Serious Questions for Atheists
Chris Assaf
just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
of those who believe than to join it. To ensure integrity, therefore,
on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
universe?
>> Learn more about the universe / origin of life / origin of species
/ origin of mankind
How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
Biblical stories, places, and people?
>> Reliability of the Bible - In what ways have archaeological
discoveries verified it? / Bible archaeology evidences
Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are
hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
is of Divine origin?
>> Read about fulfilled biblical prophecies...
Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
(Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
form of capital punishment?
How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
>> Read the "God's Story" account of Micah describing the Messiah...
Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
(of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
Jesus.
>> Prophecies
How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
occurred?
>> Read the "God's Story" account of the prophets describing the
Savior / Is the virgin birth a myth?
How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
>> Read about the importance of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
/ Discovering the Bible videos explain the manuscript evidence and
much more
Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
>> Visit Summit Ministries for worldview comparisons...
Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
be God?
>> Is Jesus Christ really God?...
Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
'Good Book'?
>> How can I know if the Bible is true?... / Is the Bible truth or
tabloid? / Can the Bible be infallible if it is written by fallible
humans?
Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
word at least 2600 times?
Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
>> The Bible -- an amazing book...
From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?
If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what
motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal,
or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men
(Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
>> Is the resurrection a myth?...
How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
society to this day?
>> Learn more about Jesus' life, death and resurrection...
Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have
you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and
dead, have been men and women of great faith?
>> Do real scientists believe in Creation? / Is the Bible completely
accurate, or does it contain some inaccuracies about history and
science?
Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and
people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error
in their view of the Bible?
How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible
complexity of its essential components?
>> Learn more about the origin of life...
How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with
progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
>> Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature
prevent Evolution?...
How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with
naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain
such detailed prophecies of future events?
>> Learn more about the Bible...
On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian
orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians
1:8)?
Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively
true that "all things are relative?"
>> The Loss of Truth -- Are we living in a moral stone age?...
Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness
to submit to Him?
>> God's plan
Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of
meaning and purpose?
How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian
believers down through history?
Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered
in an intelligible and credible manner?
>> More about Bible contradictions...
What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of
centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
>> Recommended resource: The Indestructible Book (video)...
Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent
'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?
Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only
religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
>> Is Christianity really unique among world religions?...
How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the
evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty
centuries?
>> Is the resurrection a myth? / Did Christ really rise from the dead?
/ Were the witnesses hallucinating?
If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in
His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place
at His tomb?
>> Did Jesus really die? / How did Jesus die? / What is crucifixion?
If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have
perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?
>> Could Jesus' body have been stolen from the tomb?...
If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the
Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?
>> Could Jesus' have merely fainted? / Is the resurrection a myth? /
Did Christ really rise from the dead?
How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses
to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
>> Maybe the witnesses were just seeing things?...
If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own
self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His
life?
>> Is Jesus Christ's character consistent with his high claims?...
If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by
suddenly "realizing" that he/she is 'God' therefore isn't God?
Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad
experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the
facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself? >> Why should
I consider Christianity, if all Christians are hypocrites? / What kind
of world would you create? / How did bad things come about? / Why do
the innocent suffer? / Does God feel your pain? / Goodness of God / Is
God fair? / How can a God of love send anybody to Hell?
How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate
continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?
>> Can the Bible be infallible if it is written by fallible humans? /
More about the congruency of the Bible / The Discovering the Bible
videos explain the amazing authorship of the Bible and many other
evidences
Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in
affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?
Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable,
how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just
another faith system?
>> What is the nature of science and scientists? / Frequently asked
questions on the Origin of Life
What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that
even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our
planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?
>> Consider: Was there a big bang?...
If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e.
is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who
then caused the universe?
>> See our Creation SuperLibrary for answer about
Creation/Evolution...
What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A college student attended a philosophy class which held a discussion
about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic:
"Has anyone in this class ever heard God?" No one spoke. "Has anyone
in this class ever touched God?" Again, no one spoke. "Has anyone in
this class ever seen God?" When no one spoke for the third time, he
said, "Then there is no God."
One student thought for a second and then asked for permission to
reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor
agreed. The student stood up and asked the following: "Has anyone in
this class ever heard our professor's brain?" Silence. "Has anyone in
this class ever touched our professor's brain?" Absolute silence. "Has
anyone in this class ever seen our professor's brain?" When no one in
the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to
our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no
brain!"
The student received an 'A' in the class.
MarcRW
news:dbd0d335.0309...@posting.google.com...
Chris never responds. Plonk.
Denis Loubet
Fair? Since when does reality care about fair?
> it's not
> just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand.
They're the ones asserting something.
> Even those
> who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
> Christianity have some questions to answer. (snip)
One is not obligated to support the position "I don't believe you".
It's all up to the Christian to support his claims, the atheist isn't making
any.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Caleb The Profit
> just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
> who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
> Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
> evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
> of those who believe than to join it.
You start your rant with the most absurd premise possible.
Faith is not required to realize the Israelites created the
Jehovah-spook-in-the-sky. Logic dictates the spook doesn't exist - nothing
to do with faith.
To paraphrase Leonard Cohen, "Take your Jesus and shove him up the hole in
your religion".
Caleb
Martin Thomas
wrote:
>In order to be fair in the debate about [250+ lines snipped]
What debate?
I have had a quick look at your posts in Google, including those
of your sock puppet Gregor K, and I see no evidence that you are
interested in debating.
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
Rev. Maeljin
--
+)Maeljin(+
ULC ordained minister
Damned By Dore Christ, Primo in Italia
"Our words to still their voice.
Our hands to break their worthless necks."
VNV Nation - Procession
John Hattan
>In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
>just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand.
This assumes that you'll follow up on any responses made to this. You
won't.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
spakka
<snip>
> What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
Maybe if my brain was replaced with a cauliflower.
Don Kresch
(Chris Assaf) let us all know that:
>In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
>just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
>who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
>Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
>evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
>of those who believe than to join it. To ensure integrity, therefore,
>on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
>few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
>
>How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
>universe?
There is no design in the universe, and order is the result of
causality.
>How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
>Biblical stories, places, and people?
How do you account for the utter lack of evidence for a global
flood and the exodus?
>Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed
You mean "since no bible prophecy has ever come true"
>Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
>(Psalm 22)
There is no portrayal of crucifixion. ka-'ari means like a lion,
not pierced.
>How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
>full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
Bethlehem Ephrat is a TRIBE, not a CITY.
>Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
>(of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
>Jesus.
Jesus filled 0 prophecies.
>How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
>predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
>occurred?
ha-almah means young woman, not virgin.
>How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
>number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
How can anyone doubt the reliability of Gone With The Wind considering
the number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
>>> Read about the importance of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Dead Sea Scrolls also have 0 NT books in them.
>Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
Yes.
>Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
>the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
No
>In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
>be God?
He wasn't a good man.
>Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
>Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
Yes.
>If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
>'Good Book'?
It's not.
>Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
>word at least 2600 times?
So?
>
>Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
>year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
So?
>From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?
There isn't a universal moral sense.
>If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what
>motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
Strawman.
>Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal,
>or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
Explain how god came to be without copping out and saying god
always was.
>If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men
>(Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
If David Koresh wasn't jesus incarnate, why did people die for
him?
>How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
>virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
>society to this day?
You mean Siddhartha Guatama (buddha)?
>Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers?
Because that's irrelevant.
>Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and
>people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error
>in their view of the Bible?
No, and Abe Lincoln was pretty much an atheist.
>How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible
>complexity of its essential components?
How do you account for the origin of god?
>How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with
>progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
That is has nothing to do with it.
>How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with
>naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
That it has nothing to do with it.
>Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain
>such detailed prophecies of future events?
Because it doesn't.
>On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian
>orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians
>1:8)?
No basis at all.
>Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively
>true that "all things are relative?"
Has nothing to do with anything.
>Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness
>to submit to Him?
Nope.
>Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of
>meaning and purpose?
Yes.
>How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian
>believers down through history?
How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many
jewish/muslim/hindi/etc believers down through history?
>Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered
>in an intelligible and credible manner?
I am aware that people like to lie and say that there are no
contradictions in the bible.
>What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
>document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
That they are written by liars.
>Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of
>centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
That never happened.
>Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent
>'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?
Because Anselm was an idiot.
>Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only
>religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
Oh really? Then why did Osiris/Mithra/etc rise?
>How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the
>evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty
>centuries?
That there is no evidence and there was no empty tomb.
>If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in
>His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place
>at His tomb?
Because the event never happened.
>If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have
>perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?
They didn't want to prevent it.
>If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the
>Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?
Because the story never happened.
>How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses
>to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
Easy: the person who wrote 1 Cor wasn't there.
>If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own
>self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His
>life?
CS Lewis was wrong.
>If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by
>suddenly "realizing" that he/she is 'God' therefore isn't God?
No.
>Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad
>experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the
>facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?
Nope.
>How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate
>continents, ever manage to author one unified message,
Because it was more than 35-40 men, and it's not unified.
>Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in
>affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?
Yes.
>
>Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable,
>how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just
>another faith system?
Because there is evidence.
>What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that
>even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
So?
>Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our
>planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?
Argument from awe fallacy.
>If every effect has a cause,
The universe is not an effect.
>
>What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
Evidence.
[snip apologetics story]
Well, that was fun to just fuck with the troll.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
raven1
>In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
>just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
>who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
>Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
>evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
>of those who believe than to join it. To ensure integrity, therefore,
>on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
>few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
>
>How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
>universe?
Specifically?
>How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
>Biblical stories, places, and people?
Do you consider the historical existence of Troy to be evidence for
the existence of Zeus?
>
>Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed
Jesus predicted he would return during the lifetime of his listeners.
He was wrong.
> (and there are
>hundreds),
Many of which are also false or so vague as to be meaningless...
> how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
>is of Divine origin?
Because your claim is false.
>Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
>(Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
>form of capital punishment?
Crucifixion victims are not pierced through the hands and feet, and
being able to count one's bones is more consistent with starvation
than crucifixion.
>
>How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
>full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that
is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old,
from everlasting."
From The Skeptics Annotated Bible:
"The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem
fulfills this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.
1. "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a
clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife,
Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).
2. The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah,
but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from verse 5:6. This
leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus
never did.
It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by
saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than
"Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this,
intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town
of Bethlehem rather than the family clan."
>Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
>(of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
>Jesus.
There is no evidence outside of the claims of the Gospels that this is
the case. Furthermore, many of the supposedly fulfilled prophecies,
such as the one directly above, actually have nothing to do with Jesus
at all.
>How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
>predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
>occurred?
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold,
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel.
Another supposed prophecy which does not refer to Jesus at all.
From the SAB:
"7:14 The King James Version mistranslates the Hebrew word "almah",
which means "young woman" as "virgin". (The Hebrew word, "bethulah",
means "virgin".) In addition, the young woman referred to in this
verse was living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course,
was called Jesus -- and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New
Testament."
Furthermore, there is no evidence outside of the claims of Matthew
and Luke that Jesus was born of a virgin.
>How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
>number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
This is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the accounts they
relate.
>Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
Yes.
>Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
>the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
Pascal's Wager is fallacious for several reasons: first, it assumes
that you've chosen the right God to act as if you believed in, second,
it assumes that such hypocrisy isn't actually offensive to such a God.
>
>In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
>be God?
I really couldn't care less whether or not Jesus was "a good man".
BTW, what evidence outside the Gospels is there that he actually made
such a claim?
>
>Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
>Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
Yes.
>
>If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
>'Good Book'?
If the Quran is not true, why do 1.3 billion Muslims believe it is?
>
>Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
>word at least 2600 times?
So what?
>
>Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
>year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
Also so what?
>
>From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?
There is no universal moral sense shared among all of humanity.
>
>
>If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what
>motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
My empathy for others and my desire to live a happy life.
>
>Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal,
>or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
Be more specific, I have no idea what you're asking.
>
>If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men
>(Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
There's no evidence that they did so.
>
>How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
>virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
>society to this day?
Because Constantine adopted the religion largely based on Paul's
teachings, not Jesus's, as the state religion of Rome.
>Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have
>you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and
>dead, have been men and women of great faith?
Because it was part of the culture they were raised in, and anyone
professing not to believe in it was persecuted or killed outright.
>
>Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and
>people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error
>in their view of the Bible?
Abraham Lincoln was emphatically not a believer in the Bible, nor is
it relevant how many people believe it to be true.
>How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible
>complexity of its essential components?
What, specifically, do you find to be irreducibly complex?
>How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with
>progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
What specifically do you think the 2LOT states? How does this relate
to evolutionary theory. Be specific. Furthermore, explain how this has
any relevance to the accuracy of the Bible.
>How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with
>naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
What exactly is the "Law of Entropy" supposed to be, and in what way
is human intelligence supposed to be incompatible with a naturalistic
world view?
>
>Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain
>such detailed prophecies of future events?
Most of which are either wrong or so vague that they can be taken to
mean anything you want them to...
>
>On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian
>orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians
>1:8)?
What good reason is there to think that it might be in the first
place?
>
>Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively
>true that "all things are relative?"
What is that supposed to mean. It sounds clever, but doesn't say much.
>
>Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness
>to submit to Him?
Is it possible that your unbelief in Krishna is actually an
unwillingness to submit to him?
>Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of
>meaning and purpose?
Yes.
>
>How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian
>believers down through history?
What specifically do you mean?
>Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered
>in an intelligible and credible manner?
Are you aware that such an assertion is blatantly false?
>
>What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
>document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
List some, and I'll let you know.
>Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of
>centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
Because there simply haven't *been* centuries of worldwide attempts to
destroy and ban its message. You're spouting nonsense.
>
>Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent
>'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?
This appears to be a silly variation on Anselm's ontological argument,
which has been refuted for centuries.
>
>Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only
>religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
Quite untrue. Dozens of other purported deities can make the same
claim, Osiris being among the most famous. Nor is this relevant to the
truth or falsity of the Bible's claims.
>How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the
>evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty
>centuries?
What evidence outside the gospels do you have to claim that Jesus's
tomb was empty in the first place, or that the whole crucifixion and
burial scenario actually occurred?
>>> Is the resurrection a myth? / Did Christ really rise from the dead?
