| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John Kelley" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2003 01:37:08 PM |
| Object: |
A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
.
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 04:28:43 PM |
|
|
10/8/2003, around 08:37:08 PM, John Kelley wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Ok, you have now exceeded your "argumentative and logical fallacies"
quota for the rest of the year. I expect to not hear any other until
january, especially not the "begging the question" ones.
"You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above. What
is the proper course of action?
3. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to create
counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately 1,000
items on this site as much as you can."
Uhm, yeah. Right. To make a parody of that webpage is a bit redundant,
don't you think?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 08:36:22 PM |
|
|
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk%gb.4666$d1.2594@nntpserver.swip.net...
10/8/2003, around 08:37:08 PM, John Kelley wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Ok, you have now exceeded your "argumentative and logical fallacies"
quota for the rest of the year. I expect to not hear any other until
january, especially not the "begging the question" ones.
"You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above. What
is the proper course of action?
3. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to create
counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately 1,000
items on this site as much as you can."
Uhm, yeah. Right. To make a parody of that webpage is a bit redundant,
don't you think?
The quiz very accurately exposes errors and shortcomings of skeptics, so of
course skeptics won't like it. They cling to their "anti Bible proofs" much
more tenaciously than most Christians cling to the Bible, and they get twice
as upset when their "proofs" are exposed. Remember - mess with the things
that help skeptics sleep a night and you're messing with their religious
dogma!
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
09 Oct 2003 01:40:00 AM |
|
|
10/9/2003, around 03:36:22 AM, Chris wrote:
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk%gb.4666$d1.2594@nntpserver.swip.net...
10/8/2003, around 08:37:08 PM, John Kelley wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Ok, you have now exceeded your "argumentative and logical fallacies"
quota for the rest of the year. I expect to not hear any other until
january, especially not the "begging the question" ones.
"You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above.
What is the proper course of action?
3. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to
create counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other
approximately 1,000 items on this site as much as you can."
Uhm, yeah. Right. To make a parody of that webpage is a bit
redundant, don't you think?
The quiz very accurately exposes errors and shortcomings of skeptics,
The only errors and shortcomings that were exposed were that of those
who think it was a good quiz. No one should think it was good. I
realize it was an attempt at humour, but it wasn't even funny, and you
know why? Because I knew that these people honestly believe they are
right.
so of course skeptics won't like it. They cling to their "anti Bible
proofs" much more tenaciously than most Christians cling to the
Bible, and they get twice as upset when their "proofs" are exposed.
Remember - mess with the things that help skeptics sleep a night and
you're messing with their religious dogma!
In my case, what religion would that be? :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 10:26:45 PM |
|
|
In article <qY2hb.29450$kD3.2454@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>,
vze235xx@nospamverizon.net says...
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk%gb.4666$d1.2594@nntpserver.swip.net...
10/8/2003, around 08:37:08 PM, John Kelley wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Ok, you have now exceeded your "argumentative and logical fallacies"
quota for the rest of the year. I expect to not hear any other until
january, especially not the "begging the question" ones.
"You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above. What
is the proper course of action?
3. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to create
counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately 1,000
items on this site as much as you can."
Uhm, yeah. Right. To make a parody of that webpage is a bit redundant,
don't you think?
The quiz very accurately exposes errors and shortcomings of skeptics, so of
course skeptics won't like it.
How would you know? Upon what data do you base your claim? Actually,
a more likely explanation of the "questions" is that you first found an
apologetic and then wrote a question based on that prescripted apology.
Actually, your whole term "skeptic" is dishonest. Most atheists don't
call themselves "skeptics" at all. They have disbelieve in your
religion in large part because your views are asinine. It is absurd to
think that the whole point of the universe is for gawd to persuade
humans to mouth the words, "I wuv you jebus". The only salvation that
jesus offer is from a problem that he and his father created. Now if
you really thought about things you would realize that if god actually
exists then there is no point to any humans doing anything. God has
already achieved perfection, nobody else is allowed to achieve it and
everyone else has to settle for imperfectly duplicating the efforts
that gawd has already taken. The existence of god makes all other
things redundant. That is not to say that this in itself proves there
is no god, but it does suggest that it is pointless for us to bother
with our own imperfect imitations of him. Further, a perfect god has
nothing to do himself.
Now as far as real questions that atheists might ask of your idiotic
bible, just ask and I'm sure many of us will be happy to provide non-
straw man suggestions. For example, how do you propose to demonstrate
extra-biblically that jesus actually did walk on water as the gospels
claim? Why does jesus damn us to hell for not believing in him without
evidence, but allows the apostle thomas to get away with refusing to
believe in his resurrection until he sees it with his own eyes? How
many of the teachings of jesus can you point to that are wholly
original and not potentially derived from the work of other
philosophers and holy men? What kind of meaningful love can your god
have for those people whom he damns to an eternity of punishment? Why
does your god so often have human agents like Joshua or the Judges do
his killing for him when he could have snapped his fingers and
instantly caused all of these people to die? Do you honestly believe
in the Noachian flood? Do you honestly believe that Joshua stopped the
sun (and the moon) for over a full day? Do you really think that
Ezekiel persuaded your phony sky god to make dry bones live? If so are
you still 9 years old?
They cling to their "anti Bible proofs" much
more tenaciously than most Christians cling to the Bible,
LOL. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. See really we don't give a
***** about your stupid bible. It's just that it's such a laughable
piece of garbage. Your bible makes virtually no sense, even with all of
your apologetic lies. You waste an enormous amount of effort on
defending that load of horseshit. But you still can't prevent the
light of reason from disproving your shabby excuses and revealing the
illegitimacy of your so-called holy writ.
and they get twice
as upset when their "proofs" are exposed.
