Christians at CARM
Having spent years posting at CARM, I have come to realise a few things about certain Christians. These obviously will not apply to all Christians, but it gives some insight in to how some Christians think, and allows us to understand how the earlier gospels became embellished and accepted.
ETA (18/Jun/20): CARM has crashed and lost every post, so the links will no longer worker. Some of the posters may use new names now.
This thread went on for nine pages, and 132 posts, and spawned two further threads. At no point did any Christian discuss the evidence in the OP at all. No Christian mentioned Markan priority or the Papias text or anything. No Christian post offered any alternative evidence.
Christians just do not like evidence that might challenge their beliefs, and so just ignore it.
Post #124: I don't believe you. Take a picture of it.
Okay, not a problem. I took a photo, with a scrap of paper on it with "stiggywiggy" written on it to prove this was not an image I had found on the internet.
Post #127: You're right. I'm not buying. Show me a picture of yourself holding the book.
He has no idea what I look like, so a picture of me holding the book is not going to convince either. But he is desperate to cling to his beliefs and cannot change his mind - even about something as trivial as whether I own a book or not.
He cannot accept any evidence given by an atheist!
JamesTheLesser, post #97: By the way, it is God, not god. Your pride seems so large, you can't even show respect.
Me, post #98: It depends on the context. I use "God" to refer specifically to the Christian God, because actually I do respect most Christians (more than you do, in fact, because I think Christians are something). However, I used "god" to indicate gods in general. When I said "So no, no god is going to tell me what to do, because there is no god." I was referring to all gods, from Allah to Zeus.
If you actually read my posts you would know that I capitalise "God" virtually every time...
Ironically, in the very next post, JamesTheLesser used "god" in the same manner I had:
JamesTheLesser, post #99: I am not worried whatsoever about your inability to understand why your pride makes you your own god. A very feeble one.
So we know he too differentiates between "God" for the Christian God, and "god" when used generically.
In post #164, I pointed out to JamesTheLesser that I had already used "God" with a capital "G" fourteen times in the thread, and even listed the posts where I did so. If he had a mind to learn the truth, he could have checked that, and confirmed that I do indeed capitalise God, when appropriate.
Despite all that, he still could not admit I was wrong.
Again, this was not about a theological position. It is not like I was trying to get him to admit the Virgin Birth never happened. This was something trivial, something anyone could check for themselves. But he could not do it.
As an aside, he later accused me of not being about to admit I am wrong, which is pure projection on his part. In case anyone is wondering, I CAN admit I am wrong, eg here.
Unsupported - shifting the burden - prove links are evidence.
OOOPSS still no evidence atheism is true eh?
You have presented none - now get to it - show us the evidence atheism is true.
OK then present evidence "nature" caused the universe and life to begin.
Your evidence is????
Your evidence is?
Links are not evidence - lol.
She illustrates beautifully how Christians ignore evidence they are given, and consistently fail to provide any of their own.
This is the way some Christians are. If the evidence challenges their beliefs, ignore the evidence. This, of course, is how creationism flourishes.
Post 12: I have a Hebrew Concordance three feet away from me, ready to provide several examples proving you wrong.
Me: Have you managed to open one of those several concordances you have within easy reach yet?
Post #82: Yep, nearly every day. They are quite helpful. You might want to invest in one.
Me: I found ten uses in the Bible that agree with what I say it means,
Post #89: So? I could have found more than 10.
Post #89: You mean those concordances that list many usages of "Beyom," many of which do NOT mean "in the day?"
Why has he not found a single one? Quite simple:
Me: How many have you found, stiggywiggy?
Post #89: None; wasn't looking.
So he thinks there are plenty of examples to support his claim, but apparently he has not actually looked. He thinks he could find more than ten, but has not actually done so. He just hopes there are examples there, but dare not actually look, as some part of his brain knows he may well be wrong.
Another poster joined the discussion, gwtree, and upped the ante, claiming "beyom" is used over 500 times.
