Twitter and the Internet Atheist

Ah Twitter. While it can be a wonderful tool for evangelism and discussion, it unfortunately, all too often, becomes a hotbed of ignorance on full display. Such was the case I ran into recently, as I interacted with yet another internet atheist, who, as we will see, is also a deep seated Carrier-ite. You'll note that the following screenshots are numbered, because unfortunately our friend Jackie Kelly here, is apparently under the impression that all responses should be to the original tweet as opposed to in thread. This makes following the conversation very difficult. The numbers are my attempt to alleviate this problem.

Our interaction began with the above tweet and my response. The link is to a clip from Dr. James White's (@DrOakley1689) Dividing Line program where he covers this. He did quite a good job, so I won't dig any deeper than what he did there. As to the second half of this tweet, it's quite apparent that Jackie has had either little interaction with knowledgeable Christians, or has refused to look at the refutations that have presented of such contentions. Since this already looks like it's going to be a long article, I will save that for another.

I have to assume, based on the wording that either our friend Jackie here is not fluent in English (it may well not be their first language) or has a bit of an issue with auto correct (the bane of my existence!). Either way, I will attempt to piece together the point they are trying to put forward. To begin with, God did give us one "text". The entirety of the bible is that text. However they then seem to conflate text with religion, which isn't remotely the same thing. As anyone who knows me, knows I'm fond of asking, 'is an abuse of a text a proper use of that text?' Since the logical answer is always 'no' this short circuits the argument of  "so many religions" from a Christian perspective. The remaining religions are, as a matter of course, the innate knowledge of mankind, knowing there is a creator, yet denying the God of the bible. These religions are all based on a very anthropomorphic version of a god or gods, ones that are easily placed into a box that will not chafe their desire for sin. In short, the opening chapters of the letter to the Romans. As to the argumentation, it's really no contest. No other religion has the explanatory power that Christianity does, nor the historical evidence. http://www.equip.org/article/biblical-archaeology-factual-evidence-to-support-the-historicity-of-the-bible/

I have to assume that Jackie meant "forgery" but either auto correct got them, or they were in too much of a furor using caps to realize their mistake. Either way you slice it though, it's an historically inaccurate statement. The field of textual criticism is robust with evidence very much against Jackie's claim, by both believing and non-believing scholars. Bart Ehrman springs to mind, and even he admits that the bible is the most well attested work of antiquity. Again, the "errors" idea is put forth, but nothing actually cited, and since there isn't I must move on. As to Jackie's claim of 17 generations as opposed to 14, I really have no idea what they're talking about. The only "inconsistency" I've ever had given to me was that Matthew's genealogy list only adds up to 41, instead of 42, but since that obviously isn't what Jackie is discussing I'll save it's rather simple explanation for another time.

Ok, this was yet another that was rather difficult to discern. I'm not sure what it means, so I'll have to guess. It seems they're referring to the creation of the universe, however without God one must assume that the universe is either A) eternal or B) caused itself. There are myriad problems with either view, including the evidence that shows the universe definitely had a beginning, and the fact that there must be an uncaused causation. If the laws of physics are part of the universe, then they cannot be used to explain where the universe came from, since they would not exist prior to. However, I have a feeling this isn't exactly what Jackie is getting at. I believe it may have been an attempted crude remark on the fact that the second person of the Trinity, God the Son, exists without a mother. This is a fundamental ignorance of the Christian doctrine and the teaching of the Bible on this subject. All orthodox Christians believe in the Trinity, that God is three persons with one being. All co-equal and co-eternal. One person of the Trinity did not create the others. To read the bible shows this quite well. Verses like Luke 1:35, or John 10:30, the list is quite long. As to the longer ending of Mark, no one who's spent even a short time studying textual criticism will deny that the longer ending is probably not original. However the fact that we can tell it isn't original flies in the face of the idea that we can't tell what is a forgery and what isn't. That would be like adding words to the end of the pledge of allegiance. We can tell what was original and what was later added using textual criticism, though I'm guessing this isn't something Jackie is aware of. For a solid primer on textual criticism, I'd suggest the book "The King James Only Controversy" by Dr. James White.

Ah, our first list of assertions, yet they expose a good deal more of Jackie’s ignorance. Let’s see if we can alleviate that.