You certainly wouldn't know, as there is no evidence that you have ever
"exposed" anything, except your own stupidity, perhaps.
Remember - mess with the things
that help skeptics sleep a night and you're messing with their religious
dogma!
Whatever fool. If you think we go to bed dreaming of atheism then
you're dumber and crazier than you act.
--
_____________________________________________________
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 10:24:42 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ee834e4e70b57098a249@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <qY2hb.29450$kD3.2454@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>,
vze235xx@nospamverizon.net says...
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk%gb.4666$d1.2594@nntpserver.swip.net...
10/8/2003, around 08:37:08 PM, John Kelley wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Ok, you have now exceeded your "argumentative and logical fallacies"
quota for the rest of the year. I expect to not hear any other until
january, especially not the "begging the question" ones.
"You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above. What
is the proper course of action?
3. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to create
counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately
1,000
items on this site as much as you can."
Uhm, yeah. Right. To make a parody of that webpage is a bit redundant,
don't you think?
The quiz very accurately exposes errors and shortcomings of skeptics, so
of
course skeptics won't like it.
How would you know? Upon what data do you base your claim? Actually,
a more likely explanation of the "questions" is that you first found an
apologetic and then wrote a question based on that prescripted apology.
Actually, your whole term "skeptic" is dishonest. Most atheists don't
call themselves "skeptics" at all. They have disbelieve in your
religion in large part because your views are asinine. It is absurd to
think that the whole point of the universe is for gawd to persuade
humans to mouth the words, "I wuv you jebus". The only salvation that
jesus offer is from a problem that he and his father created. Now if
you really thought about things you would realize that if god actually
exists then there is no point to any humans doing anything. God has
already achieved perfection, nobody else is allowed to achieve it and
everyone else has to settle for imperfectly duplicating the efforts
that gawd has already taken. The existence of god makes all other
things redundant. That is not to say that this in itself proves there
is no god, but it does suggest that it is pointless for us to bother
with our own imperfect imitations of him. Further, a perfect god has
nothing to do himself.
Now as far as real questions that atheists might ask of your idiotic
bible, just ask and I'm sure many of us will be happy to provide non-
straw man suggestions. For example, how do you propose to demonstrate
extra-biblically that jesus actually did walk on water as the gospels
claim? Why does jesus damn us to hell for not believing in him without
evidence, but allows the apostle thomas to get away with refusing to
believe in his resurrection until he sees it with his own eyes? How
many of the teachings of jesus can you point to that are wholly
original and not potentially derived from the work of other
philosophers and holy men? What kind of meaningful love can your god
have for those people whom he damns to an eternity of punishment? Why
does your god so often have human agents like Joshua or the Judges do
his killing for him when he could have snapped his fingers and
instantly caused all of these people to die? Do you honestly believe
in the Noachian flood? Do you honestly believe that Joshua stopped the
sun (and the moon) for over a full day? Do you really think that
Ezekiel persuaded your phony sky god to make dry bones live? If so are
you still 9 years old?
They cling to their "anti Bible proofs" much
more tenaciously than most Christians cling to the Bible,
LOL. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. See really we don't give a
***** about your stupid bible. It's just that it's such a laughable
piece of garbage. Your bible makes virtually no sense, even with all of
your apologetic lies. You waste an enormous amount of effort on
defending that load of horseshit. But you still can't prevent the
light of reason from disproving your shabby excuses and revealing the
illegitimacy of your so-called holy writ.
and they get twice
as upset when their "proofs" are exposed.
You certainly wouldn't know, as there is no evidence that you have ever
"exposed" anything, except your own stupidity, perhaps.
Remember - mess with the things
that help skeptics sleep a night and you're messing with their religious
dogma!
Whatever fool. If you think we go to bed dreaming of atheism then
you're dumber and crazier than you act.
--
_____________________________________________________
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
Wow, judging from the amount of cursing and ridicule in your post, it seems
you're a very angry person. Atheism working out well is it then? Giving
you a lot of inner peace and joy?
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
09 Oct 2003 11:44:44 AM |
|
|
Chris <vze235xx@nospamverizon.net> wrote in message
news:_x4hb.33835$yU5.2601@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ee834e4e70b57098a249@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <qY2hb.29450$kD3.2454@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>,
vze235xx@nospamverizon.net says...
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk%gb.4666$d1.2594@nntpserver.swip.net...
10/8/2003, around 08:37:08 PM, John Kelley wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Ok, you have now exceeded your "argumentative and logical fallacies"
quota for the rest of the year. I expect to not hear any other until
january, especially not the "begging the question" ones.
"You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above. What
is the proper course of action?
3. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to create
counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately
1,000 items on this site as much as you can."
Uhm, yeah. Right. To make a parody of that webpage is a bit redundant,
don't you think?
The quiz very accurately exposes errors and shortcomings of skeptics,
so of course skeptics won't like it.
How would you know? Upon what data do you base your claim? Actually,
a more likely explanation of the "questions" is that you first found an
apologetic and then wrote a question based on that prescripted apology.
Actually, your whole term "skeptic" is dishonest. Most atheists don't
call themselves "skeptics" at all. They have disbelieve in your
religion in large part because your views are asinine. It is absurd to
think that the whole point of the universe is for gawd to persuade
humans to mouth the words, "I wuv you jebus". The only salvation that
jesus offer is from a problem that he and his father created. Now if
you really thought about things you would realize that if god actually
exists then there is no point to any humans doing anything. God has
already achieved perfection, nobody else is allowed to achieve it and
everyone else has to settle for imperfectly duplicating the efforts
that gawd has already taken. The existence of god makes all other
things redundant. That is not to say that this in itself proves there
is no god, but it does suggest that it is pointless for us to bother
with our own imperfect imitations of him. Further, a perfect god has
nothing to do himself.
