Atheism needs to be honest [trollville]
Offline After debating and exposing Rook Hawkins as a sham of a historian, I find out later that he is the joke I believed he was.
This was from the debate and Rook admitting that he lost:
You're right, and in Greek,
You're right, and in Greek, in the LXX, it has been translated to be adelphos. The word is metaphorical or general. There is a variant of the Hebrew word used which would have meant brother, literally, however it is not that variant. So you are correct. I wonder then why the translaters of some of the versions used "brother" instead of "kin"? Perhaps by using the LXX they determined that in order to keep good with the theme in the Greek NT, they decided to keep it "brother", but that doesn't seem to jive well with the Hebrew, or the intentions of the seventy scholars. This is why I am not a fan of english versions, because I don't like how they alter or paraphrase a word or sentence in Greek into english.
But either way, you're correct. I should go through and update my list.
That post was from Why Translation and Context matters: What is absolutely amazing is that when I simply asked about Rook's credentials - the attacks began.
At first Todangst threatened to throw me off the website because I copied an article from another website. What is even laughable is that Todangst acted as if I should never have asked and yet I find out today (2 years later) that Rook - Thomas Verenna is working on his undergraduate degree . . . I wonder where??? Perhaps at the local community college. For years he was listed as an ancient text expert.
Todangst wrote in the same forum - By the way, I'd appreciate it, in the sake of intellectual honesty, if you'd stop posting the work of others on our site:
I explained that I was in a hurry and I apologized for posting an article that was not mine. What is so interesting is that neither Todangst nor Rook know anything of intellectual honesty. Instead of being honest - Todangst went to Rooks defense. He refused to answer the question knowing that Rook was not an expert. With just a little research - Now I find out that it is not only Theists such as myself who see the absolute hypocrisy of Rook, but ahteists are also running like crazy from the pretender - Rook Hawkins.
What is absolutely incredible is that Todangst wrote of me:
I can only call Rev's comments a classic example of projection. Remember that this is a guy who responds to arguments by uncritically cutting and pasting the work of others as his 'response', without even bothering to examine them.
What is so sick about Todangst is that he knew. He knew that Rook was unqualified. He knew that Rook is a fake. He could not even stand up to one issue that I brought up and yet just because the term Theist was beside my name . . . Todangst wouldn't answer and simply be "intellectually honest." What is even more laughable is to read an earlier quote of Rook Hawkins:
Leave the real scholarship to people who can remain unbias and honest, instead of trying to correct those who are your betters in terms of understanding the background of the reflexive social and cultural experiments of the days in which each book of the Bible and the apocrypha/pseudepigrapha were written.
Todangst is a loser. Later he wrote:
I have two masters degrees in clinicial psychology, and am in my internship year for my doctorate in psychology (with a minor in philosophy) from Rutgers University. It is my expert opinion that you are intellectually lazy and are looking for a way to simply ignore Rook's work.
With two masters degrees . . . he could not face truth??? Todangst's education is a joke.
Well, Todangst - this intellectually lazy theist proved Rook wrong and I stated I would not take on any of his other rantings until he corrected the error I pointed out. As you can see . . . Rook admitted he was wrong and the date of that - Posted on: May 18, 2007 - 2:22pm. You can see that for yourself at:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/6907?page=1
By the way . . . what ever happened to the list??? Was it simply deleted because it was simply a bunch of crap that Rook could not defend. I know that even a year later, the correction was never made to the list. Was that intellectually lazy Todangst or is it just perpetuating a lie??? Please, give me your expert opinion.
That explains why this site is simply dying a slow death. You would rather compromise than be honest. Todangst, before you do something stupid like pretend I am so proud of debating and making Rook look like a fool - just spare us. You were wrong before and you would be wrong now.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
- Login to post comments
Haven't seen a good vanity post in a while - you do know what pride goes before, right?
I would like to ask what your point is?
Why should any of us be impressed with your 'win' from a few years ago?
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
He's crowing. Note he still has nothing useful to say about his religion.