Yes, and no.
>
>If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in
>His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place
>at His tomb?
There's no evidence that any of the story is true in the first place,
so the question is moot.
>
>If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have
>perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?
See previous response.
>
>If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the
>Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?
See previous response.
>Did Christ really rise from the dead?
There's no evidence to suggest that he did.
>
>How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses
>to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
How can one realistically accept Paul's hearsay claim that over 500
witnesses saw a living Jesus after the resurrection?
>If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own
>self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His
>life?
Wandering around as a homeless vagabond with a bunch of other
religious fanatics for three years is hardly evidence of sanity, IMO.
>If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by
>suddenly "realizing" that he/she is 'God' therefore isn't God?
What is this supposed to refer to?
>
>Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad
>experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the
>facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?
No, it's because there is no good reason to believe in such a thing.
>How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate
>continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?
The Bible is hardly a "unified" work; it rather appears cobbled
together from authors with wildly divergent agendas and theological
points of view.
>Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in
>affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?
Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian, and did not believe in the
accuracy of the Bible.
>
>Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable,
>how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just
>another faith system?
Naturally occurring events often leave behind evidence from which can
be reconstructed a fair picture of what happened.
>
>
>What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that
>even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
That humans have a tendency to make up supernatural explanations for
things they don't understand.
>
>
>Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our
>planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?
There are hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with hundreds of
billions of stars, many with planets. Out of such a huge number, it
would be fairly incredible if there *weren't* planets at a suitable
distance for life to exist.
>
>
>If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e.
>is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who
>then caused the universe?
What caused God? And if God doesn't need a creator, why does the
Universe?
>What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
Serious brain damage.
<snip idiotic story>
Gregor K.
> On 28 Sep 2003 10:54:24 -0700, cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf)
> wrote:
>
> >In order to be fair in the debate about [250+ lines snipped]
>
> What debate?
>
> I have had a quick look at your posts in Google, including those
> of your sock puppet Gregor K, and I see no evidence that you are
> interested in debating.
I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
not our job to debate. It is our job to just post and let others read
and tell their opinion. Maybe some will get saved, some will not.
bluskie
> In order to be fair in the debate about **CHOP**
You're just another xian retard, no need to waist time responding.
____ _ _ _ _ _
| _ \ | | ___ _ __ | | __ | | | | | |
| |_) | | | / _ \ | '_ \ | |/ / | | | | | |
| __/ | | | (_) | | | | | | < |_| |_| |_|
|_| |_| \___/ |_| |_| |_|\_\ (_) (_) (_)
Appelonius
"Gregor K." <gre...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:82afdec.03092...@posting.google.com...
>
> I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
> not our job to debate. It is our job to just post and let others read
> and tell their opinion. Maybe some will get saved, some will not.
How can you claim to save people if you never respond when they show your
statements to be incorrect?
Kronk
wrote:
>In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
>just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand.
I agree that most other theistic religions are just as implausible.
>Even those
>who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
>Christianity have some questions to answer.
All your questions have been answered many times before. And you'd
know that if you didn't have your fingers in your ears.
>In fact, considering the
>evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
>of those who believe than to join it.
The mere fact you don't doubt it doesn't make it true.
>To ensure integrity, therefore,
>on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
>few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
>
>How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
>universe?
How do you explain the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Surely
that proves the existence of leprechauns, does it not?
First demonstrate that there is a high degree of design in the
universe. Until you do that, I've got no reason to worry about how to
explain something I don't see.
>How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
>Biblical stories, places, and people?
Even the Oz stories mention a real Kansas. How is the Bible different
from any other myth that mentions real places? And where is evidence
for the creation, the flood, the captivity and exodus of the Jews, and
where is there even one scrap of credible documentation of the
all-important BibleJesus character?
>Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are
>hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
>is of Divine origin?
If Jesus really did return in the lifetime of those he was speaking
to, why are you still waiting for him? You already missed the bus.
Bible prophecy fulfillments are typically stories in the New Testament
that echo stories in the Old Testament. There's no magic in getting
two parts of a fiction to match up. Humans do that on a daily basis.
>Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
>(Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
>form of capital punishment?
1) You have nothing to show when that was written, or by whom.
2) You don't even have anything that establishes that BibleJesus
existed.
>How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
>full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
Since the whole story of the Nativity is obviously fiction, this is
just a simple matter of matching one fiction to another.
>How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
>number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
Faithful copies of a fiction are still fiction.
>Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
Yes.
>Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
>the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
No.
>In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
>be God?
In what sense was Glenda a "good witch" if she was lying about being a
witch?
>If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
>'Good Book'?
1) That view isn't universal
2) The Harry Potter books are widely regarded as good too. Does that
make them true?
>Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
>word at least 2600 times?
So if I write a conflicting story that claims 2700 times to be the
inspired word of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, that would beat the Old
Testament, right?
>Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
>year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
Did you know fiction books usually outsell historical books?
>From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?
(tip: whence means "from where") Humanity in general and Christians
in particular have widely varying morals. Morals are just part of the
way humans have evolved as social creatures. The same constructs can
be seen in other primates.
>If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what
>motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
1) The inclusion of the random arrangement proviso was both
unnecessary and false.
2) I'm motivated by my sense of honor and self-respect--human
attributes which Christianity tries to destroy and replace with
motivation by fear and desire for infinite reward.
>Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal,
>or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
1) The way matter interacts at a fundamental level is not chaos.
2) Personality is not defined.
3) If you don't understand the basics of how natural selection works,
that isn't our problem.
4) Even if there are some things we can't yet explain, it is both
premature and irrational to conclude such things must be the handiwork
of some magical being or beings.
>If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men
>(Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
Those characters died because that's the way the stories were written.
>How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
>virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
>society to this day?
Christianity took hold because Constantine I found it politically
expedient to co-opt an obscure little cannibal cult for his own
purposes.
>Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers?
Why have so many of humankind's greatest thinkers made mistakes?
Because they are human.
>Have
>you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and
>dead, have been men and women of great faith?
Nope. In the first place, I happen to know that the rates of
religiosity among leading scientists are far lower than they are for
poorly educated people, and in the second place, the mere fact of
someone believing something doesn't make it true no matter how smart
they are. Appeals to authority are not rationally compelling.
>Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and
>people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error
>in their view of the Bible?
Isn't it arrogant to suggest that the thousands of religions that
conflict with Christianity are all radically in error? By the
numbers, every religious view is a minority view. Adherents of each
view think theirs is the one that is special and true, and their very
incompatibility with all the other "special and true" views logically
establishes that an overwhelming majority of humans *must* be wrong.
Putting all religions in the "probably false" category is simply
reasonable. And since the Bible contains obvious whoppers like the
creation and flood stories, talking animals, stopping the Earth for
day, rotating the Earth backwards, and so on, it especially deserves
to be dumped into the "probably false" category. And that's the case
no matter what good people believe it.
And by the way, do you know what the number one predictor of what
religion you will belong to is? It isn't how smart you are, or how
good you are. It is simply whatever religion you were raised in.
Every good Christian you can point to would probably not have wound up
a Christian at all had they been raised in a different religion.
>How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible
>complexity of its essential components?
So-called irreducible complexity has been dealt with extensively, and
again, even if we don't have a full explanation for something yet,
that doesn't make it rational to suppose a god did it.
>How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with
>progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
Very easily. And if you can figure out how to work Google, you can
find thousands of pages dealing with that.
>How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with
>naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
What is there to reconcile? Did you suppose there is some conflict
there?
>Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain
>such detailed prophecies of future events?
I haven't seen any of those. What's it predicting for this coming
year?
>On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian
>orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians
>1:8)?
On the basis that it is clearly a myth assembled from older myths.
>Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively
>true that "all things are relative?"
It is absolutely true that all relations between things are relative.
>Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness
>to submit to Him?
No, because I'd have to believe in him in order to have that
unwillingness. Back when I did believe, I was entirely willing to
submit.
>Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of
>meaning and purpose?
Yes. Does your role as an insignificant slave heaping praise on a
being who has abolutely no need of it provide you with an adequate
sense of meaning and purpose?
>How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian
>believers down through history?
Addiction is powerful stuff. Whether it be drugs, gambling, sex,
adrenaline, or religion, it can take over your life if you let it.
>Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered
>in an intelligible and credible manner?
I'm aware that's false. I'm also aware that it is possible to concoct
a story which is 100% compatible with itself and yet 100% lie.
>What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
>document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
I'd say writing books has no effect on reality.
>Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of
>centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
You mean worldwide except in those powerful empires which were
explicitly Christian. Christianity is successful because it takes
over people by providing them with good feelings. And when it
controls people, it can send its tendrils into the very institutions
of human governance and power. Christianity has thrived because it is
so very adaptable. It is aggressive about spreading itself into new
niches and it can develop into radically different species to fit in
wherever it takes root. There are hundreds of variations of
Christianity, many of which are scarcely recognizable as having a
common ancestor religion.
>Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent
>'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?
1) If it exists, it exists with attributes, which is to say it would
have characteristics separating that which it is from that which it
isn't. Such boundaries are inherently limiting, so it isn't at all
obvious that an existing God would be "greater"--at least not until
you precisely define what you mean by greater. And of course, for
whatever God you can imagine, I can imagine that a pantheon of ten
thousand of them would be greater still.
2) You can define God as the greatest thing we can imagine if you
want, but I'm under no obligation to accept your definition. And even
if I granted it, it would still only establish that God is the
greatest of all our imaginings. That's not enough to make him real.
And it would definitely rule out BibleGod as being God, because I can
easily imagine something greater than that inept little tinpot god.
>Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only
>religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
Have you ever considered that you are a gullible fool who believes all
the falsehoods you have been fed. The Jesus character was assembled
liberally from several previous resurrection saviors.
>How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the
>evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty
>centuries?
You don't have a single speck of evidence.
>If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in
>His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place
>at His tomb?
If the ruby slippers weren't magic, how could they have transported
Dorothy back to Kansas from Oz?
>If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have
>perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?
You are speculating about a myth.
>If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the
>Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?
If there really was a Roman guard posted there (and why, again, were
they guarding a corpse?) why would the Roman guard profess to have
fallen asleep on duty--an infraction punishable by death?
>How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses
>to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
Because we don't have the testimony of 500 witnesses. We have a story
written by some unknown hand decades after the supposed fact claiming
there were that many witnesses. I could write something anonymously
claiming that the avatar of the Hindu god, Ganesh, was witnessed by
5,000 people back in 1946. That's ten times the number of witnesses
claimed in the Bible, but both stories would still have zero
credibility.
>If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own
>self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His
>life?
What, you mean like placing a curse on a fig tree because it didn't
have fruit when it was not the season for it to have fruit?
>If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by
>suddenly "realizing" that he/she is 'God' therefore isn't God?
If God is unchanging, then BibleGod clearly isn't God. BibleGod is
more mercurial than Mercury himself.
>Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad
>experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the
>facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?
No.
>How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate
>continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?
Many of the stories are parallel because they derive from the same
popular myths of the region. Many stories are parallel because some
are simply copies of others. And what makes them unified is that at
some point a bunch of people took a lot of related stories, threw away
the ones they thought didn't fit very well, then they smashed the
remainder together and called them unified. Even so, there is much
less continuity and coherence in the Bible than you find in modern
books of fiction.
>Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in
>affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?
Yes. Our rights are not endowed. We secure them for ourselves
(which, by the way, is exactly what they were trying to do when they
issued the Declaration of Independence).
>Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable,
>how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just
>another faith system?
Because historical science is observable, verifiable, and
falsifiable--and it deals predominantly with what happened after the
origin of life.
>What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that
>even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
I'd say the very fact that we see this widespread human tendency to
concoct gods is strong evidence for the human origin of gods.
>Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our
>planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?
Coincidental with what?
>If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e.
>is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who
>then caused the universe?
You haven't established that the universe is an effect.
You also haven't established that God is not an effect.
>What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
Rationally compelling evidence, or a really convincing hallucination,
or any of a large number of brain disorders.
>A college student attended a philosophy class which held a discussion
>about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic:
>"Has anyone in this class ever heard God?" No one spoke. "Has anyone
>in this class ever touched God?" Again, no one spoke. "Has anyone in
>this class ever seen God?" When no one spoke for the third time, he
>said, "Then there is no God."
>
>One student thought for a second and then asked for permission to
>reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor
>agreed. The student stood up and asked the following: "Has anyone in
>this class ever heard our professor's brain?" Silence. "Has anyone in
>this class ever touched our professor's brain?" Absolute silence. "Has
>anyone in this class ever seen our professor's brain?" When no one in
>the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to
>our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no
>brain!"
>
>The student received an 'A' in the class.
Your addiction to fables would be amusing in a child, but it's rather
sad to see in an adult.
Kronk
Woden
> In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
> just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
> who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
> Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
> evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
> of those who believe than to join it.
And we ask again. What evidence?
> To ensure integrity, therefore,
> on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
> few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
>
> How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
> universe?
What design & order?
>
>
> How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
> Biblical stories, places, and people?
How do you account for the archeological documentation of "The Illiad"?
How do you account for the complete lack of archeological and geological
and historical documentation for many of the (major) events in the bible,
the flood of Noah, the Exodus, the crucifiction of Jesus, ...?
>
> Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are
> hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
> is of Divine origin?
How many of these biblical prophecies were documented outside the bible
prior to their happening and then confirmed by non-biblical observers?
> Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
> (Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
> form of capital punishment?
Where in Psalm 22 does it mention crucifiction? Can you prove that the
writers of the gospels didn't just take the words from a Psalm that they
had previously read and then use them as part of their fictionalization?
>
> How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
> full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
How do you know that a messiah was born in any specific town?
> Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
> (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
> Jesus.
How many of these prophecies were recorded by non-biblical sources and then
later confirmed to occur by sources other than the bible?
>
> How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
> predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
> occurred?
How is it possible for virgin to give birth? Are you aware that many bible
experts consider the word "virgin" in the story to be a mistranslation of
the word for "young girl"?
>
> How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
> number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
How does the number of copies indicate the reliability of a document?
>
> Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
Works for me.
> Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
> the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
Why would it make sense to live as though some mythical being was real?
