Evidence of God's Existence

Religions > Atheism > Evidence of God's Existence

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 11 of 14

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Jason Gastrich"
Date:	29 Dec 2004 01:56:12 AM
Object:	Evidence of God's Existence

Evidence of God's Existence
Dear Readers,
I hope you're well, today.
Over the past 24 hours, I had several people from alt.atheism ask me to
present an argument for God's existence. This is why I'm posting this
message. I'm happy to give a logical argument for them and for anyone else
who is interested.
The points I'm going to make will be taken from my debate with Dr. Eddie
Tabash. This debate took place on 9-11-2004. We debated for over 2 hours in
San Diego, California. This debate is freely available in video and audio
formats at http://debates.jcsm.org .
There are five major points and several sub-points in the evidence that I'll
be presenting. For brevity's sake, I won't be elaborating too much on them.
If you have follow-up questions, then either ask them or consult the audio
debate. It was a lengthy debate with opening arguments, a cross-examination
section, questions from the audience, and closing remarks.
1. The Inerrant Bible
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. I've written a full and
complete rebuttal to the exhaustive atheist commentary. The commentary is
called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com) and
my rebuttal is called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained
(http://skepticsannotatedbible.org ).
In my rebuttal, I found reasonable and logical explanations for every
single, alleged error in the Bible. Now, I conclude that the Bible is a book
without error. The unverifiable claims can be counted as true by nothing
more than reason or "informed faith."
Fulfilled, biblical prophecy is another authenticator of the scriptures and
of God's existence. For instance, there are numerous Messianic prophecies
that Jesus Christ fulfilled. These can be seen at http://fmp.jcsm.org .
Daniel 9 is a prophetic chapter of the Bible. Those scriptures give us a
mathematical prophecy regarding the day Jesus would enter Jerusalem. You can
see these here: http://daniel9.jcsm.org .
There is an awesome prophecy in Isaiah 53. It describes things hundreds of
years in advance that would happen to Jesus Christ. You can see about this
here: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/Isaiah53.htm .
For more on prophecy, see our prophecy section at
http://www.jcsm.org/BibleLessons.htm#Pro
I know that people have mixed feelings about pasting large amounts of
information (albeit the links above are my original pages) vs. giving links
to the information. If anyone wants me to paste my research from any of my
links into the newsgroup, just let me know. I'd be happy to do it.
Additionally, the Bible is phenomenally unique. Some say that you cannot use
the Bible to support the Bible. However, the Bible was written by 40 people
over thousands of years, in several continents. If a scripture written
before Christ tells us that something will happen much later and a scripture
after Christ tells us that it did happen, then we have fantastic proof of
fulfilled prophecy, God's existence, and the Bible's authenticity.
Here is a page on the Bible's uniqueness. Link:
http://jcsm.org/biblelessons/BibleisUnique.htm .
2. My long term relationship with the biblical God.
I've been saved for over 23 years. When I was 7, I repented from my sins and
believed, trusted, and accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior.
Over the past 23 years, I have cultivated a relationship with the biblical
God. He leads me and directs me. I seek Him for help and for answers. He
blesses me and I bless Him.
I've done miracles in Jesus' name. These miracles include things such as:
a. When I was 26, I began getting eyestrain headaches. My head hurt all the
time, so I went to an eye doctor and she said I needed glasses. I got
glasses and the pains went away.
A few days later, I prayed to God that the pains would leave me for good and
they did. I removed the glasses and never wore them, again. I'm 30 years old
now and I haven't worn glasses since that prayer. I haven't gotten those
headaches, either.
b. When I was playing worship and praying for my college and career Bible
study group in Oceanside, a girl with throat lesions was present. She had
suffered from bulimia and her throat had been seriously burned from stomach
acids. As she was praying and singing, she was healed.
c. At my gym in Escondido, there was a maintenance guy who suffered from
seizures. One day, I asked him if I could lay hands on him and pray that
they would go away. He obliged and I did and he never got the seizures,
again.
In addition to these miracles, I've been given personal testimony regarding
miracles and supernatural things from people that I trust; from people that
had no reason to deceive me. These people include pastors, friends,
missionaries, etc. These things include healing deafness, casting out
demons, etc.
3. The evidence for creation and the terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes
in the evolutionary/abiogenesis theories.
For instance, where did the "stuff" come from in the Big Bang? Where did
matter originate?
The Bible gives us the answer to this question. God created it.
Where are the numerous transitional fossils that should be present? How can
you tell if a transitional fossil is an intermediate species or simply an
extinct, created species? When you dig it up, you can't tell much more than
that it died. You surely can't tell that it had offspring unlike itself. Yet