Post #121: It actually is way more common than that. It is used 524 times. And you're right that much of the time, it is best translated as "on that day" or "in that day" or something to that effect, but the translation of ביום is not the issue. The issue is what it means within context. ...
Of course, he could find no examples of it used in another way. Though he was agreeing with me about the meaning, he failed to substantiate his claim by showing any of those 524 times when it was not used in a literal sense.
In a sense, I get this. Religion is about faith, not evidence. Okay, fair enough. But why then claim that there is evidence? I guess that brings us to...
We see it in both Matthew and Luke, as both authors claim a virgin birth and both trace Jesus to David via Joseph. They cannot both be true (and probably neither are), so what would make the author include both? These were stories that were circulating in the community, so they had to be included, and with the aid of cognitive dissonance, the author - and his readers - could happily believe both were true at the same time.
My examples from CARM revolve around stiggywiggy again, the first four from the "The Garden of Eden story" thread again.
Me: Furthermore, I cannot recall YOU ever supporting a claim.
Post #89: Didn't make one.
This is simply not true, of course. Here are just a couple of examples of claims he has made:
Post #87: "Beyom" does NOT always mean "in the day."
Post #91: You're no Hebrew scholar.
Post #34: No. This is where you fail once again to answer this simple question: Yes or no:
Does "beyom" mean "a 24 hour period" every time it's used?
Say yes and THEN I'll pull out the old Concordance with examples proving you wrong. No point in humiliating you till absolutely necessary, especially since you do seem to have put a lot of wasted effort into your obsession. So which is it?
Post #78: Still waiting on an answer to this question:
Are you claiming that every time "beyom" is used in scripture, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour period?
Why can't you answer? Yes or no.
Post #89: Now answer the question.
Me: The truth is that I could answer the question;
Post #89: Then do it.
And yet out of the other side of his mouth he says he does not care about the question!
Post #89: Doesn't matter much to me
Post #91: Correct. Matters not a wht.
So why did he keep asking it?
Me: Did you actually read my reply?
Post #85: Yes.
Me: And yet earlier you said you had read it
Post #91: Correct.
But other times no:
Me: So you had read that my was reply was NO, but still you demanded that I answer it again?
Post #89: Incorrect.
Me: The truth is that you were NOT still waiting on an answer,
Post #89: Incorrect. Still waiting.
Me: because you had just read my reply.
Post #89: When?
Me: You brought it up, in post #9. That post - by you - was the first mention of 24 hour period in this thread.
Post #85: Yeah. And?
But other times, he liked to pretend I brought it up:
Me: It does NOT mean "a 24 hour period", and I have never said it does.
Post #81: Then what was your point in bringing it up?
At numerous points in the thread, he asserted that he does not care about the topic (eg post #23 or #27). And yet this was one of two threads he started on the topic within a week, and he was posting up to 10 posts a day about!
Post 26: So you agree with me about something I never said?
But not long after said he was perfectly aware that he had indeed said it.
Post #31: I ALREADY KNEW I SAID THAT!!
Me: How good is your Googling?
Excellent. I can google with the best of them.
ETA (18/Jun/20): CARM has crashed and lost every post, so the links will no longer worker. Some of the posters may use new names now.
Dealing with Evidence
I started a thread about who the author of the Gospel of Matthew is, presenting evidence that it could not be the disciple Matthew.This thread went on for nine pages, and 132 posts, and spawned two further threads. At no point did any Christian discuss the evidence in the OP at all. No Christian mentioned Markan priority or the Papias text or anything. No Christian post offered any alternative evidence.
Christians just do not like evidence that might challenge their beliefs, and so just ignore it.
Proof I own a certain book
The clearest example of this was when discussing a book by Helmut Koester, stiggywiggy refused to believe I owned the book.Post #124: I don't believe you. Take a picture of it.
Okay, not a problem. I took a photo, with a scrap of paper on it with "stiggywiggy" written on it to prove this was not an image I had found on the internet.