(PS. #325860326822 in the series of variations of Pascal's Wager)
>
> In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
> be God?
In what sense did Jesus actually live if there is no evidence other than
the fictional stories of the bible?
>
> Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
> Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
What does if matter if a fictional character affirms the truthfulness of
the work of fiction that contains his story?
>
> If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
> 'Good Book'?
If the Qu'ran is not true why is it so universally regarded as the word of
god?
>
> Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
> word at least 2600 times?
Are you aware that no matter how many times a bullshit claim is made, it's
still bullshit?
>
> Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
> year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
And how many of those copies were actually read and understood by
their owners?
>
> From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?
Without gods, it seems to reason that it came from humanity. Got any
evidence to the contrary?
>
>
> If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what
> motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
Why do you think humans are a random arrangement of molecules?
>
> Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal,
> or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
How could the order of snowflakes form from the chaos of water vapor?
>
> If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men
> (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
It was a good plot device for the story writer?
>
> How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
> virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
> society to this day?
Explain how a mythical figure in stories written almost 2000 years ago
can cause so many people to reject reason and rational thinking? Does the
word "belief" mean anything?
>
>
> Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have
> you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and
> dead, have been men and women of great faith?
Why have so many of history's great thinkers been "non-xian"? Why are more
and more of these great thinkers rejecting religions and gods?
>
> Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and
> people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error
> in their view of the Bible?
Isn't it somewhat arrogant to think that some being who could create the
universe cares about one little speck of humanity on one little planet in
one galaxy in the universe?
>
> How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible
> complexity of its essential components?
How do you account for the formation of new chemicals from natural
processes?
>
> How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with
> progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
How can an eternal, non-changing god be reconciled with the 2LOT?
> How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with
> naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
How do you reconcile the lack of demonstratable human intelligence that
occurs along with belief in ancient myths and superstions?
>
> Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain
> such detailed prophecies of future events?
And how many of these "detailed" prophesies have occured? (not the generic
prophesies like wars & earthquakes &...)
How do you reconcile that the great prophesy of Jesus that he would return
within the lifetime of his followers never occured?
>
> On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian
> orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians
> 1:8)?
What standards of truth are in the bible?
>
> Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively
> true that "all things are relative?"
Define "truth"?
> Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness
> to submit to Him?
Sorry, but I don't submit to fairytales?
>
> Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of
> meaning and purpose?
It's up to me. Why does your sense of meaning and purpose depend on an
ancient mythical character?
>
> How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian
> believers down through history?
How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Islamic believers
through history?
>
>
> Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered
> in an intelligible and credible manner?
Not by you they haven't. All I've ever seen are rationalizations,
mistranslations, and wishful thinking.
> What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
> document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
What can you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
document the veracity and reliability of the Qu'ran?
>
>
> Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of
> centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
What "worldwide" attempts to destroy or ban it?
> Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent
> 'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?
You can define your god anyway you want. But until you show evidence of
his existence, he remains no different from imaginary.
>
> Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only
> religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
>
How an you explain that Mithra is said to have risen from the dead?
>
> How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the
> evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty
> centuries?
How does a non-existent empty tomb prove anything?
>
> If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in
> His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place
> at His tomb?
If Gandalf did not actually die and rise from the dead after his battle
with the Balrog, how could he have helped defeat Sauron?
> If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have
> perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?
What happens to a fictional body can be speculated about in many ways.
> If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the
> Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?
What makes you think there were real Roman guards around the tomb of a dead
fictional character?
> How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses
> to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
How many of these witnesses can be shown to have existed outside the
fictional story of the bible and recorded their experience independently?
> If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own
> self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His
> life?
What makes you think that a person (god-man) who curses a fig tree for not
having fruit out of season is anything less than a lunatic?
>
> If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by
> suddenly "realizing" that he/she is 'God' therefore isn't God?
What god?
>
>
> Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad
> experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the
> facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself? >> Why should
> I consider Christianity, if all Christians are hypocrites? / What kind
> of world would you create? / How did bad things come about? / Why do
> the innocent suffer? / Does God feel your pain? / Goodness of God / Is
> God fair? / How can a God of love send anybody to Hell?
Isn't your belief in this mythical story possibly the result of a bad
experience learning to reason and use critical thinking during your
childhood indoctrination and brainwashing?
>
>
> How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate
> continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?
Can you list these 35-40 men, and provide some historical evidence of them?
>
>
> Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in
> affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?
Based on the writings and words of people like T. Jefferson, J. Madison, T.
Paine, what makes you think that their use of the term "creator" has
anything to do with your xian god-myth?
>
> Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable,
> how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just
> another faith system?
What evidence do you offer that counters or supercedes the scientific
evidence we have which doesn't show any gods?
>
> What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that
> even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
What do make of myth and legend that travels from person to person through
stories, indoctrination, ritual, etc.?
>
> Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our
> planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?
Can you show that it didn't happen according to natural processes?
>
>
> If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e.
> is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who
> then caused the universe?
If every effect has a cause, who or what caused your god?
>
>
> What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
If this all-powerful, all-knowing, loving god you believe in, exists, then
he should know and if he really wanted me to believe, he would do it. The
fact that he hasn't indicates that I have no reason to believe in him.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
(snip xian fantasy #44296538, which we have seen entirely too many times)
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Al Klein
>In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
>just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
>who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
>Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
>evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
>of those who believe than to join it. To ensure integrity, therefore,
>on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
>few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
>How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
>universe?
I don't explain something you see that doesn't really exist.
>How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
>Biblical stories, places, and people?
The fact that archaeology contradicts the bible.
>Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are
>hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
>is of Divine origin?
EVERY non-ambiguous biblical prophesy has failed.
>Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
>(Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
>form of capital punishment?
Crucifixion is not mentioned in Psalms 22.
>How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
>full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
The OT doesn't mention Jesus.
>Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
>(of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
>Jesus.
Not a single unambiguous biblical prophesy has been fulfilled.
>How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
>predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
>occurred?
Isaiah prophesies the Messiah Immanuel. It never mentions Jesus.
>How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
>number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
A billion completely accurate copies of a fable is still a fable.
>Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
>the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
Allah does exist than as though he doesn't?
Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
Cthulu does exist than as though he doesn't?
>Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
>Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
Jesus is a character in a myth, not a real person.
>If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
>'Good Book'?
If the Earth is round, why was it universally regarded as being flat
for millennia?
>Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
>word at least 2600 times?
Are you aware that Superman Comics claims that Superman exists in
EVERY SINGLE issue? That's over 3,000 times.
>Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
>year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
Argumentum ad numeram.
>Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal
Same way mammals could have evolved from non-mammals.
>or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
That's the nature of things.
>If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men
>(Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
They never existed - it's all a myth.
>How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
>virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
>society to this day?
He never existed.
>Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers?
Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been non-believers?
> Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and
>dead, have been men and women of great faith?
Have you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living
and dead, have been atheists?
>Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and
>people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error
>in their view of the Bible?
No. And Lincoln was an atheist.
>How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible
>complexity of its essential components?
Life isn't irreducibly complex.
>How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with
>progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
SLoT has nothing to do with either abiogenesis or evolution.
>How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with
>naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
One has nothing to do with the other.
>Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain
>such detailed prophecies of future events?
Prophesies that have consistently failed.
>On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian
>orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians
>1:8)?
On the basis that it's filled with errors.
>Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness
>to submit to Him?
Not in the least. There is absolutely not the slightest shred of
objective evidence that any god has ever objectively existed.
>Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of
>meaning and purpose?
Of course.
>How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian
>believers down through history?
I don't. Beliefs aren't proof that what's believed is true.
>Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered
>in an intelligible and credible manner?
No, but I am aware that many of them have been answered in a totally
stupid and dishonest manner.
>What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
>document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
detail the lies and unreliability of the Bible?
>Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of
>centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
Same reason other religions have survived. Stupidity.
>Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent
>'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?
Because there is no existing god.
>Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only
>religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
Yes, and I've found the claim to be false.
>How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the
>evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty
>centuries?
1) There's absolutely no evidence that Jesus even lived, let alone
that he died.
2) Anything can be claimed in a myth.
>If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in
>His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place
>at His tomb?
Again - anything can be claimed in a myth.
>If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have
>perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?
See above.
>If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the
>Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?
See above.
>Did Christ really rise from the dead?
He didn't really exist.
>How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses
>to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
Name at least 100 of them.
>If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own
>self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His
>life?
We're back to anything can be claimed in a myth.
>Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad
>experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the
>facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself?
No, it's the result of never having been indoctrinated into any
religion in the first place. Religion is not the default condition.
>How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate
>continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?
Saul was one man living on one continent over the span of one normal
human lifespan.
>Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in
>affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?
No, but "their Creator" doesn't refer to the Christian god.
>Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable,
>how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just
>another faith system?
Science doesn't make any claims about the origin of life.
>What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that
>even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
They show awareness that "something" must be causing the phenomena
they see. Not one primitive tribe has been found that believed in the
Christian god before it met Christians.
>Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our
>planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?
There's no evidence that they aren't.
>If every effect has a cause
That's no true. Causeless events happen all the time. But is the
universe an event or a cause?
>What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
The actual presence of the god you claim exists.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Chris Assaf wrote:
> In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
> just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
> who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
> Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
> evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
> of those who believe than to join it. To ensure integrity, therefore,
> on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
> few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
>
No, not really, but give it a try anyway.
>
> How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
> universe?
>
Design? You've not read the recent reports that show our own galaxy
"eating" another. Some design, life from destruction. Great. You need
a better definition of design there buddy.
>
>
> How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
> Biblical stories, places, and people?
>
The same way I account for the vast amount of archeological
documentation for the Greek myths, and the same for the Norse myths, and
Chinese myths, and Japanese myths, and Native American myths.
Yours is no more special then theirs.
>
>
> Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are
> hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
> is of Divine origin?
>
Darn, when did Jesus come back? I thought that was a big one. You
know, since all the people he predicted it to are DEAD. When he claimed
that some of them would not be.
You really need to develop a skeptical eye there kid.
>
> Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
> (Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
> form of capital punishment?
>
Written after the fact, when crucifixion was well known and in use.
Your point?
>
> How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
> full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
>
See above.
>
> Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
> (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
> Jesus.
>
Account for the odds, 1 out of 1, that it's an after the fact, made up
story used to enslave and control people.
>
>
> How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
> predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
> occurred?
>
The same way the virgin birth of Krishna was told, 2500 years before the
Jesus story even got started.
>
>
> How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
> number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
>
You mean, Jewish text. Gosh, how can you doubt the reliability of the
Book of Mormon, considering it's VERY close proximity to the man the
wrote it?
>
> Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
>
Yup, religions are based in myth.
And what's your point?
>
> Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
> the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
>
You obviously have never heard of Pascal and his wager.
>
> In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
> be God?
>
How about, in what sense was Jesus a man, if he was nothing more then a
made up hero for a mythical story?
And I thought you might be good at this. You need to study more.
>
> Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
> Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
>
I don't think he was a real man. A conglomerate hero figure made up of
mythical beings, yes, but not a real man.
>
> If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
> 'Good Book'?
>
It's not. Out of over 6 billion people on the earth, only about 1
billion even think about the bible as anything more then mythology.
Bible believers are in the minority.
>
> Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
> word at least 2600 times?
>
Yeah, and the Vedas and Gita are also imparted by the gods. So was the
Book of Mormon.
Your point?
>
> Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
> year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
>
You have a site for this, or are you just spewing what you heard from
the fat man in the front of the room?
>
>
> From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?
>
Respect for fellow man.
Your point?
BTW, please show me one single example of "Universal Moral Sense" in
practice on this planet today.
>
> If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what
> motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
>
See above. Respect for my fellow human beings.
You really are pretty bad at this.
>
> Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal,
> or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
>
Do you know what "Learning by Observation" is?
>
> If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men
> (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
>
You again assume that Jesus was a real man. First prove, with out using
the bible, that he actually lived. Like the Caesar's lived, and can be
proven by other then Roman writings.
Then we can discuss his "divinity". But not before.
>
> How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
> virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
> society to this day?
>
He did not. But then again, you assume the less then a billion people
is a majority in a world of over 6 billion.
Your math skills leave much to be desired.
>
> Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have
> you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and
> dead, have been men and women of great faith?
>
Wow, Gandhi was a believer? Buddha? Krishna Morte(sp), a believer?
Edison? Twain?
How bout you ask a more personal question.
Why do I believe the same things as Hitler, Jim Jones, David Koresh, The
Popes that ordered the crusades, the members of the Spanish
Inquisitions, the "judges" in all the witch trials?
Mighty great amounts of blood on the hands of fellow believers.
>
> Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and
> people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error
> in their view of the Bible?
>
Nope, you think the same thing of Hindus and Muslims. And they too have
had great leaders.
>
> How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible
> complexity of its essential components?
>
Learn about evolution first, then come back at talk when you have learned.
>
> How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with
> progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
>
Easy, see that big, yellow, glowing, hot object in the sky? You know,
the one that comes up in the east and goes down in the west?
Energy. Tends to throw off the 2lotd. Energy coming into a system,
changes the parameters some what.
Of course if you had bothered to learn science, instead of spewing what
your preacher tells you to spew, you'd have known that little bit of
information.
>
> How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with
> naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
>
See above. And go learn something of science.
>
> Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain
> such detailed prophecies of future events?
>
You obviously have not read any of the other "holy books".
Try it some time, you might just learn something.
>
> On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian
> orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians
> 1:8)?
>
The same as challenging the Koran.
Ooopppsss. There you go again, not being unique and all that.
>
> Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively
> true that "all things are relative?"
>
is it possible for your god to build a rock so big he can not move it?
Ain't stupid questions fun?
>
> Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness
> to submit to Him?
>
ditto. Is it possible that your unbelief in Brahma is an unwillingness
to submit to Him?
>
> Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of
> meaning and purpose?
>
Yup, sure does.
>
> How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian
> believers down through history?
>
Same way I'd explain the radically changed lives of 19 men in jets on
Sept. 11, 2001.
Mythology drives people to all sorts of things.
>
> Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered
> in an intelligible and credible manner?
>
Not by you apparently.
