Christianity as a Tool of Oppression (new essay)

Post Reply New Topic

Your 'essay' doesn't seem to be anything but a rant about how Christians and Christianity has given you a hard time and some non sensical quoting from the bible. A lot of the passages are open to interpretation but yours just plain don't make any sense. Accuse this of being ad hominem, and I'm sure you will because it seems to be your catchcry but Orwell and summed it up rather well.

In short just because they don't have immediate and irrefutable proof that your theory is wrong doesn't mean that it's right.

Does that apply equally to Catholic priests that bugger helpless kids?

So long as we do not succumb to the availability heuristic, then yes.

Look, you guys can point at a table and say, "That doesn't make sense." It takes what is called a rational argument to defend or refute a theory.

It takes a rational argument to establish a theory as well.

There have been a number of rational arguments against various aspects of your article. You haven't addressed them.

'Establish'? Does that mean prove or describe? You can describe a theory without having to prove it.



I wrote up a response, but like I said, it was deleted. I don't need the last word -- even if it turns out I'm right.

Dionysus: 'Ad hominem' is not just a catchcry but a notice to an insubstantial attack on the character or assertions of a proponent or skeptic. It is actually considered quite silly in formal debate to resort to these attacks, and while we aren't in that situation, you will make greater contributions and appear more intelligent if you learn to avoid this and other fallacies.

You can get out your figurative boxing gloves and 'beat up' any theory you want with ad hominem attacks. That doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

Also, if you tell us that I'm claiming the truth of the theory, you commit what is called a 'straw man fallacy.' This means you attribute a statement to me that I didn't actually make -- in this case, that the theory is actually true, even though I state (on the first page!) that it might be falsified.

No, establish means "give coherent foundations to". Establishing a theory demands that it makes sense, not that sufficient evidence exists to prove it.


You aren't right. You are eye-gougingly wrong. I would eat my shirt if somehow you could be proven right.


If something is so ridiculous such that it does not seem to make sense, then rational argumentation is just too kind of an act. In this case, most of the foundations of the theory are considered wrong to the point of ridiculousness. Pointing this out specifically can be done, but most people see this and just don't consider your theory sensible enough to bother going at length on the matter.

My theory makes as much sense as a horse's being led by a carrot on a stick. It's that simple.

Now, I will thank you if you don't bite through it as if it were delicious ad hominem food.

Except for the fact that your theory is a conspiracy theory based upon an obvious misinterpretation of data, which means that the horse being led by the carrot is a fair bit more obvious.

I mean, come on, the vast majority of people have accused you of misinterpreting your sources, and you have no sources that show that your interpretations are valid and it is valid background knowledge that Christians don't interpret their scriptures in the way that you are interpreting them. So, it really seems to me that your theory has no validity at all.

It's not a conspiracy theory! You're still thinking about fruits and vegetables, aren't you?



Unsupported claim.



Argumentum ad populum.



Argument from ignorance.



Appeal to authority.



It depends on what you mean by 'validity': consistency or truth. It has consistency as a theory of Christianity as a lying promise of reward (analogous to a carrot on a stick) to get people to work harder for you and be more submissive to your wish and will.

If you want to learn to write like me, snipping people's posts apart sentence by sentence and naming their fallacies, you can start here. Until then, I hope you will be kind to all those poor, lonely people out there who aren't getting any love.

No, I am not.

I already argued that claim. Also, I find it OBVIOUS, and you have no support for your own interpretations at all. Because of that, there is no reason to prevent me from saying that it is "obviously wrong".


Wait, so the opinions of the people who ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN CHRISTIANITY has no validity in describing the religion??? Or are you saying that PEOPLE WHO KNOW THE RELIGION AND HAVE STUDIED THE THEOLOGY have less knowledge on the matter than a guy who quotemined the Bible to support his paranoiac worldview where everything is an attempt to keep him from getting laid. Look, this is an inductive matter, and so if all other people who have knowledge on something think it is ridiculous, then based upon the evidence we have, it is ridiculous.


That's not an argument from ignorance. You lack the supporting evidence necessary for your claim to get off the ground, and that's that. It doesn't mean that you are wrong, but I am very damn sure that this evidence doesn't exist, in which case you would be wrong. Most Christians are also pretty damn sure that this evidence doesn't exist. Could it exist though? Sure, but only in the same sense that flying saucers and dragons could exist.


We're relying on induction. Authorities are valid evidence, so long as there is nothing undermining the credibility of these authorities. In such case, you would have to prove that there is reason to think that you have more knowledge than these authorities. Once again though, YOU HAVE A THEORY OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY THAT NO CHRISTIAN OR THEOLOGIAN BELIEVES OR HAS EVER BELIEVED, and you somehow think that it is the real meaning of scripture? The idea sounds ridiculous, and you don't have good evidence for your belief.


Actually, it is so ridiculously incomplete that I cannot consider it consistent. After all, there are elements of the Bible you haven't looked at or attempted to harmonize and that you probably really cannot harmonize with your theory. You outright invented categories from thin-air that did not exist within the original text or theology. And the entire idea that you have isn't even historically consistent or compatible with any human psychology that anybody could recognize, as such, I would consider "Jesus is an alien" a much more valid interpretation.


You don't even know how the fallacies work. The majority of fallacies apply to deductive reasoning, in which something is absolutely proven. This entire affair is inductive though. This means that your listing of fallacies is just quite fallacious, and shows a deep misunderstanding of how induction works.

I have no intention of making you angry, Awesomelyglorious. I'm just going to stop here and let the readers decide.

Your analogy sucks, but moving on. You're right, it does take a rational argument to defend or refute a theory. So, get going and defend your theory. You're proposing a new interpretation, the burden of proof is on you to adequately defend it before anyone else needs to take it seriously.

Defend my theory from what? The barrage of ad hominem attacks? Two words will suffice for that.

Um... well, you've failed to defend it against AG when he indulged you with a criticism of a few points. Why don't you start with that? Or you could give a rational argument in the first place for why anyone should take your theory seriously.

Besides, you have a pattern of just dismissing any criticism as an ad hominem, regardless of whether or not it is. Saying "your theory is a load of bull" is not an ad hominem so much as it is just a rather obvious statement of fact. Saying "you are an idiot, therefore your theory is false" would be an ad hominem, so although arguably the premise and conclusion are both true, the truth of the premise does not necessitate the truth of the conclusion. Do you understand the difference?

You know what I think is funny? When people tell me that specific respondents have offered objections that I did not reply to, without even saying what they are. Are you even trying to debate with me, or are you just goofing off?

Most of the objections in this thread have been a rather rude mixture of ad hominems and straw men. What people don't seem to understand yet is that I haven't proven the theory, nor do I claim its truth,

I can't force you to read the whole essay, or to be a good debater, but I insist that you can't win an argument the same way you can beat someone in Mortal Kombat. There is more to proving your point than throwing the meaningless punches and kicks of ad hominem attacks.

No, please don't insult me again. It's getting rather old.