Now as far as real questions that atheists might ask of your idiotic
bible, just ask and I'm sure many of us will be happy to provide non-
straw man suggestions. For example, how do you propose to demonstrate
extra-biblically that jesus actually did walk on water as the gospels
claim? Why does jesus damn us to hell for not believing in him without
evidence, but allows the apostle thomas to get away with refusing to
believe in his resurrection until he sees it with his own eyes? How
many of the teachings of jesus can you point to that are wholly
original and not potentially derived from the work of other
philosophers and holy men? What kind of meaningful love can your god
have for those people whom he damns to an eternity of punishment? Why
does your god so often have human agents like Joshua or the Judges do
his killing for him when he could have snapped his fingers and
instantly caused all of these people to die? Do you honestly believe
in the Noachian flood? Do you honestly believe that Joshua stopped the
sun (and the moon) for over a full day? Do you really think that
Ezekiel persuaded your phony sky god to make dry bones live? If so are
you still 9 years old?
They cling to their "anti Bible proofs" much
more tenaciously than most Christians cling to the Bible,
LOL. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. See really we don't give a
***** about your stupid bible. It's just that it's such a laughable
piece of garbage. Your bible makes virtually no sense, even with all of
your apologetic lies. You waste an enormous amount of effort on
defending that load of horseshit. But you still can't prevent the
light of reason from disproving your shabby excuses and revealing the
illegitimacy of your so-called holy writ.
and they get twice
as upset when their "proofs" are exposed.
You certainly wouldn't know, as there is no evidence that you have ever
"exposed" anything, except your own stupidity, perhaps.
Remember - mess with the things
that help skeptics sleep a night and you're messing with their
religious dogma!
Whatever fool. If you think we go to bed dreaming of atheism then
you're dumber and crazier than you act.
--
_____________________________________________________
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
Wow, judging from the amount of cursing and ridicule in your post, it
seems you're a very angry person. Atheism working out well is it then?
Giving you a lot of inner peace and joy?
Do you think it reflects badly on *atheists* that when you insult us, you
get responses in kind?
--
"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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 11:23:23 PM |
|
|
In article <_x4hb.33835$yU5.2601@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>,
vze235xx@nospamverizon.net says...
Wow, judging from the amount of cursing and ridicule in your post
You have no judgment. Like a typical theist you copped out, rather
than even attempted to honestly answer questions. I knew you would,
you pathetic wuss. Don't think we've never heard the "I don't like all
the profanity" excuse from theists as a way of avoiding answering
questions.
, it seems
you're a very angry person.
Don't think that your accusation that we are "angry" is novel or
insightful either. I'm a very happy person and quite easy to get along
with. As usual, you theists don't know what you're talking about. I
suspect that you just don't want to engage in a real conversation so
you try to make irrelevant personal comments. You pretty much have a
50-50 shot that I could be angry or happy. You just guessed the wrong
one, sparky. In any event, even if I was angry and you were happy,
that still would make me wrong or you right.
Atheism working out well is it then?
Absolutely. I love it. I've been an atheist for around 12 years and
I've found it very liberating and useful as a world view.
Giving
you a lot of inner peace and joy?
It definitely is. You think I'm angry, but actually, I'm having fun
with you. I'm sure that it's a great horror to you to actually have to
think for yourself. But unlike you, I'm not afraid of serious
introspection and in fact, I do it quite well, thanks. Perhaps with
some practice you could actually learn how to use your brain, as
opposed to using it as a paper weight for your bible. Don't you ever
get tired of manufacturing excuses to defend your magic candy land view
of reality? Perhaps one day it will occur to you that wanting
something to be true is not the same as it actually being true. Until
then you will keep childishly repeating your dogmatic nonsense in the
hope that one day you will fool yourself into believing the xian farce.
You would rather live in your day dream world than come out and
experience the richness of reality. That's too bad, because you have
limited yourself so gravely by enslaving your thoughts to a silly god
myth. Have the courage to break free of your self-imposed mental
shackles. You're the only one holding yourself back with your own
servitor mentality and your desire for a strong father figure. Your
god disease is all in your mind. Break free of your brainwashing.
Stop worshipping the jebus fairy just because mommy and daddy told you
to. Stop wishing for a magic panacea to all your problems. Recognize
that you will die and it will be the end and you will not be around to
care that you are dead. Make peace with your mortality and enjoy it
for once in your life. Stop telling yourself that you are happy to be
an insignificant speck of fly ***** in god's garbage heap. Stop
worrying about "four letter words" like you were still back in grammar
school. Be a mental adult, rather than childishly clinging to your
santa claus substitute in the form of jesus. Value yourself, rather
than your imaginary friend. Come on. You can do it. There. Be the
little engine that could, okay snookums?
--
_____________________________________________________
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
09 Oct 2003 10:52:10 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 03:24:42 GMT, "Chris" <vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
Wow, judging from the amount of cursing and ridicule in your post, it seems
you're a very angry person. Atheism working out well is it then? Giving
you a lot of inner peace and joy?
Atheism is. ***** Christian apologists, posting nonsense to
alt.atheism, aren't.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Luke Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 10:50:13 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ee834e4e70b57098a249@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <qY2hb.29450$kD3.2454@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>,
vze235xx@nospamverizon.net says...
