Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com, part 5 of 6

Please note that this series has been republished beginning here.


  1. Boy, ain't too many atheists interested in defending this website! That's kind of funny to me.

  2. "Also, as a reminder; any and every atheist condemnation of any action whatsoever is merely the piling up of unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion, upon unfounded assertion until a tel is built of arguments from outrage, arguments from personal incredulity, arguments for embarrassment, etc."

    It seems to me that this describes everything that I've read on your site.


    Most arguments on this site are pointless. There was nothing wrong with "EvilBible's" interpretation of the passage. So, the passage doesn't explicitly say rape..so what? It can be reasonably inferred in the text and I recall an earlier comment saying that it wasn't a bad thing because the women knew what was going to happen to them (kidnap at least, and I assume rape too) which has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever come across. You people are stupid sometimes.

    The bible is fully of immoral savagery and that's the truth. No amount of apologetics will cover that up. Jesus, like a cult leader, told his followers they had to hate their parents, he also condoned slavery. The bible clearly depicts rape! A more explicit example would be 2 Samuel 13: 11-14 where Amnon rapes his sister Tamar.

    Does it say rape explicitly? No, but that's exactly what the hell is happening. Try to "apologize" your way out of that one, idiots.

  3. While I'm at it, atheists have refuted this site's arguments. You just gotta know where to look you dumbass. I've seen rebuttals in the comments section and on other blogs, but you know something? Maybe most other atheists see how stupid these argumnets are and so they don't bother with them?

  4. >Does it say rape explicitly? No,

    I reply: Then you lost the argument & concede defeat.

    > but that's exactly what the hell is happening. Try to "apologize" your way out of that one, idiots.

    I reply: First "Apologetics" comes from the Greek "Apologia" which means to "give a defense". It's not about saying your sorry.

    You did recieve a higher education did you?

    There Bible does not authorize or condon rape.
    That is objectively true regardless if God exists or not. The best you can come up with is the Bible records rapes taking place like Amnon raping his sister. Big deal.

    >While I'm at it, atheists have refuted this site's arguments.

    I reply: Clearly none have proven the Bible commands or condons rape otherwise you would produce a case.

  5. >There was nothing wrong with "EvilBible's" interpretation of the passage.

    I reply: Accept there is NOT ONE ancient Rabbi or Church Father who has ever interpreted those texts according to Evilbible's "creative" Isogesis. So to greatly paraphraise Newman "A knowlege of history is the death of cheap polemics against the bible".

  6. Higher education? I think you should be more worried about a lower education for yourself because that passage I cited explicitly talks about rape. It's talking about rape...now you're changing your story after being made to look like a fool. I also did not concede the point. Yes, does the bible in some places does not explicitly say rape, but reading the passage in context, as Evil Bible, was doing makes it pretty obvious. Just because something does not explicitly say something doesn't mean it's not talking about that subject.

    I know apologetics means defense...I was putting a spin on it, making fun of apologetics saying apologists should apologize for their silly defense. You really are stupid aren't you?

    I think that lower education advice should really be taken to heart in your case.

  7. Ah, wonderful spotless anon. Here to vent his/her misguided rage at any strawman he/she thinks cool to tar and feather this week. And without having to logically keep coherence in his/her arguments.

    Well, welcome to America folks! Today, it's Christians that need to be castigated for the sake of hipness - as well as returning veterans, housewives, business owners, priests, talk show hosts, bourgeoisie... Maybe tomorrow it'll be car owners, film makers, meat eaters, Juden... Oh wait, we are talking about the Torah/OT here, aren't we? Ooops.

    Well, it's ok - we're used to pagans playing armchair lawyer/scholar with both our civil liberties and our religious texts:

    "It doesn't explicitly say what I want it to say - nonetheless the offending text, the insidiously evil (by who's yardstick anyhow?), brutal text is there! They're monsters! Restrict their rights! Make them wear armbands!..."
    Mhmm. And nowhere in your responses, Anon, is there any explicit talk of National Socialism or antisemitism - but can we concede that perhaps a just touch of the little mustache made his way into your diatribe? Using your yardstick of explicit/implicit to deduce this, of course...

  8. What I would really like to know is if capturing young girls and keeping them as plunder after killing the rest of their family members and "keeping them for yourself", just because they're virgins, and "enjoying them" however you please doesn't constitute rape and sexual enslavement, then what exactly is your definintion of rape and sexual enslavement, if you even have one at all?

    What other reason would such men have to keep the young daughters of their enemies alive just because of their virginity, after having killed the rest of their families, to include their mothers and grandmothers, besides using them for sex?

    I would also really like to hear your explaination as to how exactly these men were able to determine whether or not the prospective girls they wanted to keep was actually a virgin; I would really like for you to elucudiate on the precise method by which the plunderers were able to tell the difference between girls that had already slept with a man and ones that hadn't yet done so, and how that also does not constitute rape in your book.

  9. Fellow Believer,

    I have been struggling with this very subject (rape) recently and have just this very moment finished reading your synopsis on the matters in question. I find the points you make to be useful and interesting, but I find one thing very difficult to believe: your main underlying argument is that just because the word 'rape' is not used then it must not/probably isn't rape. As we are well aware, Hebrew was a language of limited words thus there would be a difficulty in finding words to describe all situations hence the argument of the exact word not being mentioned therefore it must not be rape. However, you fail to pinpoint the fact that the women did not give their consent in such situations but rather were in fact taken against there will either by men lying in wait or by others who seek young girls to take for themselves. Whilst evilbible.com has taken each and every verse out of context and missed out scripture of the utmost importance, I do not see how you have successfully proved him wrong as it seems very clear to me that the women were raped. I would very much appreciate a reply on this matter and an explanation detailing very clearly how these women were not raped when the bible hints the opposite.

    Thank you.

  10. Lol I don't see any real arguements against this series not even in the comments most of the comments left on here are mostly from fundies from what I can tell.