1. Genesis not being written by Moses: Actually Genesis was compiled and written down by Moses from oral tradition. Leupold, H.C., 1970. Exposition of Genesis (Vol. 1). Baker Book House
2. Exodus is fiction: Actually there is concrete evidence that the Exodus took place. Though this particular book is known by this particular event recorded in it, a great deal more is recorded within its pages. Simply claiming it is fiction without citing evidence isn’t enough, though this is a common tactic among internet atheists. It’s a logical fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof from the one making the assertion, in this case that Exodus is fiction, to the opposing side. It’s an attempt to force the one you’re debating with to “prove you wrong” essentially. Sorry, in adult discourse one must prove one’s own assertions. Hoffmeier, J.K., 1999. Israel in Egypt: The evidence for the authenticity of the Exodus tradition. Oxford University Press.
3. Lev-Duet-Not written by Moses/Horror Stories/ God is sexist: There is literally so much falsehood within this single line, I’m not sure where to begin. I guess with the authorship of the books. The same literary evidence that shows Moses as the author of Exodus (see above citation) is present within these books as well. Again, no evidence is cited to substantiate the claim that Moses did not write these books, it is simply asserted. As to their being “horror stories”, I tend to find these sorts of arguments laughable coming from atheists and anti-theists. They claim there is no such thing as objective morality, yet immediately turn around and borrow from the Christian worldview to claim a morally objective stance against what is stated within the pages of Scripture. This type of hypocrisy is common, and undercuts their own stance. Since there is nothing here expounding what these “horror stories” are, I'm not going to bother chasing phantoms. Now, the point about God being “sexist” within the pages of these books, is also a completely anachronistic, 21st century view superimposed on the bible. In fact, for their time, these books were unprecedented in their protection of women. Need I point out the atrocities of the pagan cultures surrounding the Israelites at this time? Ritualistic murders and rape were commonplace as offerings to pagan deities, with no recourse for the women or their families. Generally I’m handed the “A girl has to marry her rapist!” line from within these books. I’ve already laid this to rest here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFIUK_V6BfQ&t=257s
4. Josh-Judges written centuries later: This I think shows that our friend Jackie has lost the plot a bit. Nowhere does anyone say that Moses wrote these books, and nowhere does anyone deny that the books of the bible cover centuries of time. Each of the books covers a very specific period within the Jewish faith and Israel’s history, no one has ever claimed otherwise. However Jackie seems to think that because all of the books of the bible weren’t transcribed in a single instant, that this is somehow evidence against it? https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Book-Joshua
5. Ruth-Fiction: Again we have an assertion with no evidence. Considering the voluminous number of tweets Jackie used, you would have expected at least a link to something as evidence. Simply calling something “fiction” is not an argument, it’s a cop-out.
6. 1 and 2’s- Some truth, mostly fiction: Again we have more assertions with nothing in the way of evidence to support it. Jackie even admits, that by their own standards (which is obviously extremely lax) these books (I assume books such as 1st and 2nd Samuel)contain truth. Jackie, you shot yourself in the foot on this one.
7. Ezra, Nehemiah- Known fiction: Again, *citation needed.
8. Ester story of women selling body: Boiling down the book of Esther to the idea of “women selling their body” is repugnant, and shows the great lack of knowledge Jackie is expressing. The book of Esther opens with a king’s ministers holding a bit of a “beauty pageant” for him after he banishes his wife. Esther is found to be the most beautiful, and becomes the new queen. In so doing, she is later able to prevent the destruction of the Israelites by the king’s second in command,  Haman, a very wicked and deceitful man. This is another instance of God turning the wicked hearts and deeds of men toward His own ends. (See also Genesis 50:20)

Here we have a continuation of Jackie’s inane list of baseless assertions.

