Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by booklover on September 2, 2012 at 7:40am

Being educated doesn't mean you have to have a degree.  I never finished college, and I educate myself constantly.  No thanks to reading your book.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aron Loyd on September 2, 2012 at 1:55am

  Mr Chang,

  I didn't want you to read my book anyway.  You may know why.  Also, you say you skimmed through it.  But you can't do that and get any real sense of it.  As you may have figured out, I am trying to make sense out of bullshit in the bible as I find it.  There is nothing linear about it.  I will make a point in one spot.  But when the same type of thing comes up again, I most often make a completely different argument about that particular topic.  You also make an argument about semantics and interpretation.  But the bible says what it says.  I can interpret it as well as the next person.  Probably better than most, apparently.  

  But where your criticism really falls flat is where you say I take things out of context.  I paid special attention to avoid that as much as possible with the bible's constant gibberish.  As you may have noticed from the quotes from the bible that I copied, I most often copied down more of the script than was necessary to make my point without it appearing I had taken something out of context.  Also, you may not believe this, but I made a superhuman effort to be as completely honest in what I've written as is humanly possible.  I can't say of course that my book is perfect in other aspects.  But you have to at least admit that it is light years ahead of the bible.  If for no other reason than that I have thousands of years of hindsight to draw upon that the bible's writers had no knowledge of.  If you are as concerned with truth as I am, actually read the book before you criticize it.  

  It might be a help to write down the place where something appears that you don't agree with.  That way, when the subject comes up again elsewhere in the bible, you can write down the position of my reply to that topic there.  Then you can look up all of my replies on a certain topic in a semi-linear fashion and put the bible's views to bed for good.  Such as the many things I have to say against slavery throughout the book.  Maybe you just coped an attitude against my book because of the varied and scattered things I have to say about overpopulation in it.  The bible may support overpopulation, but Orientals embody it.  Could that have something to do with your attitude against somebody who is just trying to keep the world from being destroyed?  That is if it isn't already too late.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Chang on September 2, 2012 at 2:57am

Aron, I'll ignore your subtly racist quip there at the end (if the Chinese embodied overpopulation, then the government wouldn't have limited the number of children a family could have until human rights activists called for the elimination of that practice).

When you say your book is light years ahead of the Bible, I have to ask: in what context? Factually, the Bible contains none, but neither does your book. What the Bible is, though, is a collection of short stories meant to tell a story and give a lesson in morality; some far outdated, and some still applicable in a modern world. And it does this at least somewhat entertainingly if read in the right state of mind.

You seem to have high confidence (arrogance?) in your interpretation ability. But what about your ability of sorting out priorities? Because I have to say this: reading 200 pages of a line by line rebuttal of the Bible makes as much sense as someone picking out incongruencies from a Harry Potter novel and taking the fiction book literally. You seem to confuse atheism with some anti-theist dogma and you feel we all have to live by some kind of neo-liberal political ideology that you assume is based in science. And that's my biggest complaint of your book is that it doesn't address the issue of atheism at all. Many atheists have learned to move on with their lives. You told Ruth Anthony-Gardner that she needed to read this book the most, but I can honestly say that this book will have no value for her.

In my opinion, although you keep accusing other people of being enslaved by the Bible, you're its #1 victim. You spent all this time trying to refute it -- to what end? The world isn't being "destroyed", come on, I'm going to assume you're a little old to be a drama queen. What your book fails to explain is how you arrived at the conclusion of the is-ought problem; in other words, why should we value the things you value? Why should we be altruistic? I'm not saying we shouldn't, but where do you derive your ethics that you want all of us to follow?

I find it ironic that you feel a moral imperative to "save" religious people, despite being freed from religious moral imperatives. But do not mistake your brand of atheism for all of atheism. A Hedonist, for example, would rather let the Christians believe what they want to some extent that it maximizes pleasure amongst the overall population. An Existentialist couldn't care less, and an Objectivist would probably consider your time wasted and morally wrong to try to influence other people without benefit to yourself. I could go on and on, but long story short, I'm not interested in your book because it doesn't answer any questions for me.

You would have your book taken much more seriously if you stopped trying to present it as some overly important book and just call it "My Solutions to Problems Of The World".

You keep saying you don't want people to read your book. I don't know if that's some kind of psychology ploy, insecurity, or are you just intolerant and dismissive towards people that might challenge your beliefs that will make you troll your own thread, but an author doesn't choose his audience.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aron Loyd on September 2, 2012 at 5:24pm

  Mr Chang,

  Drama queen?  Really?  Have you never seen the graph that shows CO2 levels sense the beginning of the industrial revolution?  Can you not recognize an exponential growth when you see it?  Do you have any idea what that is going to do to methane release?  There are are areas in my book where I talk about the bibles anti-environmental stances.  Just like slavery, child killing, imperialism, homosexuality, dishonesty and betrayal, cannibalism, absolute faith, etc. etc. etc.  I guess speaking against those things doesn't mean a thing. Neither could I have anything useful to say about them.  Right?  