Post #127: You're right. I'm not buying. Show me a picture of yourself holding the book.
He has no idea what I look like, so a picture of me holding the book is not going to convince either. But he is desperate to cling to his beliefs and cannot change his mind - even about something as trivial as whether I own a book or not.
He cannot accept any evidence given by an atheist!
Proof I capitalise God
Here is another example, with JamesTheLesser. He was complaining that I had not capitalised "god".JamesTheLesser, post #97: By the way, it is God, not god. Your pride seems so large, you can't even show respect.
Me, post #98: It depends on the context. I use "God" to refer specifically to the Christian God, because actually I do respect most Christians (more than you do, in fact, because I think Christians are something). However, I used "god" to indicate gods in general. When I said "So no, no god is going to tell me what to do, because there is no god." I was referring to all gods, from Allah to Zeus.
If you actually read my posts you would know that I capitalise "God" virtually every time...
Ironically, in the very next post, JamesTheLesser used "god" in the same manner I had:
JamesTheLesser, post #99: I am not worried whatsoever about your inability to understand why your pride makes you your own god. A very feeble one.
So we know he too differentiates between "God" for the Christian God, and "god" when used generically.
In post #164, I pointed out to JamesTheLesser that I had already used "God" with a capital "G" fourteen times in the thread, and even listed the posts where I did so. If he had a mind to learn the truth, he could have checked that, and confirmed that I do indeed capitalise God, when appropriate.
Despite all that, he still could not admit I was wrong.
Again, this was not about a theological position. It is not like I was trying to get him to admit the Virgin Birth never happened. This was something trivial, something anyone could check for themselves. But he could not do it.
As an aside, he later accused me of not being about to admit I am wrong, which is pure projection on his part. In case anyone is wondering, I CAN admit I am wrong, eg here.
And ferengi....
There was another poster, ferengi. She has not been around since early August, but her posts were all the same, whatever the topic - just demands for evidence, even when evidence was given, never an attempt to provide any. Here are a selection (it does not matter what thread or what they are about, she posts the same stuff whatever):Unsupported - shifting the burden - prove links are evidence.
OOOPSS still no evidence atheism is true eh?
You have presented none - now get to it - show us the evidence atheism is true.
OK then present evidence "nature" caused the universe and life to begin.
Your evidence is????
Your evidence is?
Links are not evidence - lol.
She illustrates beautifully how Christians ignore evidence they are given, and consistently fail to provide any of their own.
This is the way some Christians are. If the evidence challenges their beliefs, ignore the evidence. This, of course, is how creationism flourishes.
Evidence is for others
The example of ferengi above also illustrates how these Christians also seem very reluctant to provide evidence to support their position - but like to pretend they could if they wanted to.A concordance that cannot be opened
This is from a thread called "The Garden of Eden story". Here, stiggywiggy was claiming he could find any number of examples of "beyom" used in another sense in a concordance to prove me wrong... except he never manages to post a single one.Post 12: I have a Hebrew Concordance three feet away from me, ready to provide several examples proving you wrong.
Me: Have you managed to open one of those several concordances you have within easy reach yet?
Post #82: Yep, nearly every day. They are quite helpful. You might want to invest in one.
Me: I found ten uses in the Bible that agree with what I say it means,
Post #89: So? I could have found more than 10.
Post #89: You mean those concordances that list many usages of "Beyom," many of which do NOT mean "in the day?"
Why has he not found a single one? Quite simple:
Me: How many have you found, stiggywiggy?
Post #89: None; wasn't looking.
So he thinks there are plenty of examples to support his claim, but apparently he has not actually looked. He thinks he could find more than ten, but has not actually done so. He just hopes there are examples there, but dare not actually look, as some part of his brain knows he may well be wrong.
Another poster joined the discussion, gwtree, and upped the ante, claiming "beyom" is used over 500 times.