I was hoping it was just a 'windy preamble' to an actual argument ~
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
I, unlike Kramer, do not gloat because I dominated the dojo with a second grader. The point is both Rook and Todangst purposefully attacked a person simply for asking for a Rook's qualifications as an ancient text expert. Even that title is a lie. He is a high school graduate. They were embarrassed to give the answer. Todangst, if he is a scholar, should know better. He kept telling me, just deal with his argument. Well, Todangst should have just dealt with the truth. I stand behind what I said. They were wrong in attacking me for asking. They were wrong in not being truthful. Rook was not intellectually honest, because for over a year he continued to leave the mistake up on the website perpetuating a lie.
I just found out the truth yesterday . . . therefore the post.
If I would not have put the proof that Rook was wrong and Todangst was intellectually dishonest - you would have asked me for proof to back up my claim . . . therefore the copy of Rook's admission.
jcgadfly wrote: Note he still has nothing useful to say about his religion
Well jdgadfly, what is the point with you guys. Even when someone is proved wrong on this site . . . the website doesn't change. Although Rook's biblical contradictions are no longer to be found (perhaps they are here, I just can't find them) they never changed when they were here. So the lies are just perpetuated on this site; therefore, the title of the post.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Why should we believe you? What are your qualifications? And besides you spelled atheist wrong in your first post, clearly you're not qualified to judge. You're also calling a 20 something college student a second grader, making it painfully obvious you're merely an immature whiner, another reason you're not qualified. So what are your qualification?
For the record I feel a little bitch as I try and copy your style, you didn't feel like a little bitch as you wrote your first post?
They weren't embarrassed, they just both knew his schooling were 100% completely irrelevant, something you aren't wise enough to know. Todangst didn't lie about his college background. Qualifications are very different from how many pieces of paper you have from a University.
And the reason they kept saying that was because the argument was more important to address than his college background. You likely don't have good responses to his arguments so instead have chosen to take the extremely immature and illogical approach and whine about a degree... and misuse the term "qualifications."
Look in the mirror fool. Deal with the truth, Rooks arguments are good and are worthy of addressing before and after he has a $50,000 piece of paper that proves it to you.
Confirming for me that you're not qualified to discuss adult issues.
No, you deserve to be attacked for asking especially when it's in lieu of addressing the actual topics at hand.
If that's the case you're being just as deceptive... they never lied, nobody ever claimed Rook had a degree he didn't have. The claim (and I agree) was that he had the qualities (or qualifications) to discuss ancient history with knowledge, being that he's studied and read more ancient history than most Masters graduates. You're not being intellectually honest by holding to the notion that the only valid qualification is a piece of paper.
And I just wasted 30 minutes on this highly childish tirade of yours. You suck at life.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
One thing I want to point out is that our poster is practicing his ability to think critically and doubt a source of information. Great step in the direction of rational thought.
With that being said, one piece of advice that needs to be focused on here is when doubting a source or a person’s knowledge there is more than a piece of paper that needs to be considered. As a matter of fact, that piece of paper can be received by anyone receiving a “C” average. Wow, that just made me shudder ~ my doctors office just added a new doctor to the practice…He has a piece of paper though so I am sure it is okay.
Experience can be an indicator of a source’s validity. In this case, the experience comes in the way of reading and studying specific texts on the subject of ancient history, for years. All of that studying and reading can be realized when reading Tom’s book ~ not only the content: the references are extensive. And as those in ‘academia’ know, researching, outlining, drafting, and presenting a finished product is a time consuming and mentally challenging endeavor.
A general rule of thumb during the measurement of credibility: Research and investigate the materials being presented and the claims being made. Focusing on rumor and personal bias is a recipe to come off looking like an ass.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Just because you proved them wrong doesn't make all of your flavor of Christianity correct - I need to hear something positive about your religion instead of you just ripping on others before I can be convinced.
Is ripping on others all you have? If that's the case - who needs it?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Do you think a Muslim with a theology degree in the Koran should be proud of their degree in their superstition?
