ocb #fundie

ocb #fundie apologetics.org

I'll stick to the facts and logically so. Atheism is logically void of any meaning. Try reading Isaiah 28. It mentions atheist. They have a covenant with death but death will deceive them and fail them and break the covenant and every atheist will be raised up on the last day to face God at the great white throne judgment and they will have to give God and acooiunting for their life and what they chose to believe. Believe it or not!

44 comments

old comment by Anonymous

I tried reading Isiah 28, but it's kind of a vague, barely coherent mess and I couldn't bring myself to slog all the way through it to whichever specific passage you're referring to.
With all respect, what makes you think that you being incapable of reading the text has any bearing on its validity? This is akin to attempting to refute an argument by saying that, "It was hard for me to understand what you were saying, so I did not bother listening all the way." Do you not see how logically flawed such a response is? It is perfectly fine to challenge someone's comment, but it is silly to challenge it on the grounds of you not having given it proper consideration.

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

Anonymous, if you'd care to read what I actually wrote instead of what you were evidently expecting to read, you'll notice that I did not make any accusations about the validity of the argument. All I did was to remark about the text being vague and bad at getting to the point (and it is bad at getting to the point. Most of it is unnecessary or repeated qualifiers and exclamations along the lines of "pay attention while I'm ranting at you!"). At most, I'd suggest my post could be construed as a request for a more specific reference, or for somebody else to quote the relevant text with comments.
However, if you want arguments about validity, then here we go: Isiah 28 is basically a rant, and addressed specifically at "the drunkards of Ephraim". Since I am neither of that house nor do I get drunk, it has no direct relevance to me, or a great many other people. The "covenant with death" passage is directed at the rulers of Jerusalem - again, I am not one of these people, and I'd wager most other people here aren't either. This brings us neatly to the big one, the business of atheists. Isiah 28 doesn't say one damn thing about atheism or people who do not believe the supernatural. The passage you cite refers to those who lie about god, not those who don't believe he exists. The specific "covenant" quote you provide is ludicrous. How does one make a deal with an abstract, non-anthropomorphic concept, ie death? If god did exist, how could one ever lie to oneself that more lies would save one from him? The fact that no details are mentioned and that this is just part of a much larger rant leads me to suppose that this is nothing but meaningless hyperbole, as part of a much longer diatribe on that tired old theme, which is an expression of ill-defined discontent with the world around the author because of perceived immorality, mostly drunkeness. But this is all small potatoes. The real killer argument is that Isiah 28 would only be valid if god actually existed. This is something nobody has ever proved, and any rationalist must assume non existence in the absence of evidence, otherwise we'd be going around believing in any amount of unsubstantiated tripe. Quoting Isiah 28 merely adds details to the fairy story; it does absolutely fuck all to improve the actual validity of that story. JRR Tolkien's "The Silmarillion" adds colossal detail to the mythology of Middle Earth compared to his other books but, until I see a balrog on my lawn, it will remain mythology.

ocb #fundie apologetics.org

44 comments

Confused?