And no, they have not. Blatant contradictions as the flood, the events
of Joshua 10, Matthew's account of the crucifixion and others show you
as not being well read, or well educated.
>
> What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
> document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
>
What do you say of the hundreds of thousands of books, papers, research
thesis's, magazine articles, and historical documents, that all say the
bible is a fraud?
I can play the numbers game just as well as the next person.
>
> Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of
> centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
>
Again, you are not well read on history.
Since the church controlled the distribution of it, till only the last
500 - 600 years, there has been no world wide attempt to ban or destroy
the bible.
Would that the same good be said for "Where the sidewalk ends", or the
Harry Potter series.
>
> Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent
> 'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?
>
Which god?
>
> Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only
> religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
>
Wrong, Hindus also have a risen deity. So did the ancient Egyptians.
The Celts have one, and so do several Native American traditions.
Again, you are not unique.
>
> How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the
> evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty
> centuries?
>
Which one? There are some 5 that are usually pointed to as being the
one. Problem is, it really depends on what sect you belong to as to
which one you'll accept.
Of course, there is only one empty tomb pointed to for the Hindu deity.
Hmmmm, maybe you should look into Hinduism.
>
> If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in
> His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place
> at His tomb?
>
Better question, was Jesus even a real person?
There we are, full circle.
>
Your failure to provide even a remotely challenging question in regards
to your faith shows a stunted and uneducated personality. Some one
desperately grasping at any straw they can find to boost up and fortify
their flimsy house of cards. Only spewing what they hear from the
pulpit of their particular faith, and never even bothering to check
sources and other religions for information.
Tell me, how much of the world to you really see with those blinders on?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@qwest.net
A.A #1143 ULC Minister
Home School Educator for Computer Science
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Nantko Schanssema
gre...@volcanomail.com (Gregor K.):
>Martin Thomas <mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote in message news:<8oaenvcmdkncfsii1...@4ax.com>...
>> On 28 Sep 2003 10:54:24 -0700, cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In order to be fair in the debate about [250+ lines snipped]
>>
>> What debate?
>>
>> I have had a quick look at your posts in Google, including those
>> of your sock puppet Gregor K, and I see no evidence that you are
>> interested in debating.
>
>I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
>not our job to debate.
Thank you for this admission. It makes one wonder, of course, why
Chris uses the word debate as if there were such a thing. We already
knew better of course, but it's nice to hear you admit that.
>It is our job to just post and let others read and tell their opinion.
Good. I can now killfile you and Chris without that nagging feeling
I'll miss something of importance. Bye.
[snip]
regards,
Nantko
--
All Christian religion seems to have a kind of alliance with folly and in
no respect to have any accord with wisdom.
Erasmus of Rotterdam, The Praise of Folly
Charles & Mambo
>>I have had a quick look at your posts in Google, including those
>>of your sock puppet Gregor K, and I see no evidence that you are
>>interested in debating.
>
> I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
> not our job to debate. It is our job to just post and let others read
> and tell their opinion.
So, how much does this job pay?
> Maybe some will get saved, some will not.
Good bye, Mr.Hat.
--
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, better than a cup of gold
See, only a Chocolate Jesus can satisfy my soul
When the weather gets rough and its whiskey in the shade
Best to wrap your Savior up in cellophane
He flows like the Big Muddy, but that's okay
Pour him over ice-cream for a nice parfait...
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, make me feel so good inside
Got to be a Chocolate Jesus, keep me satisfied
*Nemo*
cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf) wrote:
> How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
> Biblical stories, places, and people?
Wow. Let's see... archeological evidence for David is... well nothing
much at all. Archeological evidence for Moses is... nothing.
The evidence for the Exodus -- none.
Genesis... give me a break.
Sodom & Gomorrorah -- nada
The Flood -- zilch
Shall we go on?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
Mark Richardson
wrote:
> In fact, considering the
>evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
>of those who believe than to join it.
So you lied about the "Serious questions" then?
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark K. Bilbo
> In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
> just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
> who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
> Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
> evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
> of those who believe than to join it.
Wrong.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
quibbler
cassa...@yahoo.com says...
> In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
> just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand.
Their the one's who claimed to witness something. Atheists are not
claiming to be witnesses to god.
> Even those
> who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
> Christianity have some questions to answer.
Like what exactly?
> In fact, considering the
> evidence,
What evidence specifically?
> it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
> of those who believe than to join it.
That's an unwarranted and unevidenced assertion.
> To ensure integrity, therefore,
> on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
> few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
Sheesh. You could have tried to be more concise.
>
> How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
> universe?
There is no evidence for design, but rather bottom up "designoid"
features that present an illusion of design to very uneducated people,
such as yourself. Order is something that the mind imposes upon
natural systems.
> >> Learn more about the universe / origin of life / origin of species
> / origin of mankind
>
>
> How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
> Biblical stories,
You've provided no examples of evidence so nothing needs to be
accounted for. Have the courage to give an example.
> places, and people?
> >> Reliability of the Bible - In what ways have archaeological
> discoveries verified it? / Bible archaeology evidences
>
>
> Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed
Bullshit. Jesus has not returned, though he promised he would do so
very quickly. 2000 years is not quick, even by your gawd's standards.
> (and there are
> hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
> is of Divine origin?
> >> Read about fulfilled biblical prophecies...
>
> Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
> (Psalm 22)
Jesus plagiarized some words from here long after it was written. BTW,
moron, most scholars don't believe david wrote most of the psalms. Now
let's see how well the description matches jebus.
"I am a worm and not a man"
Wrong.
"All who see me mock me"
Wrong. Not all people who saw jesus mocked him.
"Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me"
Wrong again. No bulls were ever reported in any of the crucifixion
gospels.
"Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me."
Wrong. No lions were ever reported at the crucifixion.
" My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me."
There is no evidence that this ever happened to jesus.
"Dogs have surrounded me".
Nope, david fucked this one up too. There are no dogs reported at the
crucifixion.
"I can count all my bones"
Bullshit. Not even close. Jesus was not flayed alive. He was just
crucified.
"For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him"
Wrong. The gospels indicate that Yahweh forsook jebus.
So there are more than a half dozen serious problems with with psalm
22. Trivial things like his clothing being taken or gambled for are
hardly surprising predictions. There is also no proof that it actually
happened.
>
> 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
> form of capital punishment?
LOL. I could predict that someone will be persecuted and executed 1000
years in the future with virtually 100% certainty as well. Eventually,
if I wait long enough, someone will die in a way that matches various
figurative requirements as well.
>
> How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
> full centuries before the fact
Of course, no such thing happened and you know it. However, his
prediction is as unremarkable as me predicting that some day a great
person will be born in New York City. Given enough time, it might even
happen :)).
>, as did the prophet Micah?
You mean Jesus and his disciples plagiarized Micah and attempted to
interpret their actions as fulfillment of prophecies long after the
actual predictions were supposed to have taken place.
> >> Read the "God's Story" account of Micah describing the Messiah...
>
> Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
> (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
> Jesus.
Oh puhleeze. Naturally you didn't even bother to explain how you
obtained this moronic number.
> >> Prophecies
>
> How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
> predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
> occurred?
You clearly haven't read or studied any of these texts in any detail.
Get an education, fool. Presently you're incapable of intelligent
argumentation.
<rest snipped>
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
quibbler
> Gregor K. wrote:
>
> >>I have had a quick look at your posts in Google, including those
> >>of your sock puppet Gregor K, and I see no evidence that you are
> >>interested in debating.
> >
> > I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
> > not our job to debate. It is our job to just post and let others read
> > and tell their opinion.
>
> So, how much does this job pay?
It depends on how hard Gregor blows.
>
> > Maybe some will get saved, some will not.
>
> Good bye, Mr.Hat.
I preferred Mr. Hat to Mr. Slave :).
David
>
> How do you explain the high degree of design and order in
> the universe?
There is no evidence for any "design" in the universe and
there is not any "order". You need to learn a bit about
physics before you ask such stupid questions.
> How do you account for the vast archaeological
> documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?
Lies.
> Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed...
Not one has ever come true.
I thought you were going to aske some serious questions. I
should have known that such a thing would be impossible for
you to do.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
da...@TheLlamaRanch.com
http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com
UDP for WebTV
Robert Matthews
cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf) wrote:
> In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
> just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
> who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
> Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
> evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
> of those who believe than to join it. To ensure integrity, therefore,
> on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
> few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
Most of your posits and questions are exceedingly silly, and all of
them have been answered on this newsgroup before, which suggests that 1)
you're a hit-and-run troll, and 2) you have no interest in debate. But I
can't resist answering one question, just in case you're actually paying
attention:
> Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness
> to submit to Him?
Well, is it possible that your unbelief in Krishna is actually an
unwillingness to submit to him?
After all, people the world over believe in hundreds and hundreds
of gods. You believe in all except one of them. We atheists believe in
one fewer than you do.
Robert Matthews
a.a. #1801
Douglas Berry
by some cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf) came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
>How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
>universe?
The laws of physics. Completely natural.
>How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
>Biblical stories, places, and people?
How do you do the same for other holy books?
>Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are
>hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
>is of Divine origin?
That is a falsehoods, since to make this claim you have to prove the
Bible using the Bible. Circular logic.
As for other alleged prophecies..
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
>Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
>(Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
>form of capital punishment?
Has it ever occurred to you that humans edited the Bible? And the bit
about casting lots for clothing only occurs in one of the Gospels?
Crucifixion, by the way, is older than the Romans.
>How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
>full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that
is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old,
from everlasting."
The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem
fulfills this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.
1. "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a
clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife,
Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).
2. The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the
Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from verse
5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of
course, Jesus never did.
It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by
saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than
"Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this,
intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town
of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.
>Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
>(of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
>Jesus.
How was this computed? And again, the Bible was written and editied
by men.
>How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
>predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
>occurred?
7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Nowhere in the NT is Jesus named Immanuel.
>How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
>number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
I own several copies of the Koran. They are all the same. Does that
make them true? Hell, the Koran today is almost identical to the
original scrolls written over a thousand years ago!
>Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
Yup.
>Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
>the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
the Aesir of Norse myth do exist than as though He doesn't?
Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
the Olympians of Greek myth do exist than as though He doesn't?
>In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
>be God?
There's no solid evidence that he really lived, or if half the things
he allegedly said were even his! Read the gospels critically; Jesus
seems to swing wildly in mood and teachings.. from "blessed are the
peacemakers" to attacking moneychangers. Odds are, the Jesus of the
gospels was a collection of stories from the would-be messiahs that
were everywhere during the period.
>Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
>Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
I don't think he really existed.
>If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
>'Good Book'?
Except for the majority of the Earth's population who aren't
Christian, of course.
>Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
>word at least 2600 times?
So? If I wrote a book, and swore to you that it was God's inspired
word, would you believe me? The Koran swears that it is the inspired
word of Allah, who also claims to be the one true God. Is that true?
If not, why is your book better than theirs?
>Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
>year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
Actually, _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_ beat out the Bible in
2000. There have been several other years where the Bible wasn't
first
>From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?
We don't have one. It's training.
>If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what
>motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
I'm intelligent. I'm also a primate, and have the instincts of any
other tribal creature.
>Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal,
>or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
Personality is a mixture of how our brains work, and the environment
we were raised in. Being raised by a British father had a definite
impact in how I act and see the world.
Again, learn some physics. Adding energy can create order, see for
example what happens when you eat food.
>If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men
>(Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
Who says they knew?
>How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
>virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
>society to this day?
Adolf Hitler was relatively unschooled, rather poor, and never held a
rank above Corporal in the Austrian Army. And he changed society and
lives. Does that make him divine? Mohammed did the same. As did
Buddha. Are they divine as well?
>Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have
>you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and
>dead, have been men and women of great faith?
It's their choice. Also, many lived in times where we didn't have
access to the tools we have today to examine the universe.
>Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and
>people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error
>in their view of the Bible?
Why not? Christians constantly accuse other Christians of being in
error in their interpretation of the Bible. Take the schism that
created the Southern Baptists, for example.
>How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible
>complexity of its essential components?
Simple chemistry, and a lot of opportunities over a lot of times.
Let's say there is a 1% chance of life arising every century. Pretty
slim, yes? Now take a billion years. How many chances do we have
then?
Except it wasn't one chance a century. The early oceans were rich
with the building blocks of life, and the environment was right for
endless chances for life to arise. In laboratory experiments,
conditions mimicking those of the early Earth have result in amino
acids within weeks. We're looking at a billion years here.
>How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with
>progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
If you add energy to a system, you can add complexity and stave off
chaos, for a while. Try not eating for a few weeks. *Very* quickly
you will find that your system begins breaking down.
Nature is a system that is not static. Life constantly is active,
working to propagate itself, striving to survive. Thermodynamics does
not apply.
>How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with
>naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
Simple.. larger brains helped us survive and thrive.
If you are over 25, entropy is already eating away at your brain. But
once again, we aren't static. We are adding material and energy to
our systems constantly (right now, for example, I am eating a
sandwich, drinking a Coke, and breathing.. all of which contribute to
keeping me running.)
>Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain
>such detailed prophecies of future events?
Wrong.
>On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian
>orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians
>1:8)?
Because it is howlingly wrong is so many places.
>Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness
>to submit to Him?
No, I just don't believe in your god, or anyone else's for that
matter.
>Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of
>meaning and purpose?
Yes. I am. What I do with that knowledge is up to me.
>How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian
>believers down through history?
How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Moslems,
Hindus. Shintos, Buddhists, Greeks, Mithraists, etc? Religious fervor
is not limited to Christians.
>Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered
>in an intelligible and credible manner?
Wrong.
>What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
>document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
I've read several. They all seem to be written with the assumption
from the start that the Bible is true, so ignore facts that would
contradict that.
Also, many we written without modern tools for archeology, or pre-date
the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of
>centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
Why has the Koran done the same thing? How about the Eddas?
>Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent
>'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?
I simply do not believe in gods. Period.
>Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only
>religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
Wrong again!
Mithra.
Osirus
Baldur
Peresphone
There are many deities who have stories about dying a rising again.
>How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the
>evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty
>centuries?
Irrefutable! Ha! The Gospels can't even get the story straight!