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk%gb.4666$d1.2594@nntpserver.swip.net...
10/8/2003, around 08:37:08 PM, John Kelley wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Ok, you have now exceeded your "argumentative and logical fallacies"
quota for the rest of the year. I expect to not hear any other until
january, especially not the "begging the question" ones.
"You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above. What
is the proper course of action?
3. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to create
counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately
1,000
items on this site as much as you can."
Uhm, yeah. Right. To make a parody of that webpage is a bit redundant,
don't you think?
The quiz very accurately exposes errors and shortcomings of skeptics, so
of
course skeptics won't like it.
How would you know? Upon what data do you base your claim? Actually,
a more likely explanation of the "questions" is that you first found an
apologetic and then wrote a question based on that prescripted apology.
Actually, your whole term "skeptic" is dishonest. Most atheists don't
call themselves "skeptics" at all. They have disbelieve in your
religion in large part because your views are asinine. It is absurd to
think that the whole point of the universe is for gawd to persuade
humans to mouth the words, "I wuv you jebus". The only salvation that
jesus offer is from a problem that he and his father created. Now if
you really thought about things you would realize that if god actually
exists then there is no point to any humans doing anything. God has
already achieved perfection, nobody else is allowed to achieve it and
everyone else has to settle for imperfectly duplicating the efforts
that gawd has already taken. The existence of god makes all other
things redundant. That is not to say that this in itself proves there
is no god, but it does suggest that it is pointless for us to bother
with our own imperfect imitations of him. Further, a perfect god has
nothing to do himself.
Now as far as real questions that atheists might ask of your idiotic
bible, just ask and I'm sure many of us will be happy to provide non-
straw man suggestions. For example, how do you propose to demonstrate
extra-biblically that jesus actually did walk on water as the gospels
claim? Why does jesus damn us to hell for not believing in him without
evidence, but allows the apostle thomas to get away with refusing to
believe in his resurrection until he sees it with his own eyes? How
many of the teachings of jesus can you point to that are wholly
original and not potentially derived from the work of other
philosophers and holy men? What kind of meaningful love can your god
have for those people whom he damns to an eternity of punishment? Why
does your god so often have human agents like Joshua or the Judges do
his killing for him when he could have snapped his fingers and
instantly caused all of these people to die? Do you honestly believe
in the Noachian flood? Do you honestly believe that Joshua stopped the
sun (and the moon) for over a full day? Do you really think that
Ezekiel persuaded your phony sky god to make dry bones live? If so are
you still 9 years old?
They cling to their "anti Bible proofs" much
more tenaciously than most Christians cling to the Bible,
LOL. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. See really we don't give a
***** about your stupid bible. It's just that it's such a laughable
piece of garbage. Your bible makes virtually no sense, even with all of
your apologetic lies. You waste an enormous amount of effort on
defending that load of horseshit. But you still can't prevent the
light of reason from disproving your shabby excuses and revealing the
illegitimacy of your so-called holy writ.
and they get twice
as upset when their "proofs" are exposed.
You certainly wouldn't know, as there is no evidence that you have ever
"exposed" anything, except your own stupidity, perhaps.
Remember - mess with the things
that help skeptics sleep a night and you're messing with their religious
dogma!
Whatever fool. If you think we go to bed dreaming of atheism then
you're dumber and crazier than you act.
Sir,
It does sound like you are angry. Here is one verse for you that sheds some
light on us having to believe without proof:
Heb 11:1-3
CHAPTER 11
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not
see.
2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so
that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
(NIV)
That tells you what faith is all about. Here is one more that refers to
that very problem:
John 20:29
29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
(NIV)
I'm not trying to preach to you. I was just offended a little by your
comments, and I wanted to share some love with you. Why? Because it is a
lot more productive than swearing and offending others.
Sincerely and I hope God blesses you,
Luke Johnston
lukejohnston@cableone.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
09 Oct 2003 06:11:24 PM |
|
|
"Luke Johnston" <lukejohnston@cableone.net> wrote in
news:vo9mnli156co5a@corp.supernews.com:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ee834e4e70b57098a249@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <qY2hb.29450$kD3.2454@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>,
vze235xx@nospamverizon.net says...
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk%gb.4666$d1.2594@nntpserver.swip.net...
10/8/2003, around 08:37:08 PM, John Kelley wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Ok, you have now exceeded your "argumentative and logical
fallacies" quota for the rest of the year. I expect to not hear
any other until january, especially not the "begging the
question" ones.
"You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above.
What is the proper course of action?
3. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to
create
counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately
1,000
items on this site as much as you can."
Uhm, yeah. Right. To make a parody of that webpage is a bit
redundant, don't you think?
The quiz very accurately exposes errors and shortcomings of
skeptics, so
of
course skeptics won't like it.
How would you know? Upon what data do you base your claim?
Actually, a more likely explanation of the "questions" is that you
first found an apologetic and then wrote a question based on that
prescripted apology. Actually, your whole term "skeptic" is
dishonest. Most atheists don't call themselves "skeptics" at all.
They have disbelieve in your religion in large part because your
views are asinine. It is absurd to think that the whole point of the
universe is for gawd to persuade humans to mouth the words, "I wuv
you jebus". The only salvation that jesus offer is from a problem
that he and his father created. Now if you really thought about
things you would realize that if god actually exists then there is no
point to any humans doing anything. God has already achieved
perfection, nobody else is allowed to achieve it and everyone else
has to settle for imperfectly duplicating the efforts that gawd has
already taken. The existence of god makes all other things
redundant. That is not to say that this in itself proves there is no
god, but it does suggest that it is pointless for us to bother with
our own imperfect imitations of him. Further, a perfect god has
nothing to do himself.
