When someone wishes to criticize 'X' despite possessing a demonstrable ignorance thereof (e.g., a creationist attack against evolution by someone who does not even understand the basics of evolution), what would that be called? There simply must be something more excoriating than "ignorant." Is that really the most censorious term available? It hardly seems adequate.
I need something that will adequately characterize such moronic arguments as those presented by "Vjack" who, in his blog about an Atheist Revolution [1], presents some of the most torturous logic I have ever had the misfortune of encountering. I cannot remember the link trail I was following but I ended up discovering a blog post of his from nearly four years ago (March 2005) entitled "Bible Commands Christians to Kill Nonbelievers" [2]. Obviously that grabbed my attention, as it was probably intended to. But the sheer incoherence of his argument is truly a phenomenon.
Although I read the entire article (thankfully it is brief), I certainly didn't need to, having noted the biblical reference his argument was calling upon, pulled from the book of Deuteronomy. Really, Vjack? Deuteronomy? This material, written nearly a thousand years before there were any Christians, was composed with instructions for them? Does the word "anachronistic" [3] mean anything to you, sir? I should suppose that Vjack has good reason to think these mitzvot (commands) in fact do not form "extensive laws, admonitions, and injunctions to the Israelites regarding how they ought to conduct themselves in Canaan" [4; emphasis mine], that he surely has good reason to think these instructions were actually for Christians.
And if he does, he forgot to include it in his blog post.
That only holds applicable if *no Christian* considers the Old Testament to be valid doctrine. At least where I live, such is ubiquitously not the case.
ReplyDelete