How many women came to the sepulchre?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/women_sepulchre.html
When did the women (or woman) arrive at the sepulchre?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/dawn.html
Whom did the women see?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/women_see.html
Was the tomb opened or closed?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/open.html
Were the men (or angels) inside or outside the tomb?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/inside.html
I;m sorry, but there are four major inconsistencies in that story in
space of a few verses!
Have you ever been to Jerusalem? There are *three* different sites
that claim to be the tomb of Christ. Irrefutable my ass.
>If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in
>His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place
>at His tomb?
What, a big rock? Matthew 27:66 has a watch being set. but in 28
there is no mention of the watch being there.
>If the authorities stole Jesus' body, why? Why would they have
>perpetrated the very scenario that they most wanted to prevent?
Gee, maybe Jesus' buddies helped him escape?
>If Jesus merely resuscitated in the tomb, how did He deal with the
>Roman guard posted just outside its entrance?
No mention of a guard any where but Mat. 27:66. And he vanishes by
the time Mary shows up (with or without her friends.)
>Did Christ really rise from the dead?
Or was he in shock? Faked the entire thing? Notice that John has the
crucifixion taking place in a garden.. with no mention of two thieves.
Hmmm...
>How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses
>to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
Which contradicts Acts 1:15
"the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty."
Also, this isn't supported by the Gospels, which never speak of Jesus
appearing to a large group.
>
>If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own
>self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His
>life?
Like what? Assaulting people?
>Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in
>affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?
My creator is evolution.
>Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable,
>how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just
>another faith system?
We have evidence, and nobody claims to have absolute proof of how life
bot started. We have hypothesis, which we test against the evidence.
>What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that
>even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
So? Do they worship Jesus? If not, why not?
Religions started to explain question like "why does it rain?" "what
happens when we die?" "how come the ground shakes every so often?" and
the like. Notice how as science answers more and more questions, God
becomes more and more remote? We know why it rains, and why the
ground shakes.. remote near-stone age tribes don't have that
knoweldge.
Ever hear of the Cargo Cults?
http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0191cargo.asp
These people quite honestly worship manufactered goods, and build
landing strips and control towers to lure back the cargo-bearing
aircraft that once blessed their island with riches.
To you and I, this is silly. To them, this is as serious as Easter
Mass. They can't explain the airplanes, and the wonders of things
like metal tools and aircraft, so they perform rituals the best they
can to appease the gods.
Chrsitians do much the same when they pray. Trying to appease
something they really don't understand.
>Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our
>planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?
LOL! Once again, a theist puts the cart before the horse. Move the
Earth too far in either direction, and the water either gets locked up
or boiks off. In either case, we never evolve. Axial tilt? Wouldn't
make that much of a difference, to be honest. We evolved near enough
to the equator that the tilt had very little effect on our development
as a species. It was when we started covering the planet that the
tilt began affecting us. You could up the tilt to 60 degrees and we'd
still be human.
>If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e.
>is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who
>then caused the universe?
There are a lot of theories about that.. all of them better than "God
did it." Of course, if everything has a cause, what caused God? A
bigger God? What created him? And so on up the ladder! If you say
that God has always been, I have to wonder what he was doing before
the universe started. twiddling his thumbs? Why have thumbs when
existence doesn't, well, exist?
>What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
Nothing short of hard, verifiable evidence.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
quibbler
ROT13....@jv.ee.pbz.com says...
<snip>
> >In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
> >be God?
>
> He wasn't a good man.
While I agree that jesus was an asshole a fair amount of the time, it
is possible for Jesus to have been a good man some of the time and a
crazy, egotistical, ignorant jackass the rest of the time. The real
lie Cris was trying to purvey was the all or nothing claim that Jesus
must have been 100% perfect or nothing at all. Jesus might not have
even known he was lying, since he was so out of it on some occasions.
But I'm not trying to defend jesus by any means. I'm just
demonstrating how ridiculous the 'Good Man' standard is.
>
>
> >Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
> >Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
>
> Yes.
Misinformed and probably misquoted as well, if he existed at all.
>
> >If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
> >'Good Book'?
>
> It's not.
Yes, I rather suspect that most people who consider it a good book are
either jews or xians. Funny how that works.
>
>
> >Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
> >word at least 2600 times?
>
> So?
Actually, I wouldn't even concede that. Next time ask for the list of
all 2600 statements. They'll probably give you about three and get
tired. :)
>
> >
> >Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
> >year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
>
> So?
Toilet paper sells pretty well too. In my case, I've combined the
bible and the toilet paper concept :)...
<snip>
Caleb The Profit
I'll decide whose job it is to debate - not you. You don't have the
capacity to debate.
And get saved from what? Your insane bible dribble?
Caleb The Profit
John Baker
Translation: We're idiotic Christer trolls. We know our silly, irrational
beliefs are completely unsupported by any sort of real evidence, and just
about anybody in alt.atheism can easily pick them apart and make us look
like the fools we are. We also know we'd get likely get our stupid Christer
asses kicked by a moderately bright 12 year old in a real debate, so we're
just going to post and run like the mindless sheep we are.
newBjorn
> Martin Thomas <mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote in message news:<8oaenvcmdkncfsii1...@4ax.com>...
> > On 28 Sep 2003 10:54:24 -0700, cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In order to be fair in the debate about [250+ lines snipped]
> >
> > What debate?
> >
> > I have had a quick look at your posts in Google, including those
> > of your sock puppet Gregor K, and I see no evidence that you are
> > interested in debating.
>
> and tell their opinion. Maybe some will get saved, some will not.
You arrogant cunt.
This is a public forum, not your private soapbox
!!!!!!!FUCK YOU & FUCK YOR GOD!!!!!!!
puhhhh-lonk
--
B Witbotl.
Kermit
> In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
> just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
> who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
> Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
> evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
> of those who believe than to join it. To ensure integrity, therefore,
> on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
> few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
>
> universe?
> / origin of mankind
>
A few simple rules produce complex order. How do you explain this
imaginary god of yours?
>
> How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
> Biblical stories, places, and people?
> >> Reliability of the Bible - In what ways have archaeological
> discoveries verified it? / Bible archaeology evidences
>
Umm... no. Jericho, for example, had fallen several centuries before
the time of Joshua. It was nothn but a couple of hundred huts and the
ruins of the far earlier wall.
>
> Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are
> hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
> is of Divine origin?
> >> Read about fulfilled biblical prophecies...
And there shall be war and conflict, fire, and famine.
Hear me: this prophecy shall come to pass within the year. When it
happens, you shall know that the god of Abraham has fallen and been
replaced by Her Holiness, the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
In other words, the prophecies were either so general that eager
beavers like you would happily apply them to almost anything, or they
were somewhat more specific, but written *after the event, and
supposedly about an earlier "quote". Rather like Uri Geller or Jeane
Dixon, after an earthquake, saying "I predicted that last month!"
>
> Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
> (Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
> form of capital punishment?
I just looked that up. There was no mention of a crucifixion. Just a
righteous man, not recognized by the people in general. It could be
the Jesus of Legend, or Glileo, or Commander Worf.
BTW, my 16 YO says the progression of deities or supernatural
creatures goes thusly: first Religion, then Legend, then Mythology,
then fairy tales, then Saturday morning cartoons.
>
> How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
> full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
Easy, if the story of his birth is written 70 years later, you can
change things around to match any old Jewish prophecy you like. Good
grief.
> >> Read the "God's Story" account of Micah describing the Messiah...
>
> Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
> (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
> Jesus.
See above. But most are too vague to be useful.
> >> Prophecies
>
> How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
> predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
> occurred?
Y'know; repeating one point over and over does not make it many
points. Prophecy. Right. Written *afterwards. Unless you have some
corroborating, contemporary evidence?
...I thought not.
> >> Read the "God's Story" account of the prophets describing the
> Savior / Is the virgin birth a myth?
>
> How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
> number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
> >> Read about the importance of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
> / Discovering the Bible videos explain the manuscript evidence and
> much more
The earliest new Testment letters and books were written at *least a
generation after his death, probably more.
>
> Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
> >> Visit Summit Ministries for worldview comparisons...
The trith of the way things are doesn't really care whether I "Can
live with it" or not. Are you saying that you believe stuff *because
it gives you emotional satisfaction?
>
> Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
> the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
Hate gays, accept slavery, fight science, be fearful and guilty about
healthy behavior?
No.
>
> In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
> be God?
> >> Is Jesus Christ really God?...
Since he didn't write anything down, we don't know anything about him
except what Paul of Tarsus wrote or approved (or the like-minded
people who followed him).
>
> Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
> Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
>
Yes. Or, Paul lied about what he said. Or, you don't understand what
you read, or he didn't exist at all. <shrug>
Do you stay up at night wondering if the quotes attributed to Hermes
Trismisgistes are accurate? Neither do I.
> If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
> 'Good Book'?
> >> How can I know if the Bible is true?... / Is the Bible truth or
> tabloid? / Can the Bible be infallible if it is written by fallible
> humans?
Except by the Jews, who do not accept *your bible or even your
interpretation of the Pentateuch. Nor do the Muslims. Remember them?
Nor the Hindus. Or Druse. Or Buddhists. Or Shintoists. Or animists. Or
neo-pagans. Or those people from so many cultures around the world who
follow the beliefs and practices of their people.
>
> Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
> word at least 2600 times?
Oh! I didn't realize they made that claim so many times! I thought it
only claimed that a few huindred times! You must be right!
>
> Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
> year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
> >> The Bible -- an amazing book...
>
So? Are you saying that truth is a democratic or consensual decision?
What if we all decide to get nekkid and howl at the moon? What if the
bible drops to number two? Would you stop believing?
>
> From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?
>
Apes that don't treat others in their band right are less likely to
have little apes. Despite your belief that humans are essntially
depraved, we were selected by natural to be moral. We are *predisposed
to learn proper behavior, just like we do language. And just like
language, some of us are more talented than others, and some are
taught better than others.
And let me tell you, I was raised a fundamentalist, and this message
from birth is crippling. If I succeeded at anything (talent of some
sort, or good grades on a test), I was told to "Thank Jesus"! But if I
goofed up, it was my fault, and should beg forgivness ("I'm sorry God
I ate that cookie before dinner...").
It's a wonder that not *all of the fundamentalists are in jail.
>
> If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what
> motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
>
We are not random. Our body (including our mind) are following a
complex dance of physics and chemistry, organized by natural
selection. What goofball told you it was random? Surely no *scientist.
But you're going to say it again, aren't you?
> Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal,
> or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
>
This is how the universe is. We understand some of it, and are
leearning more rapidly. Stick around and pay attention.
> If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men
> (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
> >> Is the resurrection a myth?...
? I Osiris's resurrection wasn't true, why would millions of Egyptians
have worshipped Him thru the millenia?
>
> How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
> virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
> society to this day?
> >> Learn more about Jesus' life, death and resurrection...
>
Paul wan't uneducated.
>
>
> Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers?
Because the ones who weren't were killed. Times change, though, and
after Galileo, Europe's greatest thinkers just moved North.
> Have
> you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and
> dead, have been men and women of great faith?
Why would you characterize Newton as a man of "Great" faith? Was
Leonardo? I hear he was gay, and he was probably an atheist, although
he would never have written that down. Galileo wasn't of *great faith
- if he had any at all. So what? Newton believed in astrology, too,
but that doesn't mean his contributions to math and physics weren't
real.
> >> Do real scientists believe in Creation? / Is the Bible completely
> accurate, or does it contain some inaccuracies about history and
> science?
>
>
> Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and
> people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error
> in their view of the Bible?
Ahem. As much as I admire Honest Abe, it wasn't biology or physics in
which he made his mark. I would not use an expert in biology, or law,
or music to justify any religious opinions. I might listen to a
philospher, though. Come back when you can tell me where Russel went
wrong.
I highly recommend "Why I am Not a Christian", by Bertrand Russel.
>
> How do you account for the origin of life considering the irreducible
> complexity of its essential components?
> >> Learn more about the origin of life...
Please first establish that "Irreducible Complexity" is real, or
useful as a concept.
>
>
> How can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be reconciled with
> progressive, naturalistic evolutionary theory?
> >> Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature
> prevent Evolution?...
Oh... <sputter>
This is just plain stupid. Read the FAQ.
To answer it on your level: the Earth is not a closed system. There's
a bright shiny light up in the sky, during the day anyway, providing
light and other energy to this not-very isolated system called Earth.
>
> How do you reconcile the existence of human intelligence with
> naturalism and the Law of Entropy?
Surely the bizarre misunderstanding implied by these Creationist
references ahve been answered many time before. Read the FAQ.
>
> Why does the Bible alone, of all of the world's 'holy' books, contain
> such detailed prophecies of future events?
> >> Learn more about the Bible...
>
No, it doesn't. None of them do, actually, except in the most general
way.
> On what basis can the Bible (interpreted as per historic Christian
> orthodoxy) be challenged as a sole, final truth-standard (Galatians
> 1:8)?
Got any evidence?
>
> Is it absolutely true that "truth is not absolute" or only relatively
> true that "all things are relative?"
> >> The Loss of Truth -- Are we living in a moral stone age?...
Are you asking
"How pretty is that girl?"
or are you asking
"How much is two plus two?"
Why do you think the truth of *either of these types of questions
depends on moral behavior, or what you want?
This is preperation for the fallacy of Equivocation.
>
> Is it possible that your unbelief in God is actually an unwillingness
> to submit to Him?
> >> God's plan
Nope. When I was a kid, I knew all the saints by their first names. I
studied the Baghavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Koran, the Bardo
Thodal, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, various oral traditions, and
practiced Zen Buddhism for years. I learned Greek in college (well, I
learned enough to translate with a dictionary at hand) so I could read
your bible in the orginal. Got my degree inphilosphy.
It's still hogwash, son. Sorry. I do not normally walk up to people
and say: you're nver gonna see your dearly departed agin; you are
going to die and stay dead. There is no meaning ot your life except
what *you make of it. i don't do that; I'm not mean.
But I will not be mugged, either. You come here, pretending you want
a debate. You don't; you don't know the answers to your own questions,
and you're too afraid (some faith!) to admit it. But for the sake of
lurkers, some young fundy perhaps, like I was, I answer you.
>
>
> Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of
> meaning and purpose?