Post #121: It actually is way more common than that. It is used 524 times. And you're right that much of the time, it is best translated as "on that day" or "in that day" or something to that effect, but the translation of ביום is not the issue. The issue is what it means within context. ...
Of course, he could find no examples of it used in another way. Though he was agreeing with me about the meaning, he failed to substantiate his claim by showing any of those 524 times when it was not used in a literal sense.
In a sense, I get this. Religion is about faith, not evidence. Okay, fair enough. But why then claim that there is evidence? I guess that brings us to...
Cognitive Dissonance
This is where a person can believe two contradictory ideas at the same time. I could not do that, but it seems necessary for Christians.We see it in both Matthew and Luke, as both authors claim a virgin birth and both trace Jesus to David via Joseph. They cannot both be true (and probably neither are), so what would make the author include both? These were stories that were circulating in the community, so they had to be included, and with the aid of cognitive dissonance, the author - and his readers - could happily believe both were true at the same time.
My examples from CARM revolve around stiggywiggy again, the first four from the "The Garden of Eden story" thread again.
To make a claim or not
In post #89 stiggywiggy is very clear that he has not made a claim:Me: Furthermore, I cannot recall YOU ever supporting a claim.
Post #89: Didn't make one.
This is simply not true, of course. Here are just a couple of examples of claims he has made:
Post #87: "Beyom" does NOT always mean "in the day."
Post #91: You're no Hebrew scholar.
Is it important to him?
Then there is a certain question he contrived - do I think "beyom" means a 24 hour period? Is that important to him? It would seem so, given how often he asked it. I answered 'No' in post #36 - among others - by the way. Bold in the original in post #34, to show how important it is.Post #34: No. This is where you fail once again to answer this simple question: Yes or no:
Does "beyom" mean "a 24 hour period" every time it's used?
Say yes and THEN I'll pull out the old Concordance with examples proving you wrong. No point in humiliating you till absolutely necessary, especially since you do seem to have put a lot of wasted effort into your obsession. So which is it?
Post #78: Still waiting on an answer to this question:
Are you claiming that every time "beyom" is used in scripture, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour period?
Why can't you answer? Yes or no.
Post #89: Now answer the question.
Me: The truth is that I could answer the question;
Post #89: Then do it.
And yet out of the other side of his mouth he says he does not care about the question!
Post #89: Doesn't matter much to me
Post #91: Correct. Matters not a wht.
So why did he keep asking it?
Did he read my replay?
So as I said, I replied to his question after he asked it the first time (but not with the answer he was hoping for, so he kept asking). Did he read my reply to that question? Sometimes yes:Me: Did you actually read my reply?
Post #85: Yes.
Me: And yet earlier you said you had read it
Post #91: Correct.
But other times no:
Me: So you had read that my was reply was NO, but still you demanded that I answer it again?
Post #89: Incorrect.
Me: The truth is that you were NOT still waiting on an answer,
Post #89: Incorrect. Still waiting.
Me: because you had just read my reply.
Post #89: When?
He invented the "24 hours" thing
The whole "beyom" meaning 24 hours was something stiggywiggy brought up, as he conceded:Me: You brought it up, in post #9. That post - by you - was the first mention of 24 hour period in this thread.
Post #85: Yeah. And?
But other times, he liked to pretend I brought it up:
Me: It does NOT mean "a 24 hour period", and I have never said it does.
Post #81: Then what was your point in bringing it up?
Who cares about who the author was?
The next two are from a thread he started in response to a thread by me about who the author of the Gospel of Matthew is.At numerous points in the thread, he asserted that he does not care about the topic (eg post #23 or #27). And yet this was one of two threads he started on the topic within a week, and he was posting up to 10 posts a day about!
Has he said that already?
In one post I agreed with him that if we know the gospel was written by Matthew that makes it much more reliable than if we do not know who the author is. He promptly denied saying that:Post 26: So you agree with me about something I never said?
But not long after said he was perfectly aware that he had indeed said it.