1. Job- Def fiction: I’ve decided to forgo these particular assertions, since no evidence is given for them, and unless it happens to interest me, I will simply respond with ‘*citation needed’
2. Ps, Prov, Songs- Just sayings: That’s much like saying the Declaration of Independence, is just sayings. The letters of the founding fathers of the United States, is just sayings. These “sayings” provide a great deal of insight and teaching, as well as prophetic glimpses of the coming of Christ. They are either directly quoted, or alluded to by numerous new testament writers, in myriad places. Jesus Himself proclaims their efficacy in Luke 24:44- “Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
3. Isaiah- written centuries later: Again, *citation needed. There is currently a school of thought that claims that much of Isaiah was written by another author. However there is little to no actual evidence for this view.
4. Jerem, Lam- maybe real?: This one doesn't require any direct comment, except to say that my gut feeling is that Jackie couldn't find anything negative in a quick search of their favorite anti-theist site.
5. Dan- Fiction: *citation needed. I could just call Jackie here a bot and disregard everything they've ever said or done using this logic.
6. Minor prophets, years later yadda yadda: Again, *citation needed. https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/minor-prophets/ If what our friend is claiming is that they were compiled after they died,  that's possible. They would have been separate until someone took the time to put them into a collection, as Moses did with the first five books. However, this does not mean they were written after they had supposedly died, when we have evidence to the contrary.
7. Mark- Just sayings: This, beyond nearly everything else, shows us the shallowness of Jackie's reasoning. To claim Mark was “just sayings” is akin to claiming that a court transcript of eyewitness testimony is “just sayings".
8. Matt Luck- Copies: While Jackie corrects the spelling in a later tweet, what they're claiming is a recent hypothesis, where people believe Matthew and Luke simply took Mark, copied it, and then added to it. However this fails on some of the most basic levels. First, Luke himself mentions that he is writing to Theophilus, and specifically mentions that he interviewed people and checked the facts. Aside from that, the early church fathers reported that Matthew's gospel was written first. Was there some interdependence? It may well be the case, however we have three different men, writing to three different groups of people at three different times, all about the exact same thing. The idea that there would be overlap is inescapable. If you have three different news stations reporting on the same incident, while one may give more information than another, one may be more thorough, and another may be quick, only hitting g the high points, this doesn't mean they're necessarily dependent on one another.

In terms of this tweet, we see yet more glaring ignorance. First of all, why would Jesus confront Paul before Paul had done anything in regards to persecuting Christians? You see, Jackie has taken an extremely anachronistic approach to Paul and his letters. To begin with, Jesus did not “return to tell Paul", Paul was struck blind and knocked from his horse, but no visible sign of anyone was seen. He also wasn't alone. He had several others with him at the time, all heard the voice, none saw anyone. After this, Paul then went and learned from the other disciples before he wrote his letters. This is all spelled out rather clearly in the book of Acts.

Again, we see ridicule and arrogance, where both are not only unnecessary, but done in such ignorance that only Jackie should feel shame at this. As I said above, Jesus did not return to earth in bodily form. Then we have a major problem with both history, as well as a basic grasp of first Islam, and second the story of Joan of Arc. (As well as some profanity, which I've censored. It seems internet atheists of Jackie's “caliber" are incapable of holding a dialogue without copious uses of profanity.) Firstly, Jesus never came to Mohammed. The Quran states that the angel Gabriel came to him with the Quran already written, and that Mohammed was to copy it down. Jesus is only mentioned in it as another prophet, and you would find no Muslim believes that Jesus is anything but a man. As for Joan and Arc, she believed she was hearing the voice of God, telling her what to do. Again, no bodily return of Jesus. The rest is pure insult, and not even a good one at that.

Here you'll see I left my response to Jackie so that you can see how unhinged they became. I had offered the option of moving the discussion to a platform better suited to long form discussions or even voice discussions. However, true to the internet atheist form, Jackie went straight for ad hominem insults. It always amazes me the level of pure ignorance internet atheists not only possess, but flaunt as though it were a badge of honor! So far the only one in the discussion relying on pure faith, has been Jackie. Providing no evidence to back up a single assertion, and happily spreading their ignorance for all to see. At one point I had given Jackie a link to gotquestions.org as a means to expand upon a response. This was treated with more ridicule and as a “blog post"(I assume that's what they meant, however the word blood was used..) This is poisoning the well. The point being that Jackie's ignorance was so deep as to what we believe, I thought it might be helpful to give them some background. You see anti-theists like Jackie don't want to see what we actually believe, because then they would have to engage with something other than their strawmen. Jackie's “guarantee” looks more and more invalidated every word they post.