The problem is with any religion, not just Christianity, but Islam and Jewish faith and all others, having a degree in ancient myth doesn't make magic real. Even Thomas Jefferson, who was a deist, thought the virgin birth and death of Jesus was bullshit. Jefferson didn't have a theology degree, but he was a pretty smart man.
Attack Rook all you want with your distractions. REAL science conflicts with the claims of ghosts knocking up girls and human flesh magically surviving rigor mortis. Rook has the patience to deconstruct your history. I don't and could give a shit less about it. Claims are like assholes, everyone has one. EVIDENCE is what beats a naked assertion.
The earth was not made in 6 days. Adult men don't magically pop out of dirt. Adult women dont magically get yanked out of a man's rib. ECT ECT ECT ECT ECT.
Having a degree in a religion is like knowing all the lines to all the Star War Movies. It is a degree in BULLSHIT!
You don't need a degree in the Nordic religions to reject claims of Thor making lighting. You don't need a degree in Egyptology to know that the sun is not a literal thinking being like the Ancient Egyptians literally thought. You can have a PHD in the Klingon language, that still would not make Klingons or Captain Kirk real.
If I made the mistake of saying Jesus was born in Alabama, misquoting o the myth in the bible, it still would not make magical births real.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
"Having a degree in a religion is like knowing all the lines to all the Star War Movies. It is a degree in BULLSHIT!"
Fuck you!
Never mind, even I couldn't pull that off.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
This thread is going to trollville soon.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Atheism needs to be honest, eh? If only we had a good Christian example to follow...
"But either way, you're correct..." (Rook)
1] How long ago was this?
2] I don't recall Rook claiming he had a degree. I think he admitted he didn't
3] Of all the things to critisize the "R"RS for, you picked this?
Christian, "I honestly believe that magic is real and have faith in magic. And I don't have to prove my naked assertions to you".
Where do I sign up? Ooops I think the species quota for SHEEP is filled. Maybe if I step into the credulity line I can believe in crap too.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I want to be honest..................uuuuhhh, what do I do now?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Hey Cutler,
Wow . . . well let’s look at the dribble you wrote.
I spelled a word wrong???? I am not sure if you are familiar with typos. But, since absolutely correct spelling is a qualifier for being able to discuss intelligently . . . Dude, you are in trouble. In your forums page . . . your very first entry Questions about God... theists answer these! (As you can see it did not take long at all to find this) let me help you out.
Yaweh . . . it has another "H" Yahweh
neccessary . . . incorrect again . . . the correct spelling is necessary
Judgement . . . missed it by that much . . . it is spelled judgment (by the way . . . you missed that one twice - not sure you can claim typo on that one).
So, now that we know you are not qualified to even post here . . . not sure I should even respond to the rest of what you wrote . . . ah, what the heck.
Ah yes, the Kramer analogy . . . lighten up man. Compared to how much grad and post grad work I have done . . . that is a fair analogy. The point is, you guys are the ones who misrepresented who you were. In no way shape or form would anyone with any intellectual honesty proclaim or indicate that a high school graduate was an expert in ancient text. As I stated when I debated him, I do not claim to be an expert, but it was so easy to simply show him the flaw in his logic. I would not be able to do that if someone was actually qualified to hold that title. You guys are bunch liars. You own the site, and you allowed it to happen. Todangst is supposed to be educated and he couldn't even be honest. It certainly doesn't bode well if that is the best that Rutgers can produce.
Are you illiterate??? Obviously, I did have a good response. In case you missed it, he lost the debate. I was ready to go on, but again . . . the lack of honesty did not promote that endeavor. What reason do I have to believe Todangst concerning his education? He wouldn't tell the truth then, why now????
I expect all those who have not taken the time to work, study, research, and test through college and grad schools to attribute all of that to simply a "$50,000 piece of paper." What is amazing is that if someone agrees with you and they are educated . . . you put that up as bragging rights. But when someone disagrees, you act like it is not important. I am also aware that you, Cutler, are simply a high school graduate, so of course you are hostile to those who have gone further in their education and simply disagree with you. When you actually put in the time, energy, and sacrifice to further educate yourself . . . then we can talk about the value of grad and post-grad work.