Now as far as real questions that atheists might ask of your idiotic
bible, just ask and I'm sure many of us will be happy to provide non-
straw man suggestions. For example, how do you propose to
demonstrate extra-biblically that jesus actually did walk on water as
the gospels claim? Why does jesus damn us to hell for not believing
in him without evidence, but allows the apostle thomas to get away
with refusing to believe in his resurrection until he sees it with
his own eyes? How many of the teachings of jesus can you point to
that are wholly original and not potentially derived from the work of
other philosophers and holy men? What kind of meaningful love can
your god have for those people whom he damns to an eternity of
punishment? Why does your god so often have human agents like Joshua
or the Judges do his killing for him when he could have snapped his
fingers and instantly caused all of these people to die? Do you
honestly believe in the Noachian flood? Do you honestly believe that
Joshua stopped the sun (and the moon) for over a full day? Do you
really think that Ezekiel persuaded your phony sky god to make dry
bones live? If so are you still 9 years old?
They cling to their "anti Bible proofs" much
more tenaciously than most Christians cling to the Bible,
LOL. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. See really we don't give
a ***** about your stupid bible. It's just that it's such a laughable
piece of garbage. Your bible makes virtually no sense, even with all
of your apologetic lies. You waste an enormous amount of effort on
defending that load of horseshit. But you still can't prevent the
light of reason from disproving your shabby excuses and revealing the
illegitimacy of your so-called holy writ.
and they get twice
as upset when their "proofs" are exposed.
You certainly wouldn't know, as there is no evidence that you have
ever "exposed" anything, except your own stupidity, perhaps.
Remember - mess with the things
that help skeptics sleep a night and you're messing with their
religious dogma!
Whatever fool. If you think we go to bed dreaming of atheism then
you're dumber and crazier than you act.
Sir,
It does sound like you are angry. Here is one verse for you that
sheds some light on us having to believe without proof:
<SNIP buybull verse>
It sounds to me more like quibbler is having fun toying with you guys. It
is pretty funny that you guys cling to bronze age goat herder mythology in
the face of modern knowledge of the world. Actually I take that back, it
isn't funny, it's a sad state of affairs. The universe is screaming at you
that your mythology is wrong but you have blocked your ears and put
blinkers on your eyes, desparately clinging to your stupid myths.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Billy Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
09 Oct 2003 11:02:08 AM |
|
|
"Luke Johnston" <lukejohnston@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<vo9mnli156co5a@corp.supernews.com>...
Sir,
It does sound like you are angry. Here is one verse for you that sheds some
light on us having to believe without proof:
"Having to"?
Heb 11:1-3
CHAPTER 11
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not
see.
2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so
that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
(NIV)
That tells you what faith is all about.
I'm curious. Do you think every religious faith in the world is true?
Here is one more that refers to
that very problem:
John 20:29
29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
(NIV)
So you only believe because you want to be blessed? That's a bit
greedy, don't you think?
Anyway, beliefs are not choices.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 11:47:38 PM |
|
|
In article <vo9mnli156co5a@corp.supernews.com>,
lukejohnston@cableone.net says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19ee834e4e70b57098a249@news.cis.dfn.de...
In article <qY2hb.29450$kD3.2454@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>,
vze235xx@nospamverizon.net says...
"Maverick" <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fk%gb.4666$d1.2594@nntpserver.swip.net...
10/8/2003, around 08:37:08 PM, John Kelley wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Ok, you have now exceeded your "argumentative and logical fallacies"
quota for the rest of the year. I expect to not hear any other until
january, especially not the "begging the question" ones.
"You wish to refute material on this site or in the links above. What
is the proper course of action?
3. Get a bunch of your grumpy Skeptical friends together to create
counter-parodies of this quiz, and ignore the other approximately
1,000
items on this site as much as you can."
Uhm, yeah. Right. To make a parody of that webpage is a bit redundant,
don't you think?
The quiz very accurately exposes errors and shortcomings of skeptics, so
of
course skeptics won't like it.
How would you know? Upon what data do you base your claim? Actually,
a more likely explanation of the "questions" is that you first found an
apologetic and then wrote a question based on that prescripted apology.
Actually, your whole term "skeptic" is dishonest. Most atheists don't
call themselves "skeptics" at all. They have disbelieve in your
religion in large part because your views are asinine. It is absurd to
think that the whole point of the universe is for gawd to persuade
humans to mouth the words, "I wuv you jebus". The only salvation that
jesus offer is from a problem that he and his father created. Now if
you really thought about things you would realize that if god actually
exists then there is no point to any humans doing anything. God has
already achieved perfection, nobody else is allowed to achieve it and
everyone else has to settle for imperfectly duplicating the efforts
that gawd has already taken. The existence of god makes all other
things redundant. That is not to say that this in itself proves there
is no god, but it does suggest that it is pointless for us to bother
with our own imperfect imitations of him. Further, a perfect god has
nothing to do himself.
Now as far as real questions that atheists might ask of your idiotic
bible, just ask and I'm sure many of us will be happy to provide non-
straw man suggestions. For example, how do you propose to demonstrate
extra-biblically that jesus actually did walk on water as the gospels
claim? Why does jesus damn us to hell for not believing in him without
evidence, but allows the apostle thomas to get away with refusing to
believe in his resurrection until he sees it with his own eyes? How
many of the teachings of jesus can you point to that are wholly
original and not potentially derived from the work of other
philosophers and holy men? What kind of meaningful love can your god
have for those people whom he damns to an eternity of punishment? Why
does your god so often have human agents like Joshua or the Judges do
his killing for him when he could have snapped his fingers and
instantly caused all of these people to die? Do you honestly believe
in the Noachian flood? Do you honestly believe that Joshua stopped the
sun (and the moon) for over a full day? Do you really think that
Ezekiel persuaded your phony sky god to make dry bones live? If so are
you still 9 years old?