this would be required for it to be a legitimate transitional species.
The fossil record doesn't support evolutionism. It supports the Genesis
account of creation. There should be far more fossils and transitionals if
Darwin's theory was true. He even said so before his death.
The atheist's mantra is, "Give it enough time and anything can happen."
Whenever you hear that phrase, "billions and billions of years," picture the
evolutionists' magic wand. They don't like to call their world view what it
is, but it's called faith. They are making statements about the distant,
unobservable past and they are little more than faith-filled guesses based
on assumptions like everything has always decayed at a constant rate.
Do you honestly think that secular scientists can be objective? Consider
their indoctrination.
A boy goes to elementary school and learns about ONLY the theory of
evolution. He continues into middle school and learns the same. He graduates
and attends high school and continues to learn ONLY evolutionary theory.
Afterwards, he goes to college and is further indoctrinated with
evolutionism. He also attends graduate school and does post-graduate
studies - all the while - studying evolutionism and being taught that it is
a fact.
These are the kinds of people that some look to for objective truth
regarding our origins and the origin of species. Can these people really be
trusted to think openly and honestly?
The indoctrinated evolutionist gets no raises or accolades for suddenly
proposing creationist theories. In fact, he or she gets laughed at, scorned,
and perhaps even fired for simply thinking openly about these things.
Some same the scientists at creation institutes like Answers in Genesis are
not doing real science because they sign a statement regarding their belief
in a young earth. No matter how much you think that they can't think openly,
the indoctrinated evolutionist that I just described cannot think any more
clearly.
There is all kind of evidence for creation. There are all kinds of
indicators that the Earth is young. If you haven't spent some time at
Answers in Genesis, then I suggest you do. This organization has scientists
with secular degrees that write in peer-reviewed journals. They know
evolutionary theory quite well and they reject it.
AIG's scientists know that God exists and that the Earth is young. I'm not a
scientist, but if you ever gave me a scientific argument, I would research
it with them. Furthermore, their words must be more authoritative than any
pop-scientist at talk.origins or the like. Writing in peer-reviewed journals
is the benchmark for real science and we all know that talk.origins has no
such benchmark.
I host and direct a site called Young Earth Creation Science -
http://yecs.org . If you'd like to see some arguments for creation, please
go there and you'll see hundreds.
4. God is a pre-condition of logic, reason, and morality.
Atheists tend to tell people what is right and wrong. How did they know? How
can they be so automatically certain that certain things are wrong?
God has given all people a conscious and ingrained inside of us certain
truths. It is these objective truths that people can automatically sense.
I attest to you that atheists will use terms like logic and reason, but they
will not be able to tell us where they originated. I will tell you today
where they originated. They came from God.
The very reasoning that tell us certain things are right and certain things
are wrong came from the biblical God. Without Him, these things would not be
universally known and understood.
Without an objective source of morality, you are left with subjective
morality. As you know, subjective morality allows people to change "truth"
and make it whatever they wish based on their feelings and biases. Is this
really truth?
With God's inerrant Word, we have an objective source of truth that has
stood the test of time. It has been proven to be true. It cannot be changed.
This concludes my argument for God's existence. If you wish to contact me
directly, please use the form at http://jcsm.org/contact.php . I'd be happy
to field questions via email and through the newsgroup.
Now, please don't forget that I was asked to make this post. Several people
told me I should post an argument for God's existence, so I did. I hope I'm
not accused of preaching or belittled. I may be just like you. My criteria
for evidence has simply been met when it comes to the existence of God and I
'm happy to share the above with you.
Space and time don't allow everything God has done for me or through me.
Perhaps I'll be able to write more at a later time.
I'm just a sinner saved by God's grace. I'm not perfect or holier than
everyone. I make mistakes and I need God's forgiveness.
The difference between me and the atheist isn't necessarily my "goodness."
It's my "forgiveness." I've been forgiven by God because I've humbly
approached Him, confessed my sins, and believed in Jesus Christ. If you wish
to know more about the gospel message, we have it in audio and text formats
on our web site. See http://gospel.jcsm.org .
Lastly, I wish I could give everyone that responds a lengthy, personal
response or a point by point message that addresses every single thing said.
I want nothing more for you to have the same hope and joy that I have inside
of me. However, based on the number of responses I receive, I may be unable
to do so. I pray for your understanding and I hope to respond to everyone I
can. Incidentally, those that don't curse and swear at me will get my
respect and cause me to want to hurry and write back.
May God richly bless you.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.