You stated, "The claim (and I agree) was that he had the qualities (or qualifications) to discuss ancient history with knowledge, being that he's studied and read more ancient history than most Masters graduates."
You have absolutely no data to back up that statement, none whatsoever. Let me post what another atheist wrote on the same thread (Why Contest and Translation Matters).
This was written by Vessel:
All that being said I will agree with you on the point that, in the American culture, to reference someone as an expert in a particular field carries with it an implication of formal education. If Rook is not formally educated in biblical mumbo-jumbo, or whatever the field may be known as, to call him an expert without making this clear seems dishonest. Once we get past that and the dishonesty is cleared from the air, the fact that one does lack formal education in a particular field is not sufficient reason to disregard their arguments. Their arguments still hold as much weight as those made by any PhD unless you can show them to be incorrect.
Most of the time you run when I post Cutler . . . I wonder if it will be the same this time.
Lastly, really???? You call me childish when the best you can do is say, "You suck at life." Interesting . . . that is exactly what I would expect from a child.
Just admit . . . it was wrong. You and the others at RRS should simply be honest about who you are.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Better to bury it rather than own up to it.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
1. The debate was in 2007. It is on page 6 of Rooks forum . . . Why Context and Translations Matter.
2. The question concerning Rooks qualifications were asked because I saw his threads and read that he was an Ancient Text Expert. All I did, was ask to know what qualified him to be called an expert. You are correct, he never stated he had a degree. Again, I already pasted this in response to Brian Cutler, but I will paste it again. My question was not unreasonable. This was written by Vessel.
All that being said I will agree with you on the point that, in the American culture, to reference someone as an expert in a particular field carries with it an implication of formal education. If Rook is not formally educated in biblical mumbo-jumbo, or whatever the field may be known as, to call him an expert without making this clear seems dishonest. Once we get past that and the dishonesty is cleared from the air, the fact that one does lack formal education in a particular field is not sufficient reason to disregard their arguments. Their arguments still hold as much weight as those made by any PhD unless you can show them to be incorrect.
Again, why now . . . because I looked at the book written by Thomas Verenna and when I looked at information concerning the author . . . there you go. By the way, I didn't even know that Thomas Verenna was Rook. It was all by accident.
3. You guys invite atheists and theists here to debate . . . and then RRS is not being honest about who they are. There is no reason for this. It is deceiving . . . that is all it is.
That is the reason for my post and the reason for the timing for my post. I also checked back regularly to see if Rook would be honest and change his list of "Biblical Errors." For over a year, he failed to do that. So my point was, why debate??? Even if someone changes their mind . . . it will never show up on this site.
Let me end with this. I did not take this debate and put it on facebook or myspace. I did not go to youtube. I came here to debate and I left it here. I did not post all over the internet what went on here as many do. There have been many good discussions here with many of your members. I have not agreed with them on issues and they have not agreed with me, but I did not feel they were being dishonest. That certainly is not the case when it comes to Rook and especially Todangst.
Thanks for your questions.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Vastet,
Two of my three degrees are not in religion. You assume too much.
More gloating about old victories. Where's the positives for your God?
Do you have any or is your sole purpose to come and say "I kicked Rook's ass and slapped Tod around for good measure?
Geez, Rook admitted he was wrong at the time - does your ego need that much stroking that you bring it up now?
Whatever. Just clean up when you're done.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
peacock.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Peacocks strut around showing their plumage because they're trying to get laid. I wonder what Rev's excuse is.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
That's because you don't post anything that warrants a response as has happened here. I'm not running, I'm laughing and not finding a need to type that out.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
about the threadbare nature of the right reverend's argument - let's reciprocate and see how he likes it. Religious teachers of abuse their positions of power over weak minds and have the nasty habit of interfering with small boys.
As a result of this, all religion should be considered horseshit, everything you say should be utterly ignored and you can kiss my arse.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I thought you guys were curing all these theists???? Doesn't that refute your comment?