Mine does. But what does that have to do with how things are? Once
again, you reveal that you believe these things because you really,
really want them to be true.
Some of us are more committed to the truth than you are. Pretty much
everyong in the newsgroups you posted to, in fact.
>
> How do you explain the radically changed lives of so many Christian
> believers down through history?
>
Or the radically changed lives of people who gave birth. or who went
to college. Or who were raped. Or who joined the Army. Or who "dumped
that creep and took up exercise and gave up cigarettes and finally got
her act together". Or who was crippled in a car accident. Or who got
drunk for the first time, and kept drinking. Or who, 20 years later,
stopped drinking.
What's your point?
>
> Are you aware that every alleged Bible contradiction has been answered
> in an intelligible and credible manner?
> >> More about Bible contradictions...
No they weren't.
>
>
> What do you say about the hundreds of scholarly books that carefully
> document the veracity and reliability of the Bible?
>
Bad scholarship. There are numerous good ones that come to other
conclusions. and plenty in other traditions.
>
> Why and how has the Bible survived and even flourished in spite of
> centuries of worldwide attempts to destroy and ban its message?
> >> Recommended resource: The Indestructible Book (video)...
Oh, a video. Do you know that Buddhism was 500 years old before Joshua
ben Yahweh was born?
>
> Why isn't it absurd to try to speak or even conceive of a non-existent
> 'God' when an existing God would, by definition, be greater?
Oh yeah? The Invisble Pink Unicorn is even *greater!
Or, since you guys are traditionally weak with metaphors, similes, and
the like:
"Saying it don't make it so".
>
> Have you ever considered the fact that Christianity is the only
> religion whose leader is said to have risen from the dead?
> >> Is Christianity really unique among world religions?...
No it's not.
>
>
> How do you explain the empty tomb of Jesus in light of all the
> evidence that has now proven essentially irrefutable for twenty
> centuries?
> >> Is the resurrection a myth? / Did Christ really rise from the dead?
> / Were the witnesses hallucinating?
How do you explain Krishna making love to one hundred milk maids at
the same time? Now that's *my kind of god! (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)
>
>
> If Jesus did not actually die and rise from the dead, how could He (in
> His condition) have circumvented all of the security measures in place
> at His tomb?
> >> Did Jesus really die? / How did Jesus die? / What is crucifixion?
You don't have anything but circumstantial evidence that he actually
*lived.
No corroboration at *all except a forged passage in Josephus and books
written by cultists 50 years later.
Pardon me if I remain underwhelmed.
> <snip variations of this:>
>
> How can one realistically discount the testimony of over 500 witnesses
> to a living Jesus following His crucifixion (see 1 Corinthians 15:6)?
> >> Maybe the witnesses were just seeing things?...
Produce these 500 witnesses. Oh wait; you only have one cultist's
*letter that 500 hundred people saw it.
>
> If all of Jesus' claims to be God were the result of His own
> self-delusion, why didn't He evidence lunacy in any other areas of His
> life?
> >> Is Jesus Christ's character consistent with his high claims?...
Like David Koresh?
Like the Rev. Sun Myung Moon?
Like the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?
>
> If God is unchanging, wouldn't it be true that one who changes by
> suddenly "realizing" that he/she is 'God' therefore isn't God?
The Hindus believe that we are all God, playing hide and go seek with
ourselves. Our job in life is to realize this. Alan Watts said that
Christian fundamentalists are playing this better than anyone else,
because they are hiding so well...
>
>
> Is your unbelief in a perfect God possibly the result of a bad
> experience with an imperfect Church or a misunderstanding of the
> facts, and therefore an unfair rejection of God Himself? >> Why should
> I consider Christianity, if all Christians are hypocrites? / What kind
> of world would you create? / How did bad things come about? / Why do
> the innocent suffer? / Does God feel your pain? / Goodness of God / Is
> God fair? / How can a God of love send anybody to Hell?
My unbelief in Yahweh is exactly the same as my unbelief in Wodin, or
Zeus, or Saurn, or Kokapelli, or Kwan Yin, or Coyote. Except I can't
swing a dead cat without hitting a Yahweh cultist.
> How did 35-40 men, spanning 1500 years and living on three separate
> continents, ever manage to author one unified message, i.e. the Bible?
> >> Can the Bible be infallible if it is written by fallible humans? /
> More about the congruency of the Bible / The Discovering the Bible
> videos explain the amazing authorship of the Bible and many other
> evidences
Oh, pooh. Every now and then, someone in power said "Let's add this
book". Who chose the books in your Christian bible - do you even know?
Do you know their pruported reasoning for their choices. do you know
which books have been written but rejected? Have you, f'rinstance,
read the "Gosple of Thomas"?
>
>
> Would you charge the Declaration of Independence with error in
> affirming that "all men are endowed by their Creator..."?
I heard a man at the bus stop, standing in the rain, say "Mother
Nature is mad at us today". Do you suppose he was a pagan?
>
> Because life origins are not observable, verifiable, or falsifiable,
> how does historical 'science' amount to anything more than just
> another faith system?
Why don't you take a damn science course and find out? *anything in
science can be replicated - either procedure or observation.
> >> What is the nature of science and scientists? / Frequently asked
> questions on the Origin of Life
>
>
> What do you make of all the anthropological studies indicating that
> even the most remote tribes show some sort of theological awareness?
>
Jane Goodall has seen chimp behavior that she thinks *might be
religious. heh. maybe all apes ahve a theological fantasy.
You probably have a craving for sweets now and then, do you think this
is good for you? In paleolithic times, this would have led you to
climb a tree, or brave the stickers, and eat some fruit. Times change.
Now we stop at Krispy Kreme and eat garbage. What had a reproductive
advantage at one time may be killing us now.
>
> Why subscribe to the incredible odds that the tilt and position of our
> planet relative to the sun are merely coincidental?
> >> Consider: Was there a big bang?...
>
<Must... grit... teeth...>
Idiot. Sorry, I just couldn't hold that back anymore.
First, the tilt of the planet would have relatively minor effects on
life as a whole, if that's what you're getting at. Child, if most
planets are unsuitable for life, then there would not be any life on
those planets ot evolve. It's only on those one in a hundred, or one
in a million planets that have the right conditions which could
produce life, allowing the evolution of a species dumb enough to ask
this question.
Natural selection. Animals and planets are *adapted to their
environment. Sheesh.
>
> If every effect has a cause, and if God Himself is the universe (i.e.
> is one with the universe, as some non-Christians suggest), what or who
> then caused the universe?
We don't know that causality applies to the universe as a whole.
> >> See our Creation SuperLibrary for answer about
> Creation/Evolution...
>
>
> What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
>
Evidence.
Got any?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> A college student attended a philosophy class which held a discussion
> about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic:
> "Has anyone in this class ever heard God?" No one spoke. "Has anyone
> in this class ever touched God?" Again, no one spoke. "Has anyone in
> this class ever seen God?" When no one spoke for the third time, he
> said, "Then there is no God."
>
> One student thought for a second and then asked for permission to
> reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor
> agreed. The student stood up and asked the following: "Has anyone in
> this class ever heard our professor's brain?" Silence. "Has anyone in
> this class ever touched our professor's brain?" Absolute silence. "Has
> anyone in this class ever seen our professor's brain?" When no one in
> the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to
> our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no
> brain!"
>
> The student received an 'A' in the class.
Doubtful. My philosphy teachers would have pointed out that we have
seen inside plenty of people's heads, including surgery and X-rays,
and functioning or formerly functioning human beings *always have
brains. It is a perfectly reasonable to assume that we all do.
My best professor would have flunked you. Not because you are a
theist, but because you ask silly question, and don't hang around for
a dialog. The philosopher is one who loves wisdom (philo + sophia),
not the one who presents a bad argument and runs; not even the one who
wins arguments. He/she is the one who would do anything - even die -
to learn the truth.
If you are not willing to accept the possibility that you will die
forever, then your mind shies away from any train of thought that
leads down that path. You are not a seeker of truth, but rather a
seeker of reassurances, of familiarity and comfort.
As annoying as you are, I pity you.
--- Kermit
Al Klein
posted in alt.atheism:
>I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
>not our job to debate. It is our job to just post and let others read
>and tell their opinion.
Oh, you're trolls. Why didn;t you say so? (Trolls come in about 3
steps under used car salesmen.)
--
Zymurgist # 2
Thomas P.
wrote:
>In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
>just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
>who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
>Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
>evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
>of those who believe than to join it.
There is no evidence.
To ensure integrity, therefore,
>on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
>few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
>
>How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
>universe?
What does a universe with a low degree of order look like?
>>> Learn more about the universe / origin of life / origin of species
>/ origin of mankind
>
>
>How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
>Biblical stories, places, and people?
What does that have to do with the religious claims?
>>> Reliability of the Bible - In what ways have archaeological
>discoveries verified it? / Bible archaeology evidences
>
>
>Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are
>hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
>is of Divine origin?
The prophecy of Ezekiel concerning Tyre failed totally. The prophecy
of Zechariah concerning Tyre was made after the fact, and Tyre
continued to exist (the walls were rebuilt soon after Alexander
destroyed them). Both prohecies failed. Tyre still exists today and
never ceased to exist.
>>> Read about fulfilled biblical prophecies...
>
>Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
>(Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
>form of capital punishment?
That is your interpretation of the psalm.
>
>How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
>full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
Gosh, one would almost think that the authors of the gospels knew
about Micah.
>>> Read the "God's Story" account of Micah describing the Messiah...
>
>Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
>(of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
>Jesus.
See above
>>> Prophecies
>
>How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
>predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
>occurred?
He didn't. Read the verse.
snip of more of the same
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
Bunk. If there WAS a god, he'd kill you.
Eric Gill
508329.191...@news04.east.earthlink.net:
> In article <dbd0d335.0309...@posting.google.com>,
> cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf) wrote:
>
>> How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
>> Biblical stories, places, and people?
>
> Wow. Let's see... archeological evidence for David is... well nothing
> much at all. Archeological evidence for Moses is... nothing.
>
> The evidence for the Exodus -- none.
>
> Genesis... give me a break.
>
> Sodom & Gomorrorah -- nada
>
> The Flood -- zilch
>
> Shall we go on?
Sure. There is plenty of evidence of "The Exodus" and "Moses".
Of course, it is the Hyksos occupation and expulsion from Egypt, and it's
Ra-Mosa (and three other Egyptian nobles with similar names), and the
Caananite tribes that later called themselves "Israelites" had nothing to
do with it all...
Hmmph. Nevermind.
johac
> In order to be fair in the debate about matters of faith, it's not
> just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
> who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
> Christianity have some questions to answer. In fact, considering the
> evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
> of those who believe than to join it. To ensure integrity, therefore,
> on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
> few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
>
<snip>
All of these have been answered many times by many posters. Don't you
have anything new for us?
.
>
>
> What would be required to persuade you to become a believer?
I don't know. Maybe if I was kicked in the head by a mule.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
> A college student attended a philosophy class which held a discussion
> about God's existence. The professor presented the following logic:
> "Has anyone in this class ever heard God?" No one spoke. "Has anyone
> in this class ever touched God?" Again, no one spoke. "Has anyone in
> this class ever seen God?" When no one spoke for the third time, he
> said, "Then there is no God."
>
> One student thought for a second and then asked for permission to
> reply. Curious to hear this bold student's response, the professor
> agreed. The student stood up and asked the following: "Has anyone in
> this class ever heard our professor's brain?" Silence. "Has anyone in
> this class ever touched our professor's brain?" Absolute silence. "Has
> anyone in this class ever seen our professor's brain?" When no one in
> the class dared to speak, the student concluded, "Then, according to
> our professor's logic, it must be true that our professor has no
> brain!"
>
> The student received an 'A' in the class.
Twice in one week someone posted this old piece of garbage to
alt.atheism. You guys need some new stories too! I'd call it a joke,
but it is an extremely poor attempt at humor..
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
Mekkala
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:82afdec.03092...@posting.google.com:
<snip>
<plonk>
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized
I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
Mekkala
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
Martin Thomas
>Martin Thomas <mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net> wrote in message news:<8oaenvcmdkncfsii1...@4ax.com>...
>> On 28 Sep 2003 10:54:24 -0700, cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In order to be fair in the debate about [250+ lines snipped]
>>
>> What debate?
>>
>> I have had a quick look at your posts in Google, including those
>> of your sock puppet Gregor K, and I see no evidence that you are
>> interested in debating.
>
>I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
>not our job to debate. It is our job to just post and let others read
>and tell their opinion. Maybe some will get saved, some will not.
I suggest that you ask him not to use a word like 'debate' in his
opening remarks. Actually, some of the best conversations I have
had on line have been just that - conversations. Even with people
whose beliefs are radically different from my own.
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
Chris Assaf
> Twice in one week someone posted this old piece of garbage to
> alt.atheism. You guys need some new stories too! I'd call it a joke,
> but it is an extremely poor attempt at humor..
This is not a joke.
Adam Marczyk
> news:<8oaenvcmdkncfsii1...@4ax.com>...
>> On 28 Sep 2003 10:54:24 -0700, cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In order to be fair in the debate about [250+ lines snipped]
>>
>> What debate?
>>
>> I have had a quick look at your posts in Google, including those
>> of your sock puppet Gregor K, and I see no evidence that you are
>> interested in debating.
>
> I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
> not our job to debate.
So in other words, you're not going to defend your beliefs? You're just
going to preach and post sermons and ignore any criticism you get? Perhaps
you're not aware of this, but in the entire history of alt.atheism, such
hit-and-run tactics have resulted in precisely zero converts. Atheists tend
not to respect viewpoints whose own advocates can't defend them against
counterarguments.
[...]
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Therion Ware
On 29 Sep 2003 09:35:02 -0700 in alt.atheism, Chris Assaf
(cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Indeed. It's wit, which unlike humour, requires an education to
appreciate.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Wolf333
news:dbd0d335.03092...@posting.google.com...
Well, that's obvious since it isn't funny. Jokes are funny... that was just
stupid.
--
__________
"blood-red canal birds particular traffic climb" - anonymous, oddly Zen-like
spammer
Michael Wolfe
aa #1912
__________
Mark K. Bilbo
Yeah, it actually rather is...