User: "Martin Crisp"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	29 Dec 2004 08:46:04 AM

On Dec 30, 2004, Les Hellawell sent message
<iaf5t0l08cifkfp5n7d1vodj4i4fcrsmr6@4ax.com>, which allegedly said:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:16:47 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Over the past 24 hours, I had several people from alt.atheism ask me to
present an argument for God's existence. This is why I'm posting this
message. I'm happy to give a logical argument for them and for anyone else
who is interested.

That would be a first.

Sadly it wasn't. I must have spent over an hour carefully looking but
nah it was just like all the others.

Just think of all the useful things I could have done in that time.

That's what I figured on seeing all the assertions that the
evidence would be found at links to himself.
So I went looking at this:
http://www.audioscrobbler.com/
[I'm 'HyperTuned']
then...
I made myself something to eat, watched MATT DAMON on Letterman
(delayed or repeated <shrug>), did the dishes.
Shared a joint.
Chatted in AIM/ICQ, read some posts...
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792 Almost always SMASHed
AIM: Hypercube3141592
ICQ: 137333576
email: as given, or whatever you like @ tesseract.com.au
ph: http://www.whitepages.com.au/
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	30 Dec 2004 03:22:20 PM

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 14:23:17 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 09:16:47 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

That would be a first.

Sadly it wasn't. I must have spent over an hour carefully looking but
nah it was just like all the others.

Why? The first three sentences were enough to spotlight the rubbish.

Just think of all the useful things I could have done in that time.

Like rearrange your sock drawer.......
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "Jos Flachs"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	29 Dec 2004 06:01:59 AM

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

The points I'm going to make will be taken from my debate with Dr. Eddie
Tabash. This debate took place on 9-11-2004.

You lost, I assume? Surely you don't think this low level high school
stuff has any meaning?

We debated for over 2 hours in
San Diego, California. This debate is freely available in video and audio
formats at http://debates.jcsm.org .

Sorry to disappoint you: I rarely if ever follow given links. The
Internet is too expensive here for this kind of surfing. If you want
to say something, say it here. (As you do now.)

1. The Inerrant Bible

A good start. The bible contains many errors.

Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.

So you have hard evidence Noah was bobbing the 7 seas in his boat?
What about moses leaving Egypt, with his Hebrew tour group?

In my rebuttal, I found reasonable and logical explanations for every
single, alleged error in the Bible.

No, I can't agree here. You applied the more common apologies. Nothing
remotely original.

Now, I conclude that the Bible is a book without error.

That is your privilege. Hardly a soul today does. Not even the pope.

Fulfilled, biblical prophecy is another authenticator of the scriptures and
of God's existence. For instance, there are numerous Messianic prophecies
that Jesus Christ fulfilled. These can be seen at http://fmp.jcsm.org .

Indeed, but again: not very strong apologies. All have been refuted by
qualified scientists.

Daniel 9 is a prophetic chapter of the Bible. Those scriptures give us a
mathematical prophecy regarding the day Jesus would enter Jerusalem. You can
see these here: http://daniel9.jcsm.org .

Quite so. Pity opinions vary here. And that interpretation can be
anything one desires.

There is an awesome prophecy in Isaiah 53. It describes things hundreds of
years in advance that would happen to Jesus Christ. You can see about this
here: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/Isaiah53.htm .