  I hate to bruise you're ego.  But none of you're criticisms against my book have any substantial merit.  That is if they have any merit at all.  Unfortunately for you, I know the significance of what I wrote.  Criticizing the bible may not be a new thing.  But I think the way I went about it is above par.  You, Booklover, Steph, Ms. Garner and Mr. Rosenberg have been of service to me though.  In so much as my original assertion that even an Atheist can be guilty of many of the same things as a true believer.  Jesus, Mohammed and all of their brainwashed fanatical followers would be proud of the way you have all attacked my book.  I pity you all.  Please don't write me again. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Chang on September 3, 2012 at 12:11am

"I guess speaking against those things doesn't mean a thing. Neither could I have anything useful to say about them.  Right?"

That's exactly right. It's easy to say something is right or wrong; I could read that from a middle school essay. What's hard is to find substantial or compelling proof why we should think a certain way or care. Things that may seem clear cut under your moral code does not apply to others without argument. That's where your book fails: It fails to make proper argument.

You may think what you wrote is significant, but that's not the job of an author; an author most prove that significance to other people, and you have failed in spades. It's unfortunate you don't know how to take constructive criticism.

I've asked you several questions so far and you've failed to answer any of them. I will ask you another one: Do you believe in objective morality? And if so, what do you suppose imbues you with that property? I think you need to take a community college course in Critical Writing, or Philosophy. Or you can ignore my message and pity me.

But there's a quote from the Bible which applies: Let he without sin cast the first stone. As an atheist, that one line from the Bible makes more sense than anything you've said so far, and that's something you could not dare to invalidate.

Sorry, but you could not bruise my ego if you devoted your life to it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glen Rosenberg on September 2, 2012 at 9:17am

Aron,

I have limited interest in the bible. I cant see why your book is valuable if it is just another critique of the bible. Why should I care about exegesis or theological niceties?

Your chosen people reference is as much the racist stereotype of anti-semites as it is the belief of religious Jews. Only blinded religious loons and anti-semites would give it any credibility. And for Jews who were chosen for extermination by man it is particularly silly to continue in that vein. For a person to use it as a critique of a race is indicative of racism. The foundation of the state of Israel was more based on exigency than any religious anachronism.

You have not conveyed any good reason for reading your book. At least not for me. I have read more than enough similar writings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aron Loyd on September 2, 2012 at 4:48pm

  Mr Rosenberg,

  My book is not just a critique of the bible.  If somebody says something that supports things like slavery or killing girl babies, is it not a good thing to criticize those things?  My book covers many topics.  Though I couldn't go into them into the detail that I would have liked to.  The Bible is mostly a collection of garbage.  I tried to straighten it out as best I could be dividing the things that are stupid or lies from those things that are outright evil.  Though if you read the preface, you would know that.  As for the whole Jew thing, you can call their success a case of superiority.  Unfortunately for you, I can recognize every form of warfare.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on September 2, 2012 at 7:45pm

This quote from your book says a very great deal about your motivation:

 

I would also like to have money to set into motion the formation of a united, Atheist and Rationalist, White Sovereign Nations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on September 3, 2012 at 1:21am

Thanks for the head's up Dr. Allan H. Clark. I wouldn't waste time on a book, or an author, advocating White Nations uniting under any value. *Puke*

Racism isn't any sort of Rationalism or Atheism to which I subscribe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Aron Loyd on September 3, 2012 at 2:26pm

  Hey Ruth,

  Puke on this.  A long time ago a species of bird made its way to the Galapagos islands.  They eventually evolved physically to suit different ecological niches.  At some point, before they changed physically, there must have been a racist component for them to separate enough to change in the way they did.  "Racist" views aren't an aberration.  They are the rule.  It is unfortunate that Dr. Clark gave the impression that seeking money was the reason for why I wrote my book.  Because it wasn't.  The solutions to the world's problems was the main reason.  "Racist" views are only a very small but inescapable part of it.  You can choose to hide behind a wall of ignorance and not read my book.  That's your choice.  But if you feel the need to puke, I suggest that you look into a mirror first.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by booklover on September 3, 2012 at 2:59pm

"But if you feel the need to puke, I suggest that you look into a mirror first."  WOW! Aron Loyd, you are not only self-centered, but MEAN and nasty.  And racist.  It's people like you that make me seriously wish there was an ignore-button on here.  Go away.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Chang on September 3, 2012 at 3:12pm

There's a racist component to natural selection? Thanks for letting us know that you don't understand very much of the theory of evolution. Birds didn't choose their mates based on these physical properties; they lack the intellectual capacity. Rather, those that lacked favorable qualities had diminished rates of survival, and that created distinct populations over time.

I think you should officially change your position to "irrational pantheist" -- because you have effectively created a philosophy (if you can even call it that) out of a response from a fictional, religious novel. For someone who doesn't believe in God, you sure hold his words to high regard. I hope you realize "unholy" is the opposite of "holy", but they are equally revered.

You don't know the definition of "rational", and you don't know the definition of "atheism".

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page