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
What is laughable is that you refuse to own up to your failure. Other than one person, who has asked some questions, your response is to attack the theist.
I could care less if a high school graduate, a high school student, and an ex-stripper (college drop-out) want to start a website bashing theism . . . just be honest about who you are. You decided to list "The Team" so be honest about it.
If honesty about who you are really doesn't matter . . . Why after my very first post was the label "Theist" put next to my name. You wanted to clearly identify who I was.
This thread was not about the validity of the Bible, nor what education I have received, NOR about beating Rook in a debate . . . as I stated before, what possible bragging rights are there for dominating a dojo of 2nd graders . . . AND YET; most of you want to attack those things. These accusations are the very definition of a strawman argument. This thread was about the dishonesty of RRS, and yet none of you (except one) have even questioned that.
Do you seriously not see any deception there??? If Rook is only 20, and this was 2 years ago when I questioned he credentials . . . perhaps when he was given the label of "Ancient Text Expert" he was NOT EVEN a high school graduate. And you are warning me about pride before the fall??? You are comparing me to a peacock???? Gimme a break.
Again, quit running away Cutler. Own up to the deception.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
You changed my label because I exposed your dishonesty????? Theist troll????
How is the honesty of this website not relevant to this forum???
Once again, you have lived up to the expectations Cutler - none.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Like his high school degree and his associates. That's a liberal arts I'd wager.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Using the correct alef-bet would also be "necessary", though writing G-d's name down for no good reason is a violation of one of the Top Ten Things Not To Do. And no, it's not "Yahweh" -- there's no "W" in Hebrew. It's also not "Jehovah" -- there's no "J" in Hebrew either.
"Judgement" is a valid alternative spelling. The entire world does not use American English spellings. I had a college prof who used to harsh on how many British English spellings I used (I have a lot of British heritage stuck in my brain -- some of it against my will) and it manifests itself as extra "e"'s and "u"'s, as well as swapped "er" / "re" endings.
Apparently you didn't learn that there is no "W" in Hebrew while you were getting that graduate degree in theology or whatever. And not knowing that there is no "W" in Hebrew, you probably also didn't know that "yud", "hey" and "vav" also serve as vowels, or that the four letters in G-d's ineffible name are the same four letters used in the past, present and future tense of the Hebrew verb "to be". Makes the "I AM that I AM" name given to Moses make a bit more sense. You think?
I don't have a $50,000 theology degree. I think I spent maybe $10,000 on my undergrad (there was no accredited graduate program in my field at the time I received my Baccalaureate, so I'm stuck with a lowly B.S. ), but I somehow knew that there is no "W" in a word that can't even be pronounced.
As you should be honest that you couldn't read an ancient Hebrew text if you wanted to.
(Some of this is controversial, but knowing that it's controversial is also part of knowing what ancient texts are all about)
"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."
Just curious . . . did you work your entire life to acquire your stupidity or did it just come naturally?
The Hebrew letters yod, heh, vav, heh is the four letter name for God. Many believe that an approximation of the original SOUND of the name is "YAHWEH." This grouping is called by Bible Scholars, "the tetragrammaton." This set of four letters was used by the Hebrew people to signify the incommunicable Name of God. The issue was not the Hebrew, but rather the spelling of "Yahweh." Evidently your $10,000 did not cover a class in reading comprehension.
No one said a word about Jehovah or a "J"
You are right the entire world does not use American English - but Americans do and I believe (I could be wrong) that Cutler is here in America. The point again was that typos or even misspellings do not discredit a person from being intelligent. Seriously, the class on reading comprehension should be a serious consideration for you. Perhaps a good junior college might be a good place for you to start.
Not impressed with your Hebrew 101 knowledge. Not sure what your point was except to spout information that had NOTHING to do with the conversation.
Again with the Yahweh. Please read first comment . . . Oh yeah, still struggling with reading. You should remember, Yahweh is an English word. No one ever said it was a Hebrew word. I also never said that I had a $50,000 theology degree. READ, READ, READ.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
No liberal arts and it is called a high school diploma. Let me know when you get one.