Bible Wordcounts

Peregrinus · 25-11-2011 4:17am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nozz objects to the use of ridicule by believers against unbelievers.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am unsure why you need to keep misrepresenting my position except of course to claim a double standard that is not there and is only there when you change my position . . . No I do not object to the use of ridicule per se . . . What I am saying is that I object to the use of ridicule in place of evidence. When one espouses an unsubstantiated idea and instead of offering substantiation instead attempts to ridicule or demean those that do not accept it. it.

I am neither misrepresenting nor changing your position, nozz. I am summarizing it, as Gordon asked.

You are actually asserting two things in this thread, and I am running them together in my summary. First, you object to the use of ridicule of those who disagree with a belief in place of substantiation of the belief. Secondly, you present the use of ridicule by religious believers as generally having this characteristic. It’s not an unfair summary, then, to say that you object to the use of ridicule by religious believers.

Consider where you came in in this thread. After Quadratic Equation reported finding the word “fool” 249 times in the bible, you told us in post #43 that you had predicted this because “it seems that insulting people who doubt is a useful replacement for actually substantiating your claims in book such as these”.

Beliefs must be supported by evidence, and this particular belief of yours would have been better supported by the evidence if most or all of the instances of “fool” in the bible referred to people who doubt. It didn’t occur to you to check this before claiming that the frequent scriptural use of “fool” vindicated your expectation.

When I pointed out that in fact “fool” in the scriptures mostly doesn’t refer to doubters, you were remarkably unbothered for one who insists that other people’s beliefs must be supported by evidence. In post #43 you told us that you “knew it to be true” that believers used ridicule in this way, and if the correctness of your prediction was merely a matter of coincidence, well, that had no implication for the correctness of your belief. In other words, if the evidence turns out not to support your belief, that’s all right, because you “knew it to be true”. I think it was the philosopher David Hume who said that he never met such blind faith as he did among atheists, and you exemplify his point very well.

Determined to keep digging, you then quoted Ps 14 (“the fool hath said in his heart there is no god”) and offered it as an example of the use in a religious context of torture techniques, advertising techniques and other similar techniques to “manipulate” those who don’t “buy into” religious belief. Again, you didn’t bother to look very deeply - or at all - into the source, authorship, context or subject of the quote to see whether it did actually exemplified what you said it did and - again - when it turned out that it didn’t, you were unbothered. You assured us in post #76 that, regardless of their actual purpose, motivation, intent, etc, or the way in which the text was actually used “it would be naïve to think such writers were not wholly aware of the other benefits of writing such a line”. Quite why this admittedly incidental effect should play such a dominant role in characterizing the use of ridicule by the religious is never explained. And the awkward question of why it doesn’t play a similar role in characterizing the use of ridicule by the non-religious is scrupulously ignored, however many times it is asked.

I’m assuming, nozz, that when invited to evidence your beliefs you offer the most cogent evidence you have. But the evidence you’ve offered for your beliefs here has been lamentable. It hasn’t stood up to any level of scrutiny and it’s impossible for me to believe that you gave it any critical scrutiny yourself. And yet, apparently, it’s the best you’ve got.

I’m beginning to observe a pattern here. As you concede in post #76, you “try not to google everything”, and I’m bound to say you succeed very well in the effort. I’m left with the impression that “beliefs must be substantiated by evidence” when applied to other people means that they must produce evidence to support their beliefs but, when applied to yourself, means that since your beliefs must be substantiated by the evidence it would be unnecessary and even a waste of time actually to scrutinise the evidence since, by definition, it must support your belief. Given that approach, it would clearly be unwise to cultivate the habit of examining too critically the evidence for your own beliefs.

I’ve very happy to discuss beliefs, and the foundation of beliefs, and the need for beliefs to be founded, with anyone. But there is little profit to be had in continuing a discussion with someone who either pretends not to understand, or genuinely does not understand, that this precept applies to his beliefs in exactly the same way as it applies to everyone else’s.

nozzferrahhtoo · 25-11-2011 10:51am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I am neither misrepresenting nor changing your position, nozz. I am summarizing it

I will keep this short as if you can not get this one thing right, despite my several attempts to aid you, then nothing else I say is going to penetrate either.