Has been refuted by many much more educated than myself.

Additionally, the Bible is phenomenally unique.

Yes, in exactly the same way the Vedda's, Edda or Tipitaka are unique.

Some say that you cannot use the Bible to support the Bible.

They are completely correct. Exactly as OJ Simpson cannot testify OJ
Simpson is not guilty of murder. And set free solely based on that
evidence.

However, the Bible was written by 40 people
over thousands of years, in several continents.

Mood point. The bible was written in a small geographical area. Had
the bible been written in Vaals, Zuid Limburg (NL) one could claim no
less than 6 nations nearby: NL, BE, LUX, GE, FR, UK.

If a scripture written
before Christ tells us that something will happen much later and a scripture
after Christ tells us that it did happen, then we have fantastic proof of
fulfilled prophecy, God's existence, and the Bible's authenticity.

Pity that never ever happened. Has been refuted ad nauseam by
qualified scientists.

2. My long term relationship with the biblical God.

That is your own experience, and not reliable evidence.

I've been saved for over 23 years. When I was 7, I repented from my sins and
believed, trusted, and accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior.

I'm happy for you.

Over the past 23 years, I have cultivated a relationship with the biblical
God. He leads me and directs me. I seek Him for help and for answers. He
blesses me and I bless Him.

From what I read I get a very different opinion. Supposing those three
gods (do remember you worship AT LEAST 4 deities!) exist, you are into
a world of trouble. For all eternity.

A few days later, I prayed to God that the pains would leave me for good and
they did. I removed the glasses and never wore them, again. I'm 30 years old
now and I haven't worn glasses since that prayer. I haven't gotten those
headaches, either.

The doctor could have given you a panacea with exactly the same
results.

b. When I was playing worship and praying for my college and career Bible
study group in Oceanside, a girl with throat lesions was present. She had
suffered from bulimia and her throat had been seriously burned from stomach
acids. As she was praying and singing, she was healed.

For how long?

c. At my gym in Escondido, there was a maintenance guy who suffered from
seizures. One day, I asked him if I could lay hands on him and pray that
they would go away. He obliged and I did and he never got the seizures,
again.

Isn't practicing medicine without a license a criminal offense in the
USA?

In addition to these miracles, I've been given personal testimony regarding
miracles and supernatural things from people that I trust; from people that
had no reason to deceive me. These people include pastors, friends,
missionaries, etc. These things include healing deafness, casting out
demons, etc.

You also believe in demons?

3. The evidence for creation and the terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes
in the evolutionary/abiogenesis theories.

Perhaps so, but those are not remotely in the league of creation
"science". Creation "science" isn't science, and not even a theory.
Just a brushed up version of "GODDIDIT!"

For instance, where did the "stuff" come from in the Big Bang? Where did
matter originate?

But 'a god floated around in nothing and created everything' makes
more sense?

The Bible gives us the answer to this question. God created it.

Assertion, not proof.

Where are the numerous transitional fossils that should be present? How can
you tell if a transitional fossil is an intermediate species or simply an
extinct, created species? When you dig it up, you can't tell much more than
that it died. You surely can't tell that it had offspring unlike itself. Yet
this would be required for it to be a legitimate transitional species.

We have been going over this before. There are more than enough
samples to conclude safely evolution happened. Once, not too long ago,
the whale was considered the safest example creationist could come up
with. Until transitional fossils of whale ancestors were found. Now
not even the whales can be used by creationists.

The fossil record doesn't support evolutionism. It supports the Genesis
account of creation. There should be far more fossils and transitionals if
Darwin's theory was true. He even said so before his death.

1- Darwin never said that. If you have reliable quotes of Dr. D.; post
them.
2- Any idea how remote the chances are of an animal being fossilized?
3- Did you study geology?

The atheist's mantra is, "Give it enough time and anything can happen."

Which is in all likelihood true.

Whenever you hear that phrase, "billions and billions of years," picture the
evolutionists' magic wand. They don't like to call their world view what it
is, but it's called faith.

No, since it is based on evidence it cannot be faith. Faith has no
evidence at all. That is why it is faith.