Again you can see I left my response to an earlier post by Jackie there so that you can see how they were responding. My pointing out that the insults weren't working prompted this little nugget of childish behavior. It needn't be dignified with a response.

Again, more pissant behaviour from one who purports to know far more than I about the bible and Christianity. The lack of a single, logical, coherent thought by Jackie leads me to believe that they are actually trying the most to circumstantiate their own position to themselves.

Here Jackie mentions Richard Carrier, and demands to know if I've read any of his books. I am familiar with his writing, having frequented his works while preparing for a debate on Jesus mythicism. Sadly that debate fell through, but I retained my impressions of his writing. He is, to put it bluntly, a laughingstock. He is in no way qualified to speak on the subject of Christianity or the bible. He routinely invents things from whole cloth in an attempt to prop up his collapsing arguments. Other respected atheists in the field not only ridicule him for his slipshod work, but they rebut him on a routine basis. https://t.co/GxBHktrv3r?amp=1

https://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

I would also point out that I had earlier mentioned that Mark was Peter's disciple, and instead of that being explained as to its error, it was simply called stupid. I also note that no examples of “wrong sources" are provided. More arguments from silence.

Ah, this one I specifically tackled in the Twitter thread. What is being said here is not just factually inaccurate, it's pure fabrication. There was no “high Greek” language. There was Koine Greek, which is what Mark was written in (and so was every other portion of the new testament as it was the vernacular of the time and place) and even that was ridiculed as ho kolobodaktulos, or “stump fingered" by Hippolytus in the early third century. Even wikianswers calls his Greek clumsy. This is attributed to the fact that Mark was writing in an everyday style. He was writing as he would have spoken. So obviously the idea of a “wealthy Greek scribe” holds no water.

Here Jackie continues on the false premise begun in the last tweet. There is absolutely no evidence that “Mark was intentionally writing a fable". In fact exactly the opposite is true. https://strangenotions.com/myths-lies-or-truth-can-we-really-trust-the-gospels/ I believe the next sentence is claiming that Mark was an unlearned fisherman. Of course this utterly contradicts Jackie's earlier point of Mark being educated. In fact, the evidence I provided above is more than sufficient to lay this argument to rest. As to the now beaten to death idea of the longer ending of Mark, I've fully explained that anyone with even a modicum of research into the history of the bible or textual criticism, will in no way deny that the longer ending is quite possibly a later addition. Not only do we know that, but it's actually evidence for the preservation of the original text! You see, through textual criticism we've learned that those who copied manuscripts of the books of the bible, tended to leave in what they found. As it's been said, in the case of the bible its it's like we are putting together a 1000 piece puzzle, but have 1010 pieces. And since those pieces leave evidence of their additions, we can determine what belongs. Again, I'd point to Dr. White’s book for more information on this. King James Only Controversy, The 2 Upd Exp edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004TWZKBY/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_0h8DBb3FDNC4P Though Jackie claims to have given a single point, as we've established, it was quite a number of points, all built on either falsehoods, or pure misinformation. Let's move on.

I have been well exposed to both Aron Ra and Richard Carrier. Ra is as ignorant as they come in the case of Christianity, often times getting caught in his falsehoods as he attempts to redefine words to suit his purpose, whilst ignoring their actual definitions. His stance on the bible and the Trinity is absolutely horrendous. It's a complete invention of his own mind, an odd conglomeration of pagan ideas about their being three gods, while ignoring not only the definition of what the Trinity is, but the context of the verses that are given to him describing it. He seems stuck on the idea that it involves the Egyptian view of a triad of gods. Except this cannot be the case, as there were quite a few triads in Egyptian myhtology, each were three distinct, individual deities, while Christianity believes in a single deity. Polytheism ran rampant throughout Egyptian history, while the Israelites rejected such a notion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael The Shema, the evening and morning prayer of the Jewish peoples, has always extolled the fact that Yahweh is one God. To read back into it some idea of a triad of deities is pure conjecture with no direct evidence to support it, and firm historical and literary evidence to reject it. I had at one time thought to challenge Ra to a debate on the Trinity, but was counselled away from it by brothers in Christ who showed me that, no matter the outcome, he would simply claim a victory, and continue to spread his ignorance. I may yet still engage anyway. As for Mr. Carrier, the link I provided above will suffice. No need to retread well trodden ground. Oh what the heck, why not! https://historyforatheists.com/2016/07/richard-carrier-is-displeased/

Here we see a “logical" response to my request for evidence for his claims. As well as a request to post in a thread, instead of multiple replies to a single tweet. Note that I in no way claim Jackie was lying, but was asking for primary source material or references. If you're waiting for any to be forthcoming, don't hold your breath...you'll pass out first.