Mark K. Bilbo
> Maybe some will get saved, some will not.
Yet in all the years I've been in alt.atheism, I have NEVER seen this
"salvation" thing happen.
Trolling is *so effective...
Brian E. Clark
> In fact, considering the
> evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
> of those who believe than to join it.
It takes more faith to *doubt* that a virgin became pregnant than to
believe she did?
Do you live downwind from a plastics factory, perhaps?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
David
It was a joke. It never happened. No college professor would
be stupid enough to come up with such a silly argument.
David
> Gregor K. <gre...@volcanomail.com> wrote
>
>> Martin Thomas wrote
>>
>>> (Chris Assaf) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In order to be fair in the debate about [250+ lines
>>>> snipped]
>>>
>>> What debate?
>>>
>>> I have had a quick look at your posts in Google,
>>> including those of your sock puppet Gregor K, and I
>>> see no evidence that you are interested in debating.
>>
>> I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team
>> partner. It is not our job to debate.
>
> So in other words, you're not going to defend your
> beliefs? You're just going to preach and post sermons and
> ignore any criticism you get? Perhaps you're not aware
> of this, but in the entire history of alt.atheism, such
> hit-and-run tactics have resulted in precisely zero
I disagree. Such actions have produced several converts. A
few christians were able to see how stupid they looked and
finally realized that their gods were just something made up
a long time ago. Let him preach, he just makes himself, his
religion, and his gods, look silly.
Caleb The Profit
> Does your present worldview provide you with an adequate sense of
> meaning and purpose?
Yes. I run a home for runaway teenage girls - between 16 and 20 years old.
My sole purpose is to provide them with the knowledge of the Lord and
attempt to bring them to Him through the example of my life and much prayer.
Since I am also an amateur gynecologist, I am able to provide the girls with
certain specialized medical services right in my home. My favorite saying
in my home is "Trust me I'm a doctor". My second is when one of the girls
get saved and screams "God, I'm coming".
Thank you Jesus for allowing me to serve you in this small but meaningful
and purposeful way.
Caleb
--
http://www.selfabuse.org
johac
cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf) wrote:
Well it's certainly not funny. And we've all heard it before.
Adam Marczyk
news:3f78...@news.sti.net...
Ah - I stand corrected. I suspect those conversions will give our "not my
job to debate" theist friends cold comfort, however. ;)
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Be that as it may.
Your lack of response is very funny however.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@qwest.net
A.A #1143 ULC Minister
Home School Educator for Computer Science
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Mark K. Bilbo
Well, DEconverts maybe. <g>
David
> David <da...@thellamaranch.com> wrote
They'll just ignore it like everything else they don't want
to hear.
George Dance
> just the Christian who must be called to the witness stand. Even those
> who dispute or who otherwise persist in voicing skepticism about
> evidence, it no doubt requires more faith to stand outside the circle
> on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
> few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
That is fair. It's not all that fair for you to not stick around to
hear the answers, of course; but it would still be worthwhile to come
up with some answers for you, for the sake of others who may read this
later.
> How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
> universe?
> >> Learn more about the universe / origin of life / origin of species
> / origin of mankind
The universe is a complex system; and every complex system has an
order (which is simply how all its components go together). If
there's an order, one would expect there to be some evidence of that
order. Evidence of order is not, by itself, evidence of design; the
English language has an order, for instance, although it was not
designed.
> How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
> Biblical stories, places, and people?
> >> Reliability of the Bible - In what ways have archaeological
> discoveries verified it? / Bible archaeology evidences
It was written by people who lived in the area at the time; so one
would expect it to refer to places that were really there. However,
in many cases, the evidence does not confirm the stories; the
excavations at Jericho, for instance, indicate the town was abandoned
long before time the bible gives for athe story of joshua.
> Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are
> hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
> is of Divine origin?
> >> Read about fulfilled biblical prophecies...
Because prophecies are not the same as predictions - they usually come
without specific dates, for example - and therefore are not testable.
So if it's merely that no Bible prophecies have failed because none
have been tested, that is no reason to believe any of them were of
Divine origin.
> Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
> (Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
> form of capital punishment?
Psalm 22 says nothing about crucifixion.
> How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
> full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
> >> Read the "God's Story" account of Micah describing the Messiah...
Typology; those writing the NT were familiar with the OT, and
(perhaps) more concerned with making Jesus a 'type' than with giving
an accurate account.
> Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48
> (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e
> Jesus.
> >> Prophecies
The same, to the extreme. It's all reason to doubt the accuracy of
the alleged biographers.
> How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
> predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
> occurred?
> >> Read the "God's Story" account of the prophets describing the
> Savior / Is the virgin birth a myth?
Later interpretation of 'young woman' as 'virgin,' and typology,
again.
> How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
> number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
> >> Read about the importance of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
> / Discovering the Bible videos explain the manuscript evidence and
> much more
Monolithic control of what copies were made, most likely.
> Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
> >> Visit Summit Ministries for worldview comparisons...
Yes.
> Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
> the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
No; as that would dictate that one should live as this God commands,
which means (among other things) living as both a Mormon and a
Catholic; which is not very feasible.
> In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
> be God?
> >> Is Jesus Christ really God?...
I don't recall him actually claiming to be god; cite? IIRC, he did
tell others to not say any such thing.
> Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
> Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
Not necessarily, but certainly hypocrictical; as he violated
scriptural teachings when it suited him, such as the ones around
healing and gathering food on the Sabbath.
> If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
> 'Good Book'?
> >> How can I know if the Bible is true?... / Is the Bible truth or
> tabloid? / Can the Bible be infallible if it is written by fallible
> humans?
It's not universal (billions of Indians and Chinese don't think of it
as that, eg), so it's a misleading question.
> Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
> word at least 2600 times?
No, but I'm not surprised; that's called self-serving testimony, and
it's quite common. (I'm sure Bob White has called his own dogmas
'reasonable' as many times, eg).
> Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
> year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
> >> The Bible -- an amazing book...
Yes.
> From whence comes humanity's universal moral sense?
Every man without exception has to act; meaning that every man,
without exception has to value; that's tautological.
> If man is nothing but the random arrangement of molecules, what
> motivates you to care and to live honorably in the world?
The same thing that motivates you to believe a book, when it is
certainly a random arrangement of molecules.
> Explain how personality could have ever evolved from the impersonal,
> or how order could have ever resulted from chaos.
That requires a more detailed answer than I can give you here. I'd
refer you to Peter Berger's explanation in /The Sacred Canopy/. An
abbreviated version would be: Humans, unlike other animals, are not
fully programmed for survival at birth; some of their programming is
done afterwards, with their conscious participation.
> If Jesus' resurrection was faked, why would twelve intelligent men
> (Jesus' disciples) have died for what they knew to be a lie?
> >> Is the resurrection a myth?...
But they didn't all die for that. Peter, for example, got to be Pope.
> How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
> virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
> society to this day?
> >> Learn more about Jesus' life, death and resurrection...
People with better education and connections used him after he was
dead and could not contradict him. Sort of the same as with Marx,
though he lived longer.
> Why have so many of history's greatest thinkers been believers? Have
> you ever wondered why thousands of intelligent scientists, living and
> dead, have been men and women of great faith?
> >> Do real scientists believe in Creation? / Is the Bible completely
> accurate, or does it contain some inaccuracies about history and
> science?
So many of those were Europeans; and Europe was a Christian theocracy
for more than 1000 years, up until 200 or so years ago.
> Isn't it somewhat arrogant to suggest that countless churches and
> people (including men like Abraham Lincoln) are all radically in error
> in their view of the Bible?
Well, yes; men can err. Lincoln, eg, was in error even about things
he should have known about, such as the Second Amendment.
And that's really all I have time for today. Maybe we'll cover the
rest tomorrow.
snip
Chris Assaf
> > I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
> > not our job to debate.
>
> So in other words, you're not going to defend your beliefs? You're just
> going to preach and post sermons and ignore any criticism you get? Perhaps
> you're not aware of this, but in the entire history of alt.atheism, such
> hit-and-run tactics have resulted in precisely zero converts. Atheists tend
> not to respect viewpoints whose own advocates can't defend them against
> counterarguments.
>
> [...]
Well, I am just a new christian.
Chris Assaf
david asman
> Well, there is always one who will take my articles (and that story) seriously.
Odds are that that one person won't be on any
of the newsgroups to which you are posting
this message.
Dave
raven1
wrote:
>"Adam Marczyk" <s...@sig.com> wrote in message news:<3hZdb.2225
So in other words, you're posting arguments you don't even understand
yourself? Brilliant.
Adam Marczyk
Then why are you here preaching to us? If you don't know enough to defend
your beliefs, you shouldn't be out trying to push them on others. All
you'll accomplish that way is to embarrass yourself and make us think that
Christianity can't stand up to criticism. Did you naively think, now that
you've been handed your Great Commission diploma, that you can go out into
the world and convert the unbelievers en masse with cut-and-paste tracts
from Christian websites? Did you really expect that you'd be telling us
something we haven't all heard a hundred times before?
We *regularly* get invasive proselytizers on this newsgroup, all of them
assuming, just as you doubtless did, that this would be a great place to
find people to preach to. I have news for you: None of these self-appointed
evangelists - not one, not in the entire history of alt.atheism - has ever
won a single convert to Christianity from among us. Why? Because they all
make the same mistake you did: they post the initial sermon, figure that
will be enough, and never make any serious attempt to defend it. The few
who do try to respond to criticism never employ anything more than shallow
rationalizations that begin with the preconceived conclusion and work
backwards from there. If any of this sophistry was convincing to us, we
wouldn't be here, because we'd already have been converted. We are atheists
precisely because we've heard it all before and it hasn't made an impact on
us, and frankly, a significant part of the reason for forming this
newsgroup was to create a place where we like-minded unbelievers could talk
to each other in peace, without the theistic static all too prevalent in
our respective societies. You intruded on that by barging in here, and we
appreciate it no more than you would appreciate an atheist bursting in on
your Sunday sermon trying to convince you to stop believing in God. Your
tactics are both uninformed and ill-advised. If you want to stay and make a
meaningful contribution to the newsgroup by taking part in serious
discussions, you're welcome to do that. If you only want to make converts,
you've come to very much the wrong place.
--
"I'm materialist | a.a. #2001
Call me a humanist | http://www.ebonmusings.org
I guess I'm full of doubt | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
So I'll gladly have it out with you..." | ICQ: 8777843
--Bad Religion, "Materialist" | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Berry
by some cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf) came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
>Well, there is always one who will take my articles (and that story) seriously.
There are people who take UFO abductions stories seriously as well.
Search long enough, and you can find any sort of idiot.
So, you aren't going to answer my post in which addressed just about
all of your original points? I call you a coward.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
Well here are a couple of questions for you.
1. If a time machine and other advanced technology were made available to
you to travel back in time and rescue Jesus from his trial and
crucifixion. Would you do it?
2. If god or one his angels appeared before you and ordered you to murder
your family, would you do it?
Rgds Llanzlan.
John Baker
> Well, there is always one who will take my articles (and that story)
seriously.
Not in this group, Sparky.
Mark K. Bilbo
> Well, there is always one who will take my articles (and that story) seriously.
Where?
Mark K. Bilbo
So you just HAD to come bother the atheists eh?
Gregor K.
> 2. If god or one his angels appeared before you and ordered you to murder
> your family, would you do it?
>
>
> Rgds Llanzlan.
2.) No. I would have to ask that angel if he believed Jesus Christ was
God in the flesh. God doesn't work like that anymore. (Angel appearing
to someone in the flesh.)
david asman
So you dictate to your god how he
should operate now? What if
he changed his mind contrary to
your command of his behavior?
Dave
Phylter
news:82afdec.03100...@posting.google.com:
Oh, so now we have a sock-puppet telling usenet how Gawd does things these
days....
Puh-fucking-leeze.
Plonk.
--
Phylter
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
Change "no-way" to "hotmail" to respond
Douglas Berry
by some gre...@volcanomail.com (Gregor K.) came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
>2.) No. I would have to ask that angel if he believed Jesus Christ was
>God in the flesh. God doesn't work like that anymore. (Angel appearing
>to someone in the flesh.)
Says who? Angels appeared to the women at the tomb, *after* the
alleged reseruction.
Don't you people even know your own bible?
Pretty damn prideful to announce how this God works, considering how
he's changed his maind several times already.
Mike Painter
"Gregor K." <gre...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:82afdec.03100...@posting.google.com...
That's what people have been saying since day two. God does not work that
way anymore.
But you said you would ask them anyway !?
Would you do it if the creature said yes to that question?
Martin Thomas
wrote:
>Well, there is always one who will take my articles (and that story) seriously.
But nobody will take that story very seriously, unless they have
never bothered to get to know any atheists.
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
Martin Thomas
<iskan...@hoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:35:36 -0700, Chris Assaf wrote:
>
>> Well, there is always one who will take my articles (and that story) seriously.
>
>Where?
Out there somewhere ...
[Points vaguely upwards]
:)
-
Martin Thomas
mart...@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
bluskie
You're a fucking idiot.
bluskie
> Johac wrote:
>
> > Twice in one week someone posted this old piece of garbage to
> > alt.atheism. You guys need some new stories too! I'd call it a joke,
> > but it is an extremely poor attempt at humor..
>
> This is not a joke.
I told your sock puppet friend this already, but just in case you missed it...
you're a fucking idiot.
PLONK
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
Go tell the fucking mormons.
jaym1212
> on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
> few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
IMO, God probably does not exist. The universe exists and the
fundamental laws of the universe could be no other than what they
already are. Only those fundamental laws of nature limit what is and
isn't possible. I cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not
exist, but I can say that I have not found any clear proof that a God
does exist, thus far. What proof do you offer that God exist from this
moment forward?
Skip Freeman
Well, I'm not really an atheist, but I'll give this a shot...
> How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
> universe?
"High degree of design"? If we are all so designed so well then what's
with that brown (usually), smelly (always) stuff we generate (once
every two days by me)?
> How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of
> Biblical stories, places, and people?
Some of the stories in the Bible are factual in nature.
> Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are
> hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible
> is of Divine origin?
Many Bible prophecies have failed.
> Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion
> (Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a
> form of capital punishment?
Those Romans were some well-read dudes, I'm telling you.
> How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven
> full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
Many "prophets" attempted to predict the birth place of the Messiah
but most were wrong. The fact that one guy got lucky and guessed right
proves nothing...except that he got published and that the others did
not.
> How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have
> predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it
> occurred?
Virgin birth? What virgin birth?
> How can anyone doubt the reliability of Scripture considering the
> number and proximity to originals of its many copied manuscripts?
Whether or not a text is reliable has nothing to do with how well it
has been transcribed over the years.
> Are you able to live consistently with your present worldview?
Sure.
> Wouldn't it make better sense, even pragmatically, to live as though
> the God of the Bible does exist than as though He doesn't?
Nah.
> In what sense was Jesus a 'Good Man' if He was lying in His claim to
> be God?
A damn crazy good man.
> Do you think that Jesus was misguided in affirming the truthfulness of
> Scripture, i.e. John 10:35, Matthew 24, Luke 24:44?
Misguided by who, exactly?
> If the Bible is not true, why is it so universally regarded as the
> 'Good Book'?
Maybe because people like you keep calling it that?
> Are you aware that the Old Testament alone claims to be God's inspired
> word at least 2600 times?
Why so many times?
> Did you know that the Bible has been the number one best-seller every
> year since the 1436 invention of the Gutenberg printing press?
No, I didn't know that.
> How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
> virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
> society to this day?
Oh, come on. Everyone knows Shakespeare didn't write those plays.
-Skip
Clayton's So Vain...I Probably Think This Newsgroup's About Me
"Skip Freeman" <sk...@cutey.com> wrote in message
news:178e088.03100...@posting.google.com...
> cassa...@yahoo.com (Chris Assaf) wrote in message
news:<dbd0d335.0309...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Well, I'm not really an atheist, but I'll give this a shot...
>
> > How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the
> > universe?
>
> "High degree of design"? If we are all so designed so well then what's
> with that brown (usually), smelly (always) stuff we generate (once
> every two days by me)?
>
Dude...you need more fibre!
I myself go every morning at exactly 7 am. Unfortunately I don't get up
till 8:30 am, so it can be quite unpleasant.
*just thought I'd dust off an old joke for nostalgia*
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
wrote:
>On 28 Sep 2003 15:08:39 -0700, gre...@volcanomail.com (Gregor K.)
>posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
>>not our job to debate. It is our job to just post and let others read
>>and tell their opinion.
>
>Oh, you're trolls. Why didn;t you say so? (Trolls come in about 3
>steps under used car salesmen.)
Damned, Al, why do you insult used-car salesmen like that by even
mentioning them in the same sentence as (those other un-named
entities)? Even used-car salesmen, as despicable as they are, don't
deserve THAT kind of an insult! :(
---
Mike atheism: a non-prophet
organization...
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way
when you do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their
shoes.
-------------------------------
The multi-named one posting under rooster/bob white/sceptic and
various other names (identifiable by the header line reading
"NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.231.81.82") might as well ignore this post. He
is a lying, illogical troll who has been kill-file'd and any posts of
his will not be seen or replied to.
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 03:59:21 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
>wrote:
>>On 28 Sep 2003 15:08:39 -0700, gre...@volcanomail.com (Gregor K.)
>>posted in alt.atheism:
>>>I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
>>>not our job to debate. It is our job to just post and let others read
>>>and tell their opinion.
>>Oh, you're trolls. Why didn;t you say so? (Trolls come in about 3
>>steps under used car salesmen.)
>Damned, Al, why do you insult used-car salesmen like that by even
>mentioning them in the same sentence as (those other un-named
>entities)? Even used-car salesmen, as despicable as they are, don't
>deserve THAT kind of an insult! :(
Oops, you're right. I should have compared them (unfavorably) to cat
vomit. Cat vomit has no sense of self-worth so it wouldn't get
insulted.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
prab...@shamrocksgf.com
wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:30:08 -0400, prab...@shamrocksgf.com posted in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 03:59:21 GMT, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>>On 28 Sep 2003 15:08:39 -0700, gre...@volcanomail.com (Gregor K.)
>>>posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>>>I am not his sock puppet. I am his friend and tag team partner. It is
>>>>not our job to debate. It is our job to just post and let others read
>>>>and tell their opinion.
>
>>>Oh, you're trolls. Why didn;t you say so? (Trolls come in about 3
>>>steps under used car salesmen.)
>
>>Damned, Al, why do you insult used-car salesmen like that by even
>>mentioning them in the same sentence as (those other un-named
>>entities)? Even used-car salesmen, as despicable as they are, don't
>>deserve THAT kind of an insult! :(
>
>Oops, you're right. I should have compared them (unfavorably) to cat
>vomit. Cat vomit has no sense of self-worth so it wouldn't get
>insulted.
Come on! Now you insult cat vomit!!!!! Sheesh! Just compare them to
Pester Fuck or Bloatwrong. No, wait, then you'd be insulting the
trolls. Oh, hell with it...
Al Klein
alt.atheism:
>Come on! Now you insult cat vomit!!!!! Sheesh! Just compare them to
>Pester Fuck or Bloatwrong. No, wait, then you'd be insulting the
>trolls. Oh, hell with it...
Insulting hell now, are we?
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
Ryan
"Caleb The Profit" <wol...@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:K7adnVCSFYB...@comcast.com...
>
>
> "Gregor K." <gre...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
> news:82afdec.03100...@posting.google.com...
>
::Sigh:: God's nature doesn't change, only his actions. If I eat cereal for
breakfast every day for a year and then I decide I'd rather have French
toast. Have I changed?
\
Ryan
"jaym1212" <jaym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:26285564.03100...@posting.google.com...
Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.Then there is the
spiritual evidence (what I can feel) and the Life change evidence (how god
has affected my life)
as an atheist I don't expect you to accept anything except scientific
evidence so how about I prove god to you in this way: You provide an
argument for evolution. I'll shoot it down. When you are satisfied that
evolution in impossible then you can decide if you would like to accept
creationism or another wacko theory (like existentialism) and we will move
from there
Ryan
> > How do you explain the fact that a single, relatively uneducated and
> > virtually untraveled man, dead at age 33, radically changed lives and
> > society to this day?
>
> Oh, come on. Everyone knows Shakespeare didn't write those plays.
>
David V.
>
> Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.
Except that there are no scientific arguments against
evolution. Evolution is a fact.
--
David V.
Yosemite Llama Ranch
UDP for WebTV
Ryan
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:UeScnfgwYoA...@sti.net...
> Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.
>
> Except that there are no scientific arguments against
> evolution. Evolution is a fact.
Wow. That's cool!
Wanna prove it? Because other wise it's really neither here nor there. after
all. I think creation is a fact.
So you will now be providing me with indisputable evidence right?
Maybe you could start by showing me a single favorable mutation we have been
able to cause in a lab.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
>
> Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.Then there is the
> spiritual evidence (what I can feel)
But no one else.
> and the Life change evidence (how god
> has affected my life)
How you've lied to yourself and believed it.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
> > >
> > > Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.
> >
> > Except that there are no scientific arguments against
> > evolution. Evolution is a fact.
>
> Wow. That's cool!
>
> Wanna prove it? Because other wise it's really neither here nor there. after
> all. I think creation is a fact.
Thinking it so doesn't make it so.
> So you will now be providing me with indisputable evidence right?
> Maybe you could start by showing me a single favorable mutation we have been
> able to cause in a lab.
Non-sequitor.
Ryan
"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F9397D7.2B0E@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com...
> Ryan wrote:
> >
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:UeScnfgwYoA...@sti.net..
> > > Ryan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.
> > >
> > > Except that there are no scientific arguments against
> > > evolution. Evolution is a fact.
> >
> > Wow. That's cool!
> >
> > Wanna prove it? Because other wise it's really neither here nor there.
after
> > all. I think creation is a fact.
>
> Thinking it so doesn't make it so.
>
> > So you will now be providing me with indisputable evidence right?
> > Maybe you could start by showing me a single favorable mutation we have
been
> > able to cause in a lab.
>
> Non-sequitor.
It would be hard to incorporate a non sequitor into something that is not a
logic argument. I was just making a suggestion so somewhere Dave can start
while providing overwhelming evidence for me.
Ryan
"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
> Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.Then there is
the
> > spiritual evidence (what I can feel)
>
> But no one else.
>
population)
> > and the Life change evidence (how god
> > has affected my life)
>
> How you've lied to yourself and believed it.
I'm not very good at lying. People can always tell. I don't think I'd fall
for one of my lies
Ron Baker
"Ryan" <Ry...@NoSpam.net> wrote in message
news:nJIkb.98279$gv5.80988@fed1read05...
<>
> so how about I prove god to you in this way: You provide an
> argument
No no no no no. ;) It doesn't work that way.
Do your parents know you are on the computer now?
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
>
> "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3F939762.6A09@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com..
> > >
> > > Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.Then there is
> the
> > > spiritual evidence (what I can feel)
> >
> > But no one else.
> >
> Me and the rest of the christians (i think we are at about %60 of the
> population)
Try again: thinking it so doesn't make it so.
> > > and the Life change evidence (how god
> > > has affected my life)
> >
> > How you've lied to yourself and believed it.
>
> I'm not very good at lying. People can always tell. I don't think I'd fall
> for one of my lies
You're gullible. It doesn't matter.
Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A.
>
> "Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3F9397D7.2B0E@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com..
> > >
> > > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:UeScnfgwYoA...@sti.net.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.
> > > >
> > > > Except that there are no scientific arguments against
> > > > evolution. Evolution is a fact.
> > >
> > > Wow. That's cool!
> > >
> > > Wanna prove it? Because other wise it's really neither here nor there.
> after
> > > all. I think creation is a fact.
> >
> > Thinking it so doesn't make it so.
> >
> Exactly! So you think he should prove evolution too huh?
He doesn't have to.
Thomas P.
>
>"jaym1212" <jaym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:26285564.03100...@posting.google.com...
>> > To ensure integrity, therefore,
>> > on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
>> > few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
>>
>> IMO, God probably does not exist. The universe exists and the
>> fundamental laws of the universe could be no other than what they
>> already are. Only those fundamental laws of nature limit what is and
>> isn't possible. I cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not
>> exist, but I can say that I have not found any clear proof that a God
>> does exist, thus far. What proof do you offer that God exist from this
>> moment forward?
>
>Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.
Nonsense.
Then there is the
>spiritual evidence (what I can feel) and the Life change evidence (how god
>has affected my life)
>
>as an atheist I don't expect you to accept anything except scientific
>evidence so how about I prove god to you in this way: You provide an
>argument for evolution. I'll shoot it down.
Two things wrong with the above. Evolution is as much a fact as
gravity; you are not going to "shoot it down". It would make no
difference if you actually were able to disprove evolution; it is not
an atheistic belief, and atheism does not depend on it.
When you are satisfied that
>evolution in impossible then you can decide if you would like to accept
>creationism or another wacko theory (like existentialism) and we will move
>from there
>
When you are able to provide one piece of evidence for creationism,
there will be something real to talk about. The truth of evolution is
irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is a god. It might
be relevant to the question of whether or not the god you believe in
exists, but that is not the same thing.
Thomas P.
"That there are manes, a subterranean kingdom, a ferryman with a long pole, and black frogs in the whirlpools
of the Styx; that so many thousand men could cross the waves in a single boat, today even children refuse to believe."
Juvenal
the cutest atheist
"Thomas P." <tonyofremo...@yahoo.dk,> wrote in message
news:jc17pvcd721ffromr...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:34:51 -0700, "Ryan" <Ry...@NoSpam.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"jaym1212" <jaym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:26285564.03100...@posting.google.com...
> >> > To ensure integrity, therefore,
> >> > on the part of even our readers who are not yet believers, here are a
> >> > few issues about which you too should be able to give an account.
> >>
> >> IMO, God probably does not exist. The universe exists and the
> >> fundamental laws of the universe could be no other than what they
> >> already are. Only those fundamental laws of nature limit what is and
> >> isn't possible. I cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not
> >> exist, but I can say that I have not found any clear proof that a God
> >> does exist, thus far. What proof do you offer that God exist from this
> >> moment forward?
> >
>
>
> >Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.
yes? and where are they?
>
>
> Nonsense.
>
>
> Then there is the
> >spiritual evidence (what I can feel) and the Life change evidence (how
god
> >has affected my life)
> >
> >as an atheist I don't expect you to accept anything except scientific
> >evidence so how about I prove god to you in this way: You provide an
> >argument for evolution. I'll shoot it down.
>
> Two things wrong with the above. Evolution is as much a fact as
> gravity; you are not going to "shoot it down". It would make no
> difference if you actually were able to disprove evolution; it is not
> an atheistic belief, and atheism does not depend on it.
true that
>
>
> When you are satisfied that
> >evolution in impossible then you can decide if you would like to accept
> >creationism or another wacko theory (like existentialism) and we will
move
> >from there
> >
>
> When you are able to provide one piece of evidence for creationism,
> there will be something real to talk about. The truth of evolution is
> irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is a god. It might
> be relevant to the question of whether or not the god you believe in
> exists, but that is not the same thing.
and evolution is not the only thing that casts doubt on that particular
brand of theism.
just wondering, you say you feel god, but how do you know which god it is
that you're feeling?? how do you know there and several or even hundreds,
thousands, or millions of gods? afterall, ancient egyptian religion lasted a
good 4,000 years - double your christ's timeframe of fame - so what makes
you think that these technologically (and logically) adept people were
wrong?
[remember the old atheist saying that we only believe in one less god than
you etc]
Clayton of Green Gables..Tra la la la la
> Ryan wrote:
> >
> > Scientifically all I have is arguments against evolution.
Looks like someone didn't pay attention when his preacher told him that
liars go to hell. Dear oh dear.
Dr. DuFonet
"Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A." <cdub@_REMOVETHIS_erols.com> wrote in message
NOt necessarily. He could be true to himself and he has explained that to
you. Religious experience is a common lingua franca to the true believers.
Evolution is not true to him, because of emotional reasons. just let it be
dear lord, let it be.
Maria Underwood
Either that, or he can't.