re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians

quote:

---

”Let’s take a live look in at the debate happening between Squirrelmeister and LSURep864”

---

, but not the way I see it. Maybe I am a little biased here.

He wanted to argue with me about Shalim being the Canaanite sunset god (of the dusk), which he already obviously knew about. He knows of Ugaritic myth, Shahar and Shalim, and all that. He also knows of broader west Semitic mythology of the sun going through gates in the horizons (found in Mesopotamian myths and also Jewish myths - 1 Enoch among others). But he was upset that the sun gate myth wasn’t specifically found in Ugaritic documents recovered. I don’t know what was up his butt about that whole thing.

I argued David was not historical. He reminded me of the Tel Dan stele. I conceded. Not that I’m convinced but to be fair it is decent evidence there might have been a real historical David, not that there’s anything historical contained within the Bible about him (or if there is, there’s no way to sort it from the myth such as David killing Goliath). Consider that a win for LSURep864.

Back to the theophoric names. He was trying to argue Solomon meant “man of peace” and AbSalom means “peace is my father”. Even though the Bible does use that apologetic for Solomon, AbSalom was far from peaceful in biblical tales. LSURep864 and a lot of scholars actually are in complete denial on this one.

Solomon would have been the religious, cultural, and political leader in an important city. If he existed during the time period when Yahweh became their patron deity, it would have made no sense for Solomon to be man of peace. Yahweh was a god of war, not peace.

If Solomon existed during an earlier time period, then the Jerusalem patron deity would have been Shalim, the Canaanite god of the setting sun. Solomon would have then been a theophoric name for Shalim.

There’s several patterns to consider. The first is that Semitic and Egyptian rulers nearly always had a theophoric element to their names. I’ll start in Babylon going clockwise through Assyria and Phoenicia to Israel, Moab, Edom and then Egypt. This is not all inclusive, just some.
- Nebuchadnezzar
- Nebopolazzar
- Nebunidas
- Naramsen
- Ashurnasirpal
- Ashurbanipal
- Tiglathpolasur
- Sennacherib
- Shalmanesar
- Ben Hadad
- Elibaal
- EthBaal
- BaalShillem
- Jezebaal (princess and wife of Ahab)
- ShamshiHadad
- Shallumiel
- Ahaziah
- Zedekiah
- Josiah
- IshBaal
- Jehoram
- Jehoshaphat
- Hezekiah
- Adonijah
- Solomon
- Chemoshyat
- Chemoshmelek
- Qosmelek
- Tutankhamen
- Ahkenaten
- Horemheb
- Seti
- Amenhotep
- Merneptha
- Rameses
- Thutmoses

The ones mentioned above are all man of (deity) or (deity) contends, protects, is exalted, or is king or lord. Don’t forget about “slave of (deity)”:
- AbdiAshirta
- Abdi El/Yahu/Chemosh/Qos
- Abdishalim

What about the ones that are specifically “(deity) is my father”? This is a pattern of kings specifically with theophoric names of the deity being their father.
- Abibaal
- Abimelek
- Abiel
- Abiram
- Abiyahu
- Abimilki
- Abishemu

So frankly I think LSURep864 is in denial. Kings bore theophoric names of their patron deities. Ishbaal was the son of Saul who was hand picked by Yahweh.

Half of David’s children at least had theophoric names if you don’t count Solomon and AbSalom.

I think the evidence and prior probability points to AbSalom and Solomon being theophoric names for the sunset deity Shalim. It fits right in with Phoenician Shallumiel and Assyrian Shalmanessar. I’m thoroughly convinced. You know what? frick it. After typing all those names with my thumbs I’m calling it a fact.

quote:

---

And, you get smacked around when somebody who knows what they’re talking about shows up.

---

smacked around? Come on man.

quote:

---

It’s a classic “new” atheist/internet atheist tactic- throw a bunch of crap at the wall. Try to overload your opponent with “problems”

---

How would you propose someone create persuasive arguments? Your “crap” here are the evidence of your delusions. Would less evidence be more effective than more evidence?

quote:

---

your presupposed, faith-based worldview.

---

You know at your heart atheism is true. You’re just rebelling against science because you want to live a false reality. You actually lack faith but just want to portray it on this site.

quote:

---

the philosophical/logical reasoning of Christianity vs atheism.

---

Well Christianity and all religions are bullshite, so the only logical position is a rejection of all of them. You act like it’s a dichotomy but you could be Hindu or Muslim or something else.

ETA: about your presupposed faith comment…
1. Lack of faith is faith
2. Not collecting stamps is a hobby
3. Not playing baseball is a sport
4. Not eating lunch is a meal
5. Not running is a foot race

Sorry for the attitude but when you call a lack of faith as having faith, it kind of fires me up. I don’t know if you realize your error or if you are just trolling me.

quote:

---

The only objective truth is obtained through mathematical proofs and the scientific method. But even scientific truths can and should be challenged and are sometimes changed based on new tests and new evidence. The Bible though isn’t an objective source - not for morality and not for history and not for cosmology and the natural world, despite what some might wish of it.