Now Christian's are believing a conspiracy theory that Mark was a disciple of Peter, even though I gave the evidence above as to the validity of this claim. As for it needing to be an idea to fill in the gaps, no such idea is required. It fits the evidence we have, including the testimony of Papias of Hierapolis, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Rome to name a few extra biblical contemporary sources. http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/is-marks-gospel-an-early-memoir-of-the-apostle-peter/

Interesting that Jackie would tell me to “go read a book” while ignoring the overwhelming number of books and articles that show Mr. Carrier to be pushing an agenda, instead of scholarship. The above link alone decimates anything Mr. Carrier has ever said regarding authorship and/or discipleship of Mark and Peter. I attempted to chase down the mention of a person by the name of Trotsky, but could only find links to a gentleman from the 1800’s in Russia involved in politics, not theology or the bible. The rest Jackie finished by claiming that Mark lived 30 years after Peter. There is no evidence of this. However, since he died at about 68 AD, this places him squarely in the time frame of Peter's life. Again, simple research obliterates another ignorant accusation. Gotquestions answered this quite well. Yes, Peter would have been originally a strict holder of the Torah. This holds no bearing on whether or not he took a disciple that wrote of his sermons and teachings.

This is called both the poisoning the well fallacy, and the genetic fallacy. Simply dismissing the source (in this case gotquestions.org) is not addressing the information. Often times a “scholarly” source isn't required when the information is very general in nature. For instance, if I say “gravity pulls objects down", a scholarly treatise on the subject of gravity is unnecessary. It's common knowledge, and can be addressed generally.

Well Jackie, since this is a much broader platform, where I can provide far more in depth discussion (which I offered on at least a couple of occasions and you rejected) and I've provided numerous citations and evidence to my claims, I believe the opening of this tweet is quite literally, a faceplant of epic proportions. You made a great number of assertions, yet provided no evidence of your own. Including the closing remark of incredulity that closes this tweet. You have yet to grasp the concept of a man who was a disciple of an apostle of Jesus, writing down the accounts he heard while traveling with said apostle, and not only the biblical evidence to support this, but the historical evidence as well. This is called being willingly ignorant. Hopefully this article will pry you away from your cognitive dissonance. You claim our arguments have been disproved hundreds of times, yet provided no evidence, no argumentation of any kind. Just blind assertions that fell flat under the lightest of scrutiny. This isn't disproving anything, as I've provided the evidence you refused to engage with.

And nearly in closing, we have this dismissive hand waving of evidence provided to Jackie. This is a typical internet atheist tactic. When proved to be wrong, hand wave and insult. In this case whilst still pushing a long debunked erroneous view of the relationship between Mark and Peter, and then apparently claiming both are fictional...with no evidence again. So when Peter referred to himself in his letters, that apparently was a forgery, and so was the vast majority of the eyewitness testimony in the bible. Who believes in conspiracy theories again?

This one was sent just a few minutes before #21, but this highlights where the mindset of Twitter atheists tend to be. Yes that is a bit of a broad brush to use in referring to atheists on the internet, and it doesn't encompass all atheists, it just appears to be the majority of them that I run into. Note that I'm being told to “go read a book" while they ignore the evidence provided. The insulting, juvenile dismissal and claims of “I won’t reply to anything else you say!” which is reminiscent of something a child on an elementary school playground would say. As Christians we must be better than this. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard, as God has called us to. Sometimes that means dealing with the low hanging fruit, and other times it opens up doors for us to wider audiences. While I doubt any of what I've taken the time to put together here would interest Jackie in the slightest, God has given me the opportunity to answer some of these attacks, so that perhaps someone else may get useful information from it, and perhaps strengthen their faith, or to bring them to a saving knowledge of Jesus. I leave that in the Holy Spirit's hands. God bless!