They cling to their "anti Bible proofs" much
more tenaciously than most Christians cling to the Bible,
LOL. I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. See really we don't give a
***** about your stupid bible. It's just that it's such a laughable
piece of garbage. Your bible makes virtually no sense, even with all of
your apologetic lies. You waste an enormous amount of effort on
defending that load of horseshit. But you still can't prevent the
light of reason from disproving your shabby excuses and revealing the
illegitimacy of your so-called holy writ.
and they get twice
as upset when their "proofs" are exposed.
You certainly wouldn't know, as there is no evidence that you have ever
"exposed" anything, except your own stupidity, perhaps.
Remember - mess with the things
that help skeptics sleep a night and you're messing with their religious
dogma!
Whatever fool. If you think we go to bed dreaming of atheism then
you're dumber and crazier than you act.
Sir,
It does sound like you are angry.
Stop play amateur psychologist. If it sounds that way to you then it's
simply the case that you are wrong. I know what I feel, despite what
to xers might tell me that they think I feel. Perhaps without your
mental crutch you would feel devastated. But I assure you that once
you learn to walk without your crutch things are much better. There is
no pain. Things are better than when you hobbled around on broken
legs, trying to serve your god.
Here is one verse for you that sheds some
light on us having to believe without proof:
You know that it's not considered polite to preach in alt.atheism. I
don't come into xian news groups and start spamming from the satanic
bible.
Heb 11:1-3
CHAPTER 11
1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for
No it's not. You don't always get what you hope for and in any event,
you hope has no bearing on what is true. Francis bacon said, "For what
a man would like to be true, that he more readily believes."
and certain of what we do not
see.
Seeing has absolutely nothing to do with it. Certainly one does not
have to be deprived of seeing something in order to have faith in it,
especially by paul's silly definition.
2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
Eh?
3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command,
They don't understand anything. That is not an explanation of
anything. It just substitutes the mystery of a magical, undefinable
god being for the mystery of the origin of the cosmos. It ignores the
fact that the universe is all that ever was, is or will be, as sagan
put it, and is eternal.
so
that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
(NIV)
That's nothing but equivocation and meaningless pseudo philosophy.
Seeing refers only to the visible process. Seeing in terms of
"understanding" is not the same thing.
That tells you what faith is all about. Here is one more that refers to
that very problem:
John 20:29
29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Yes. I mentioned that example.
(NIV)
Yep, that sounds like the "New and Improved Version" of the bible.
I'm not trying to preach to you.
Really? I guess you have some other word for it that means essentially
the same thing then.
I was just offended a little by your
comments,
Sometimes thoughts have to be provoked. This is a free marketplace of
ideas, as J.S. Mill might say.
and I wanted to share some love with you.
That's not love, my friend. Your doctrine might be well meaning, but
it enslaves the mind and destroy its potential to deal with reality.
It demands that we hate ourselves in order to unconditionally serve and
love a being outside of ourselves and that is morally repugnant.
Why? Because it is a
lot more productive than swearing and offending others.
I've had a theist honestly explain to me what they find so terrible
about a little profanity. It's just how people talk. Arnie does it
all the time. Davis apparently does too. Clinton does it, Bush does
it. Everybody but the grammar school principal does it.
Sincerely and I hope God blesses you,
You think you're sincere, but you're actually merely praying that your
mental disease called "religious faith" be passed on to others. What
you would call a blessing, many others would call "contracting a
virus".
--
_____________________________________________________
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
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
09 Oct 2003 05:43:17 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 01:36:22 GMT, "Chris" <vze235xx@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
The quiz very accurately exposes errors and shortcomings of skeptics, so of
course skeptics won't like it. They cling to their "anti Bible proofs" much
more tenaciously than most Christians cling to the Bible, and they get twice
as upset when their "proofs" are exposed. Remember - mess with the things
that help skeptics sleep a night and you're messing with their religious
dogma!
Yet another trolling liar.
<plonk>
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Hobson" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
09 Oct 2003 09:40:39 AM |
|
|
(John Kelley) wrote in message news:<ce9e95d1.0310081037.157b217f@posting.google.com>...
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
If you're going to make a multiple choice test, you should either have
one of the choices be a valid answer or a choice that reads "none of
the above".
-Alan
aa#1608 BAAWA
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Kelley" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
10 Oct 2003 06:44:00 PM |
|
|
Here's how an INTELLIGENT skeptic answered:
http://www.tektonics.org/kirbyquiz.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 04:42:00 PM |
|
|
(John Kelley) wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Damn that's lame. All of the "correct" answers are highlighted, the
"wrong" answers are just strawman "skeptic" replies, and the answer-key
suggests that you should be a member of the Ku Klux Klan if you don't
answer like the author did.
Does the author of this quiz honestly think he's going to convince a
single Bible-skeptic of anything with this? Sheesh.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*Nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 05:35:34 PM |
|
|
In article <ce9e95d1.0310081037.157b217f@posting.google.com>,
(John Kelley) wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Uh huh. So the "correct" answers have links, and the rest are just
fillers, eh?
I liked this:
# Matthew 2:15 cites Jesus fulfilling a verse in Hosea in his trip to
Egypt. But Hosea was talking about Israel. What's up?