You can call it what you will, but if the end result is in you espousing a position that is not actually mine then I call that misrepresenting. If another label makes you feel more comfortable then that is great for you, but it does not change the facts.

The facts are as follows. From the very first post I made in this thread my point has not been that I object to the use of ridicule, as you falsely stated in your "summary", but that I object to it's use as a substitute for evidence.

As evidence, here is the actual sentence I wrote:

"It seems insulting people who doubt is a useful replacement for actually substantiating your claims in books such as these."

I repeat, I am perfectly fine with the use of ridicule where it is warranted. Using it towards those that doubt your position, simply because you have no substantiation for your position, is not one of those times.

So calling your misrepresentation a summary is inaccurate. Me saying "I object to the use of X in situation Y" does not equate to me saying "I object to the use of X". If I said "I object to the use of food as projectiles in games" it would be a misrepresentation to suggest I said "I object to the use of food". You could call it a summary until you turn blue, but that will not make it so.

redroisin · 02-05-2020 11:00am

Gordon wrote: »

I watched an interesting programme the other day called 'Andy Hamilton's search for Satan' and he mentioned that the devil didn't actually appear much in the bible, very few times indeed. And I wondered how many times certain other things appeared, so I downloaded the King James bible in html form and did some word searches.

word: instances found
truth: 237
lie: 289
good: 854
evil: 636
sorrow: 115
mirth: 15
sad: 43
happy: 28
cake: 38
pie: 0!
ass: 26
virgin: 65
foreskin: 14
wine: 102
gin: 3
prostitute: 1
whore: 76
mole: 1
ferret: 1
bake: 35
fry: 2
eggs: 7
milk: 48
salt: 44
flour: 77
water: 714
'kneaded it': 2
'baked it': 1
'ate it': 1

Nothing really that interesting, was just curious! If you have any requests for wordcounts, fire (273) them over

Why not spend your time benefiting from its content, for instance did you know God's name is revealed several times in the King James version, ie: Psalms 83:18

oldrnwisr · 02-05-2020 11:14am

redroisin wrote: »

Why not spend your time benefiting from its content, for instance did you know God's name is revealed several times in the King James version, ie: Psalms 83:18

Why would we want to benefit from it, and what would we benefit from it, as opposed to benefiting from reading Lord of the Rings? And why the KJV?

smacl · 02-05-2020 11:19am

redroisin wrote: »

Why not spend your time benefiting from its content, for instance did you know God's name is revealed several times in the King James version, ie: Psalms 83:18

Mod: While I realise that there are those who buy into resurrection, this thread is 9 years old so I'd humbly suggest you let this poor zombie lie in peace and start a new thread if you'd like to start a discussion. That said, if you're starting off by advocating the glory of God supported with biblical passages, you might do better over on the Christianity forum. Those types of thread attract rather 'robust' responses here that may not be what you're after.

branie2 · 02-05-2020 12:11pm

The word Antichrist is mentioned only four times in the bible.

magicbastarder · 02-05-2020 12:38pm

if the antichrist comes in contact with the christ, you get an antimatter/matter explosion so powerful, it'd wipe out all life on the planet.

redroisin · 05-05-2020 5:49am

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Why would we want to benefit from it, and what would we benefit from it, as opposed to benefiting from reading Lord of the Rings? And why the KJV?

I only mentioned the KJV as it was the one originally quoted from. We don't speak like that anymore so an up to date version would be easier to read.

oldrnwisr · 06-05-2020 8:59am

redroisin wrote: »

I only mentioned the KJV as it was the one originally quoted from. We don't speak like that anymore so an up to date version would be easier to read.

While I am grateful for your answer, I was hoping that you would answer the more substantive question posed, namely, why would we want to benefit from the bible and how would we do so?

Bible Wordcounts

Comments