t read anything i write or you’re cognitive dissonance blocks everything but what your indoctrination allows to filter through. Get help.

True Freethinker:

Here we go again: you get again merely assert that I am indoctrinated, I have asked you for evidence of that many, many, many times and you have failed just as many times so every time you repeat it you only prove that you sincerely believe in thing without the least bit of evidence—or proof—which is not surprising.

I also love the way you run away from inconvenient issues by merely labeling them “gibberish” (gibberish, to which you cannot reply).

But then what is it is true that my alleged indoctrination has supposedly overpowered any iota of rational thought, suffer from cognitive dissonance, etc.?

On your worldview: that would not matter and you have no premise upon which to condemn that so, of course, you have discredited yourself yet again.

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

As is typical of him, he scurries off when incapable of actually dealing with issues, only to return again to do it all again.

Thus, he commented thusly on this post:

sorry for asking for evidence for your fairy tale mate perhaps you can explain why you don’t believe in other sky daddies?

True Freethinker:

Indeed, you are right to begin with an apology since you already know that since your worldview provides you no premise upon which to demand evidence: you fail and discredit yourself instantly. Moreover, you just positively affirmed that God is a “fairy tale” so you must now prove it.

Lastly, you actually claim to believe that humans are apes and you expect to be taken seriously, to demand, to condemn, etc. that is 100% inconsistent.

Charlie Reid:

so you cant, only repeat your nonsensical rhetoric. Explain how your book gives you a premise for anything.

are there any other scientific theories you dispute besides evolution?

True Freethinker:

At least you admit that you are utterly incapable of taking step number one and you are unable to because you are incapacitated by a worldview that fails before it even begins. And that is how I can just stand by and merely observe you discrediting yourself just by ensuring you have your say.

Charlie Reid:

where and what did i admit to. Presumably my worldview, that you still don’t understand, fails because you have a contradictory book of fairy tales?

True Freethinker:

Well, you began with “sorry for asking for evidence” about which I noted “you are right to begin with an apology since you already know that since your worldview provides you no premise upon which to demand evidence” and you proved that you, yet again, “fail and discredit yourself instantly” because you merely sidestepped that utterly fundamental issue, yet again.

I also, yet again, noted that you, yet again, positively affirmed that God is a “fairy tale” so you must now prove it and you sidestepped that, yet again.

I noted that you “you actually claim to believe that humans are apes and you expect to be taken seriously, to demand, to condemn, etc. that is 100% inconsistent” and you sidestepped that as well, yet again.

And that your “worldview…fails because” I supposedly “have a contradictory book of fairy tales” is not only incoherent, it is a non sequitur, yet again. Since you have no premise for logic you cannot claim contradiction, since you have no premise for ethics you cannot condemns logical contradiction and you have no premise for truth then you discredited your demands for logic and condemnations.

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

That brought the discussion to and end as, again, no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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 all which are available here.