1. Hosea mistakenly called Israel God's son when he really should
have said God's daughter Israel.
2. Matthew obviously used the text dishonestly.
3. Matthew was using Hosea carelessly.
4. Matthew was using a typical Jewish exegetical procedure.
So with this question, the historical vericaity of the "Gospel Truth" is
of no interest? How quaint.
--
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 05:54:34 PM |
|
|
In article <ce9e95d1.0310081037.157b217f@posting.google.com>,
jkelley@zoomnet.net says...
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Here are the correct answers:
1. E. Tell the guy that I'm glad to see him too, but that the
grovelling and self-effacing melodrama is a bit over the top, even as
a charming cultural traditions go.
2. E. I would go to a real library and choose research from one of
hundreds of critical biblical scholars, including theistic and
skeptical authors alike.
3. E. Even if it were true that cults of mithra dated to after the
alleged time of Jesus, this does not mean that they necessarily drew on
the Jesus story. Furthermore, even if they did draw upon the jesus
story, that doesn't make the myth any more believable. It just means
that people borrowed from xian mythology in the same way that xians
borrowed from jewish mythology and jews borrowed from others.
4. E. It's just nonsensical gibberish with no clear meaning. We
don't really know what Jesus was trying to say and we shouldn't care
either. If he really wanted to tell us something he would have said it
clearly, rather than talking like a fucking fortune cookie. While it's
not believable that Jesus hated his family, he certainly didn't always
show his mother, adoptive father or potential siblings much respect at
various times.
5. E. A through D are correct, but also, the ancient Israelites were
barbaric, psychopathic murderers who preferred plunder to honest toil.
6. E. They engaged in many of the same rites practiced by the so
called Habiru or nomadic Israelite people. The jewish bible confirms
that Hebrews adopted many of the same behaviors that the Canaanites
did. Even in the xian tradition, god sacrifices his own child, just
like the Molech worshippers did in their religion.
7. E. None of the above. However, Matthew was entirely unjustified
in pretending that any prophecy was being fulfilled at all here. No
honest reading of Hosea 11:1 indicates that a prophecy is being made of
jesus. In any event, this so called "prophecy" would describe anyone
who passed through Egypt. That this might have been common literary
tradition at the time does not excuse it.
8. E. While some of the answers are possible the fact is that we
don't know why the sheep might have turned out like this or even if the
story is accurate. There is no evidence, other than the testimony of
one or more unknown genesis writers that supports it. Therefore, the
status of the claim is dubious at best.
9. E. Who gives a *****? Nobody. Hummm...that's what I thought.
10. E. While A, B and C are accurate, D is a blatant, dishonest
apology. While jesus might have been ignorant of the bank systems
operated by the romans, it was indeed quite possible to store wealth
with a fair amount of security. Additionally, whether jesus is
plagiarizing the works of sages or not, his advice is ludicrous and
rather poorly argued. Lifespan is not really relevant here, though, if
anything, a shorter lifespan should behoove people to indulge now,
while they can.
11. E. Again, while A, B, and C are fairly accurate, D is just
laughable nonsense. Among other things it suggests that the supposedly
eternal wisdom of jebus actually has a rather finite shelf life. it
also suggests that many of the ideas of jesus are outdated. All kinds
of things might have seemed reasonable under certain circumstances in
the time of jesus. But because he does not properly spell out those
qualifications, he ends up giving very bad advice to people reading him
today.
12. E. It doesn't really matter what distinctions existed at the
time. A bat is quite clearly nothing like a bird and certainly a
divine holy book would manage to make this distinction known. Bats are
homoplasic with birds (i.e. they appear to have similar features such
as wings, but these are not based on descent). Apologists like to
claim that the bible got it right about rabbits "chewing their cud"
when in fact they perform refection upon certain kinds of fecal matter.
But now, when it's obvious that there is no way to make a bird actually
like a bat, they play a language and culture game.
13. E. The bunghole of bible apologists trying to explain away other
manifest translation problems in the old testament and bizarre claims
made by Jesus in the New Testament.
14. E. All of the above.
15. E. The author of this question probably means "multiple
personality disorder" rather than bipolar disorder in option A. B is
correct, but may not be the only answer. C is a possible theory and D
is a non-answer that also happens to be wrong. It actually doesn't
matter whether a fool thinks himself wise or not. Verse 15 also
indicates that sluggards think themselves wise, but it does not require
that one debate with them. As far as the first sentiment in verse 4,
it is ridiculous to think that one loses wisdom by talking to a fool.
Nothing of the kind appears to actually happen.
16. E. The bible doesn't make a distinction between stars and
meteorites because it doesn't appear to be aware that there is any
distinction. Surely an all knowing god could have easily corrected
this misconception in his holy book.
17. E. While A is technically correct, according to the mythology he
was likely born sometime around 0 AD, plus or minus 4-6 years. Since
the jesus character could have been based in part on other characters,
they could have been pretty much born at any time before the gospels
were actually written.
18. E. This different sides of the family stuff is ridiculous. If
this is the case then the bible is woefully incomplete. We are told in
genesis about who begat whom, but they apparently forget to tell us
about the other side of the family. I wonder why that is?
19. E. A scribal error is still an error. So much for
fundamentalists who claim biblical inerrancy.
20. E. Actually the depiction was that of an upside down bowl,
surrounded by water on all sides.
21. E. They are about as qualified as any other religious council or
seminar.
22. E. By rolling a natural one on a d20. Otherwise you take half
damage.