---

You’re claiming ‘science is the only source of objective truth’ itself as an objective truth. That statement isn’t a mathematical proof or a scientific finding—it’s a philosophical claim. So on your own standard it can’t be objective.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough (or you’re dodging the question): under atheism, what grounds the reliability of logic, mathematics, induction, and our cognitive faculties- so that science can deliver objective knowledge in the first place? Saying ‘it works’ is not an account of why it should work in an ultimately unguided, material universe.

Criticizing the Bible doesn’t answer that. Even if the Bible were completely false, naturalism would still need to explain how objective truth is possible at all. Your response is a tacit admission that your worldview cannot account for this. Which is why (IMO) you always attack the only worldview that can. Don’t you see that? You treat theistic debate more like a political campaign than a search for truth or an honest comparison of worldviews.

quote:

---

quote: You could then realize that science begins and ends with philosophy.

What?

---

I’m not surprised at your response, nor your breezing past it. This is your blind spot. Science begins and ends with philosophy because every scientific endeavor rests on unprovable philosophical assumptions (presuppositions) about reality, knowledge, and reasoning. These shape what questions you even ask (hypotheses), what counts as evidence, how you interpret data, and what conclusions you’re willing to accept. No one approaches science as a blank slate—your underlying worldview (theist or atheist) acts as the lens.

Every scientific claim rests on a set of assumptions that science itself cannot prove:

- The uniformity of nature (the future will resemble the past)

- The reliability of logic and the “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics

- The general trustworthiness of our senses and cognitive faculties

- That the universe is intelligible and that causes produce effects in a regular way

None of those are laboratory results. They are philosophical commitments. Without them, the scientific method can’t even get started. So science begins with philosophy. And when scientists interpret data, decide what counts as evidence, and draw conclusions about origins, consciousness, or the ultimate nature of reality- they are again doing philosophy. That is why science ends with philosophy as well.

Your materialist blind spot is treating those assumptions as if they are simply “given” or self-evident, while simultaneously claiming that the only real things are matter, energy, and physical processes. But under strict materialism, there is no good reason to expect the universe to be orderly, logic to be binding, or evolved brains (shaped only for survival, not truth) to track objective reality. At least, not without a good ol “naturalism of the gaps” approach.

You can use the scientific method. What you cannot do is justify why it should deliver knowledge of an objective, mind-independent world if materialism is the whole story.

Ignoring the philosophical foundations of science does not make them disappear. It just means you are relying on them while refusing to examine them. That is the blind spot.

quote:

---

I’m as unbiased as one can be in that the truth is what it is despite what I’d maybe like it to be.

---

Nice. Low key admitting, while denying, and simultaneously downplaying your bias- followed immediately by a quick distraction jab at your strawman Christian. Classic Squirrelmeister!

But claiming you’re unbiased doesn’t make you unbiased. It just means you believe your preferred framework already matches reality.

Everyone evaluates evidence through a worldview. Yours is materialism/naturalism: the assumption that physical processes, time and chance are sufficient to explain everything, including the reliability of logic, induction, and our minds. Amirite? That’s not a neutral starting point. It’s a philosophical commitment, and it shapes what you count as legitimate evidence and what conclusions you will draw and accept.

You treat the scientific method and material explanations as the default “unbiased” position, while treating theistic ones as biased wishful thinking. That double standard is the bias. If you were truly open, you would examine whether materialism can actually ground the tools you rely on (uniformity of nature, trustworthy cognition, binding logic) instead of just declaring them as brute fact

quote:

---

Except that it isn’t presupposed. Rather, it’s been evaluated and observed and in some cases tested.

---

It’s baked in. The core assumptions that make science possible (uniformity of nature, the reliability of logic, the general trustworthiness of our senses and cognitive faculties) cannot themselves be established by observation or testing without already relying on them. Any experiment or evaluation already presupposes that the future will resemble the past, that our minds can track reality, and that logical inference is valid. You cannot test those foundations without using them. That is why they function as philosophical starting points rather than scientific conclusions. It’s unavoidable. But your presuppositions are many. You are a self proclaimed atheist and materialist. That comes with some core tenets that you must accept in order to accurately reflect that title- a creed of sorts. Tell me where I’m wrong:

Only natural explanations are allowed in principle. Any appeal to non-natural causes is ruled out before the evidence is weighed.

Consciousness, mind, intentionality, and information ultimately reduce to, or emerge from, non-conscious physical processes.

Human reason, senses, and logic can deliver objective knowledge even though they are the product of unguided evolutionary processes aimed primarily at survival, not truth.

Any sense of purpose or value comes from and is projected onto a universe that is itself purposeless.

Whichever unsubstantiated way in which you choose (your truth) to deal with infinite regress- just not God.


