this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
737 points (95.9% liked)

Atheist Memes

5589 readers
331 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Other Similar Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Dude, your meme is about logical consistency of the bible. To test for logical consistency, you have to assume it is true to test it against itself.

Also I am not a believer, so I don't believe it is true... But I can argue in favor of something that I am not believing. A basic skill that people need for scientific process.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That’s a literal quote from Carl Sagan. Now argue in favor of it being literal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I am not sure what is a quote from Carl Sagan and I am not sure why anyone should care who said it in this context.

I assume the second "it" is the quote? Maybe not? Do me the favor and help me to understand your message.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua:

is a literal arrangement of words, but nonsensical, like the logic of the creation of the bible. Can you argue in favor of Lorem ipsum?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Assuming you mean the content of "Lorem Ipsum", I can't argue in favor of it. The content of "Lorem Ipsum" is literally intentionally meaningless. It doesn't propose a position, argue a point or even express a thought. I can't argue in favor of nothing.

But as your way of expressing yourself is so poor, I could intentionally misunderstand you and argue in favor of "Lorem Ipsum"... As a placeholder text. Easy first Argument, it is meaningless and well known as a placeholder text, making difficult to confuse it with real content while being similar to real European languages.

I am disappointed that you didn't help me to understand what quote you meant or what "it" was. But I can only blame myself at this point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

“Light Circles” and “Time Units” are literally not in the Bible. You literally used literally incorrectly.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You seem unaware how an explanation works and what literally means.

Let's start with the obvious, I never claimed to exclusively words that are in the bible. I claimed that a literal reading could be understood a different ways. at least some, I included in my message.

Now that we know that you are on the same page (not the literal meaning of page, here)

  1. Literal just means "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration." The word "day" is used multiple ways. One is for the time in which the sun starts directly illuminating the speakers location until it stops. Another is as a time unit; 24 hours. So the literal meaning of a day is very much both. Just as an example, "page" has a few literal meanings too. A book page, a webpage. But also in "being on the same page", "page" can mean "being in agreement", e.g. in the earlier case, agreement on what I said and meant.

  2. An explanation of a literal reading of a text is not required to use exclusively words from the text. Think about it for a second. If someone asks you what a word means, you probably at least want to include the literal meaning of the word, right? So, will you respond with just that one word? "What is 'orwellian' "? "Oh, it means Orwellian" of course, you wouldn't. People would think you are an asshole.

I want to apologize if I made any wrong assumption about you, e.g. that you agree on the facts of what I said.

I hope this helps

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

This is embarrassing. Like even for an explanation.

Words literally have definitions; not to be used figuratively when it helps your argument.

I hope this helps.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, be mad but a "day" can be a time unit and a light cycle. In it's literal meaning. I know that. You know that.

If you doubt it, google "how long is a day on Mars?".

The answer of that question makes it clear that the word "day" have "light cycle" meaning in a literal sense.

And I really hope you aren't arguing that "day" can't literally mean 24 hours.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Figure of Speech

figure of speech or rhetorical figure is a word or phrase that intentionally deviates from straightforward language use or literal meaning to produce a rhetorical or intensified effect (emotionally, aesthetically, intellectually, etc.).

Hope this helps.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Back to poor communication. What do you mean by that?