23. E. Xians certainly celebrate xmas and claim it as their own
holiday. They love that, "Jesus is the reason for the season", when
really it has more to do with the axial tilt of the Earth. When
pressed to explain the tree and the holly and the yule log they don't
have a fucking clue. But that doesn't stop them from attempting to co-
opt the holiday and demanding that non-xians refrain from gift giving
around this time of year.
24. E. Genesis clearly incorporates certain legendary stories from
the enuma elish and from other ancient literature. It was never
claimed that the stories are identical, though the flood story is
strikingly similar and other stories, such as that of the garden of
eden and the fall of man are also found in pre-Hebrew mythology.
25. E. Hume appears to be right, at least in this case.
26. E. None of the above. In fact scientists can agree that natural
selection occurs through many well known and documented mechanisms.
27. E. Paul didn't know what the ***** he was talking about. He also
probably couldn't get it up.
28. E. There isn't agreement as to what it means. It is possible
that David and Jonathan had a thing for each other. David was
certainly sufficiently over-sexed for this to be a live possibility.
But in reality it doesn't matter much since the weight of evidence
doesn't support the existence of either one.
29. E. Take the guy's sign and kick his ***** until he settles down.
30. E. I didn't know that "religions" or "skepticism" could file for
bankruptcy. What did they spend all their money on?
31. E. Xians need to stop lying to defend their erroneous myths about
jesus.
32. E. None of the above. Sin is not infinitely evil just because a
supposedly infinite being is judging it. By that standard, sin would
be a chocolate fudge sunday if god happened to be hungry. Most so
called sins are not even covered in the ten commandments. For example,
if homosexuality is so evil then why wasn't it covered in the decalog.
In any event, sins are often committed against other people, not god.
How does stealing an apple from farmer John become god's business all
of a sudden? The answer is that it doesn't. Torah was made up by
lying humans.
33. E. None of the above. A is obviously flawed because the craft is
possible evidence for the existence of aliens, contrary to the
assertion. B is ridiculous because we are not using the craft to
explain anything. C is contradicted by the evidence and D is only true
once we dismiss the possibility that the evidence has been staged
and/or that other humans have not manipulated and misinterpreted key
data.
34. E. Something that theists fight against rather than having to
face the actual arguments of atheists. For example, this whole
questionnaire is a series of straw men.
35. E. There is no substitute for seeing the smoke and flames with
one's own eyes. The smoke may very well be coming from the neighbor's
backyard, where he is burning weeds. One is loath to believe in
invisible, smokeless, odorless fires exist and likewise is skeptical
about invisible gods.
36. E. Theories are never proven.
37. E. Jesus isn't a theory. But I will start with the same proof
demanded by the apostle Thomas and go from there. Strangely, Thomas
didn't believe the sworn testimony of the other apostles. This
suggests that their accounts might not have been altogether reliable,
if we are to believe this story to begin with.
38. E. Moses was tired of Hebrew poon tang.
39. E. You might want to investigate some world views. But the most
important thing is to think for yourself and develop your own
philosophy that works for you. If this coincides with a particular
religion then you have probably done something wrong.
40. E. This is not a valid appeal to authority. Xians had a very bad
habit of destroying or rewriting "evidence" that contradicted their
beliefs. In any event, what counts is specific evidence that jesus
actually did the things claimed. The name jesus was a common one and
I'm sure that someone of that name existed. He might have even taken
some actions similar to jesus. But the real question is whether this
person's life matches the bible closely enough to determine that in
fact there was an historical jesus. That can only be determined by
solid evidence, of which xians have none.
41. E. Hume does not necessarily rule out the experience of miracles.
It's just that most people do not experience miracles and lacking such
experiences people are being irrational in expressing confidence that
they do occur.
42. E. Options A through D are possible, but none are guaranteed to
be correct.
43. E. This is not a parody. Also, I didn't get together with anyone
to answer these. But I have refuted pretty much every question in this
survey. I'm not surprised that a theist would try to add an
unfalsifiable clause to the end of his ludicrous ravings. That that
doesn't make any of his nonsensical theistic gibberish actually true.
BTW, I assign myself 20 points for every E answer earning a total of
860 points which is a better score than god could get.
--
_____________________________________________________
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
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 01:56:09 PM |
|
|
In article <ce9e95d1.0310081037.157b217f@posting.google.com>, John Kelley
says...
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Pretty stupid "quiz" considering they have already highlighted what they
consider the correct answers. How lame.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 05:04:40 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<d5Zgb.23540$cJ5.3358@www.newsranger.com>...
In article <ce9e95d1.0310081037.157b217f@posting.google.com>, John Kelley
says...
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
Pretty stupid "quiz" considering they have already highlighted what they
consider the correct answers. How lame.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Well, they do say one should not take the bible litterally.
That's a plus!
Guess they are just being rethorical, calling it a quiz:)
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen, October 2003
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: A quiz for the Evil Editor(and any like him) |
08 Oct 2003 06:39:18 PM |
|
|
On 8 Oct 2003 11:37:08 -0700, (John Kelley) wrote:
http://www.tektonics.org/whowants.html
exerpt;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You walk into the home of a friend in the Ancient Near East. He says,
"You have extremely honored me by coming into my abode. I am not
worthy of it. This house is yours; you may burn it if you wish. My
children are also at your disposal; I would sacrifice them all for
your pleasure." What do you do?
1. Burn down his house and kill his children, just like the man
says.
2. Call the police and the mental hospital to pick up this
obviously sick man.
3. Run screaming from the house.
4. Reply, "I am unworthy of your honor and of being a guest in your home."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or
5. Ask to borrow money.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