I mean, let me know if I’m wrong. I spared you the moral argument (for now). But these are a few presuppositions that you bring to every discussion on this subject. So, the real question is what determines them. I don’t doubt that you have arrived at your current position through much study and validation.


To be continued… maybe

quote:

---

I’m not afraid of any religion that states if I don’t believe what the adherents believe that I will be tortured for all eternity.

---

You’re doing it again. Dodging the question and punching your strawman. I’m a Christian. I don’t hold to the doctrine of eternal conscious torment. I believe that Conditional Immortality is a more biblically sound doctrine. I could be wrong, but I’m willing to debate anyone who thinks that that belief cancels my faith in Christ. But that’s not the heart of the matter, is it? I would love for you to answer the following question, honestly: Is it possible that your ‘’lack of faith’ could be remedied by clearing up possible misconceptions about what it actually means to be a Christian?

quote:

---

What if you’re wrong and Allah is going to judge you for worshipping a man rather than him?

---

You do this every time. Like a retard, trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, while blaming the hole and/or the peg. Pascal’s Wager was never meant to be a proof that settles every religious disagreement. It is a decision-theoretic observation about the asymmetry between believing there is a God who judges, and believing there is not. Once multiple theistic options are on the table, evidence and argument have to do the heavier lifting. And, if you’d like to get into that- I will oblige. But the original asymmetry between theism and atheism, however, is still there. And you have no meaningful defense against it. Which is why you are forced to engage in mockery. Classic squirrelmeister!

quote:

---

Whether or not it is better is irrelevant.

---

I guess it depends on how each of us defines ‘better.’ I’d bet you’re thinking along the lines of truth being more important than wishful thinking; which would be strange, given your naturalistic worldview… in which traits are selected for survivability- not truth. Whereas I am thinking about ‘better’- purely from a survivability standpoint. The Christian worldview is the fuel that powers the engine of western civilization. If you want to change fuels, you’ll need to make some modifications to the engine, and show how it works better. You have none of those things in place. Be honest- you don’t really care as much about how the engine runs as much as you care about what fuel it uses.

quote:

---

I would not be surprised if you would have taken the blue pill.

---

I think you misunderstood my point. I hope I have clarified it. I’m not arguing that people should believe a lie because it makes them happy, or even saves their life. I’m saying that that’s what your worldview requires. Survival > truth- right?

quote:

---

Humanistic morality is superior

---

Oh boy. Ok. I’m ok. Where were we at? Oh yeah, the whole “humanistic morality is superior” bit.



Ah… ok… I’m done. Laughing. Once again, your mouth is writing checks your worldview can’t cash.

quote:

---

where actions are judged as moral if they promote well-being and happiness or reduce suffering or both.

---

Hmmm… yes- it’s that simple.

quote:

---

Consider if it is moral for an innocent blameless man to be tortured and killed because of something you did - how is that fair or moral?

---

Well, by your own standards, Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross must be the most moral thing one can do- to lay down his life for his friends? It not only promoted, but secured the eternal well-being and happiness of, as well as not only reduced- but eliminated the eternal suffering of humanity.

What Jesus did for us was more like a soldier diving onto a grenade to save his friends. Is that moral? You would need to understand something about sacrifice. Can you think of any time that someone sacrificed themselves for you in a meaningful way?

But back to your humanistic morality. I could go on and on about it, but, I think it’s sufficient to say that it is the mentality of white liberal women. That alone should be enough to scrap it completely. It’s the heart of participation trophies and drag queen story hour. But that’s the best of it. In the wrong and capable hands, it leads to things like the scamdemic, and eugenics. The holocaust happened in the name of well being.

quote:

---

How would I criticize a lack of belief in your deities, for which no evidence exists? I don’t think I can do it.

---

quote:

---

it’s the kind of weak arguments your side normally makes. You guys are just so arrogant and persecuting us

---

You’re not completely wrong there. But it’s not the whole story. I’ve seen several on this board make very strong points and do it with respect- for you to ignore their points and look for an opportunity to spread more propaganda. And arrogance? Persecution? You show up in every religious-adjacent thread and persecute (only) Christianity- with extreme arrogance. You crack me up!

quote:

---

I would “convert”. I like my head and I damn sure ain’t volunteering for any more taxes.

---

Kind of like how you’re a “Roman Catholic” so your kids don’t have to go to public school? But seriously, imagine “converting” and then being forced to give up your 6yr old daughter in “marriage” to a 50yr old man. But Christianity is sick— right?

Also…

quote:

---

I can’t choose what to believe or not believe

---

I think that’s arguable. I can remember when I used to get depressed (after a couple of close family losses, but before going back to God), I would get to a point where I realized that I had to choose happiness. I chose to believe it when I didn’t want to. It worked because I worked.

I also was a believer, then chose not to be, and then chose to come back (after much prodding). 20 years later.

You absolutely choose what to believe. You are offered a choice- God or no God.