Post #31: I ALREADY KNEW I SAID THAT!!
Can he Google?
This is a great one because, while kind of trivial, it is in consecutive sentences in the same post:Me: How good is your Googling?
Excellent. I can google with the best of them.
Me: Can you find a non-Christian who says the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew?
Where should I look?
Can he really "google with the best of them" or does he need to be told where to look?
ETA: Another great example is this thread.
The full quote was:
The bit he chose to quote was:
The full text was just two pages earlier in the discussion, and there was no way this was not going to get exposed, so why would he do something that was not just dishonest, but easy to show that it was dishonest?
Because he believes it was not dishonest.
He starts from the assumption that Matthew was the author. That is a fact, in his mind, and there is no way it can be wrong. The idea that it is highly unlikely Matthew was the author is just nonsense, so can be rejected. Thus, in his distorted view of reality what he quoted really was the meaning.
That allows him to continue to believe that the disciple Matthew was the author, which, as the rest of us can see, is very much against the true meaning of the text.
And real evidence potentially threatens the whole lot, so that must be ignored at all costs.
I suspect a lot of Christians come to the "Atheism/Agnosticism/Sec Humanism" fired up with the Holy Spirit, convinced they will be able to persuade the atheists that Christianity is true. And when they get there, they fail big time, because atheists demand evidence, and there is none. Most then slink away, whining about those stinky atheists who refuse to believe their unsubstantiated claims. A few persist. The rest, like those above, continue to fight the good fight, but each week, each month, it gets more and more desperate, and they are obliged to resort to more and more convoluted mental gymnastic to keep at least a semblance of success.
They are not fooling the atheists, but they may be fooling each other, and they are probably fooling themselves.
Where should I look?
Can he really "google with the best of them" or does he need to be told where to look?
ETA: Another great example is this thread.
Dishonest Trick
See here for a great example of JamesTheLesser caught dishonestly quote-mining.The full quote was:
We do not know the author of the Gospel. That the original composition of the Matthew's Gospel was in Greek and that is depended upon earlier Greek gospel sources, makes it highly unlikely that Jesus' disciple Levi/Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name.
The bit he chose to quote was:
We do not know the author of the Gospel.
The full text was just two pages earlier in the discussion, and there was no way this was not going to get exposed, so why would he do something that was not just dishonest, but easy to show that it was dishonest?
Because he believes it was not dishonest.
He starts from the assumption that Matthew was the author. That is a fact, in his mind, and there is no way it can be wrong. The idea that it is highly unlikely Matthew was the author is just nonsense, so can be rejected. Thus, in his distorted view of reality what he quoted really was the meaning.
That allows him to continue to believe that the disciple Matthew was the author, which, as the rest of us can see, is very much against the true meaning of the text.
Liar, liar!
Actually, these people are not liars (Nouveau, on the other hand...). At least, not technically. They are sincere posters who believe what they post. But their brains are so screwed up be their religion that what they post is not coherent. They live in the instant. When replying to a post, they break it up into small chunks. This means they can avoid seeing the big picture, where the contradictions become obvious. Instead, they address each sentence as if it stands on it own (or even just a fragment of a sentence), and use the part of their mind that can handle that, whilst switching off the part that might be challenged by it.And real evidence potentially threatens the whole lot, so that must be ignored at all costs.
I suspect a lot of Christians come to the "Atheism/Agnosticism/Sec Humanism" fired up with the Holy Spirit, convinced they will be able to persuade the atheists that Christianity is true. And when they get there, they fail big time, because atheists demand evidence, and there is none. Most then slink away, whining about those stinky atheists who refuse to believe their unsubstantiated claims. A few persist. The rest, like those above, continue to fight the good fight, but each week, each month, it gets more and more desperate, and they are obliged to resort to more and more convoluted mental gymnastic to keep at least a semblance of success.
They are not fooling the atheists, but they may be fooling each other, and they are probably fooling themselves.
Comments
Post a Comment