I am a Biblical Fideist. I accept by faith that the Holy Bible is the inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God. The Holy Bible is my foundation for all things about which the Bible teaches. It has a power and authority that no other book ever has.

Literally nobody believes that the Harry Potter books are the Word of God. The author herself (JK Rowland) would be the first to denounce anyone who asserted that her novels were to be taken as historical truth.

A non-idiotic analogy would be to compare the Holy Bible to the Koran or to the Book of Mormon, or other similar works.

Your choice of analogy proves that you literally have no clue what you are talking about.

As usual, you are a liar for your religion. I've used the other ancient texts analogy hundreds of times and you know that I understand it. It's just that the Harry Potter one points up the ridiculousness of citing a story as verification that the story is true fallacy better than the other religious books one does. So now what? More lies?

I'm fairly confident that you understand pretty much nothing on this topic.

Please highlight anything in any post of mine in this Forum that can be objectively demonstrated to be a lie.

And I clearly demonstrated to you why your Harry Potter analogy is unremittingly stupid.

"But my chosen ancient book is the one that is the real one, the perfect one, the one we can take at face value concerning such things as who should be killed. You know, like witches, homosexuals, unruly children, adulteress wives. Adulteress husbands not so much; they're okay to live."

Fact check: It IS a mistake to take this book at face value ... just like all the rest of the religious books.

If you get real about it, who chose who: God chose his people or people chose the god?

FellaGaga-52 apparently doesn't know what "Fact Check" means. (Just thought I'd mention it.)

And so the fact that I have used the other ancient religious book analogy repeatedly, does not concern you as to whether I understand it ... and you call this honest?? Sorry, that is the whole apologetic mindset in a nutshell. The fact that I then chose the Potter analogy is because it was more adept at emphasizing the fictional STORY aspect of the whole thing. Good gawd almighty. Hide yourself, at least. This type of devious dishonesty, false witness, and ad hominem attack is just the pit of religiosity, the hallmark of the mind that disvalues truth while it clings to religion.

And in the apologists mind, it is okay to defend mass murder and hate crimes (they are good right here in black and white with killing for being homosexual) ... and we divert from this monstrosity of a doctrine by nitpicking about philosophical points wherever we can.

I'll type really slow this time, so even you might understand it:

Please highlight anything in any post of mine in this Forum that you believe is an objectively demonstrable lie. And, of course, actually demonstrate why it is a lie.

If you can't do that, then you are the liar!

Well, if me pointing out the utter stupidity in your posts is a case of nitpicking, then I plead "Guilty as charged, your Honor!"

Don't worry about the hate crimes, dude. Ply that religion. This debate is just so much like WWJD? When the doctrine gets skewered, the faithful stick to their guns, doubling down on hate crimes, defending genocide and infanticide. "It says so in the ancient book. And our ancient book is the right one. So like obviously it is for death to homosexuals and witches." I mean doesn't this last part date it and expose it a bit for what it is? "No," says the true believer, "It's from the god almighty of omniscience and love."

Once again, FellaGaga-52 falls into Rant Mode instead of actually engaging my posts in a thoughtful manner.

Where's my shock face?

Found it!!

In case you missed it the first time:

You lie about what I am because you have to to defend the doctrine. You bear false witness about ME. And you know it.

You're being deliberately vague.

Let's try this one more time:

PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXACT QUOTE OF ME LYING ABOUT ANYTHING IN THIS FORUM. AND, OF COURSE, DEMONSTRATE WHY IT IS OBJECTIVELY A LIE.

If you can't do that, then you are the liar!

Sorry, Charlie. You are being deliberately legalistic and fudging on "objective" the same way the apologists do to claim the morality of the invisible man in the sky is "objective." What a joke. When I pin down a doctrine as extremely immoral -- say genocide or bigoted hate crimes or infanticide -- instead of dealing with the point you go to the ad hominem "rant" accusation over and over and over. And it is extremely dishonest characterization and a desperate deception to hold on to the doctrine. And this same is the whole game of apologetics. One wonders if you even know it if you can fall for that Psychobabble blatantly amateurish progaganda. Nevertheless, lies and deceptions that are so institutionalized that you don't even realize they are lies anymore, are still false witness.

What I have been speaking about in this thread must continue to be stigmatized because of the potential for harm by bad actors. The truth can prevail despite extreme skepticism and stigmatization while hopefully filtering out many bad actors along the way.

Amazing!

Another rant by our resident foaming-at-the-mouth anti-religion babbler, FellaGaga-52.

He accuses me of lying, yet won't show any quotes of me lying.

FellaGaga-52 is the epitome of a bad-faith poster. He attempts to claim the intellectual high-ground, while mostly providing us with nothing but unhinged emotionalism.

Since I don't want see him burst a blood-vessel ranting and raving, I will put him on Ignore for the time being for his own good and for the good of the posters and lurkers in this Forum who might also find his constant vitriol tiresome.

Bad actors both foster moral panics and exploit people caught up in them. They exploit the idea that something is wrong at a deep level and needs to be corrected.

That idea is true but should constantly be undermined or reassured against in order to try to keep people out of moral panics and lessen the affect of bad actors. For instance, Jesus said, “Do not worry.”

Ideally, the do-not-worry is held in one hand while the awareness of the deep problem is held in the other hand. The solution always involves holding contradiction.

The do-not-worry by itself is susceptible to over-correction when the reality checks are finally accepted. Everyone goes through this stage because as a society we rightfully aim for the do-not-worry environment for young children.

We need the "objective" standards and rules for geometry. To do this, I'm going to go to some invisible deity in a prayer, or maybe some tablets, and whatever he says is the way it is. That is then the "objective" rules for mathematics. Right?

What is wrong with that picture?? When the religious go to such a source for their "objective morality," they are doing the same thing. It's a nightmare that shows no respect for reality. So if then if someone claims the math god said "the hypotenuse squared = pi cubed," then you have an objective truth of math.

And you know that is a joke for every category under the sun other than morality. But we make this magic appeal for morality. The "objective" truth of morality is what is claimed that some particular god said. This is how we end up defending bigotry, hate crimes, infanticide, original sin, etc. etc. ... without using our minds to decide what is moral like we do for every other subject under the sun.

A religious stance toward morality is not the good. It is a faux good of a superstitious and magic believing culture that's remnants ensnare people dangerously into immorality. And then we end up saying: "It was good to kill homosexuals for being gay" (and attempt to hold this as something other than a hate crime mentality); "It was good and righteous for all the children and fetuses of the world to be killed for something someone else did" (and hold this as loving and righteous); "It is good to be blindly obedient to ancient customs and mores" (when virtually every version of psychology and philosophy holds such blind obedience as immoral and dangerous and a primary cause of evil in the world).

Be careful what you call "objective." You can end up with a religious hellscape as a moral doctrine.

And how do we know what is morally right and wrong?

How do we know whether the "hypotenuse squared = pi cubed" is right or wrong? YOU DON'T GET THE ANSWER FROM ANCIENT GOD CLAIMS. You use your brain the best you can. Yes there are difficult calls in morality ... no they aren't solved by barbarian god superstitions. The more difficult the more you need to think instead of rely on imaginary ancient sources.

As expected, FellaGaga-52 did not answer the question.

Also to be expected is for FellaGaga-52 to address my noting his failure to answer the question with one of his signature rants.