They are making statements about the distant,
unobservable past and they are little more than faith-filled guesses based
on assumptions like everything has always decayed at a constant rate.

Do you honestly think that secular scientists can be objective? Consider
their indoctrination.

Let me guess: the Evil Atheistic Conspiracy at work?

A boy goes to elementary school and learns about ONLY the theory of
evolution.

And rightly so.

He continues into middle school and learns the same. He graduates
and attends high school and continues to learn ONLY evolutionary theory.
Afterwards, he goes to college and is further indoctrinated with
evolutionism.

No, not indoctrinated (that is what you not only want -but desperately
need) but educated.

He also attends graduate school and does post-graduate
studies - all the while - studying evolutionism and being taught that it is
a fact.

Well, if it is not: present your evidence to Stockholm and become
world famous. I think I'm trying to debate a future Nobel prize
winner...

These are the kinds of people that some look to for objective truth
regarding our origins and the origin of species. Can these people really be
trusted to think openly and honestly?

Yes. Since they rely on evidence rather than faith.

The indoctrinated evolutionist gets no raises or accolades for suddenly
proposing creationist theories. In fact, he or she gets laughed at, scorned,
and perhaps even fired for simply thinking openly about these things.

And (again) rightly so. Suppose a world famous doctor would suddenly
start working with incantations and leaches to cure a heart failure.
What would his colleagues do? Admire him, or fire him?

Some same the scientists at creation institutes like Answers in Genesis are
not doing real science because they sign a statement regarding their belief
in a young earth.

You already said it. They are not doing real science work.

No matter how much you think that they can't think openly,
the indoctrinated evolutionist that I just described cannot think any more
clearly.

To the contrary. They can work openly. Only not as scientists.

There is all kind of evidence for creation.

Excellent. Present some. We have some (EAC trained) geologists who can
help you out.

There are all kinds of indicators that the Earth is young.

Such as?

If you haven't spent some time at
Answers in Genesis, then I suggest you do. This organization has scientists
with secular degrees that write in peer-reviewed journals.

I don't want to be insulting, but in this case peer reviewed means
other nut cases, or more politely: other hard core fundies. Not
scientists, which is what most people would understand from your
words.
Theology don't really count here. Just as a qualified scientists in
history cannot say anything about brain surgery. They are qualified,
only in a different field.

They know evolutionary theory quite well and they reject it.

Unfortunately (for you) they are the laughing stock of their
profession. If, that is, you claim them to be scientists. A theologian
is not a qualified scientist in geology or biology.

AIG's scientists know that God exists and that the Earth is young. I'm not a
scientist,

Oh, I honestly thought you were, Dr. Gastrich. So that doctorate was
mistaken?

4. God is a pre-condition of logic, reason, and morality.

Since many non xtians live a moral life that is not even an argument.
You assertion (this is really a good example of an assertion)
automatically assumes all non xtians cannot live a moral life.
Inferring those values are exclusively coming from your god doesn't
convince a muslim or hindu. Infuriate, certainly. Buddhists would
simply smile and continue to do whatever they were doing.

Atheists tend to tell people what is right and wrong. How did they know? How
can they be so automatically certain that certain things are wrong?
God has given all people a conscious and ingrained inside of us certain
truths. It is these objective truths that people can automatically sense.

Perhaps, but WHICH god? All other religions have the same claim.

I attest to you that atheists will use terms like logic and reason, but they
will not be able to tell us where they originated. I will tell you today
where they originated. They came from God.

That is the assertion, and not proof of your gods.

The very reasoning that tell us certain things are right and certain things
are wrong came from the biblical God. Without Him, these things would not be
universally known and understood.

Wrong. Many if not most xtians variations are virtually at war with
one another (and were actually at war in the past) about the
explanation of that.

Without an objective source of morality, you are left with subjective
morality.

Quite so. Couldn't agree more.

As you know, subjective morality allows people to change "truth"
and make it whatever they wish based on their feelings and biases. Is this
really truth?

It is, if you are believer.

With God's inerrant Word, we have an objective source of truth that has
stood the test of time. It has been proven to be true. It cannot be changed.

Simple question: what kind of shirt do you wear? Ever eaten pork? See
how easily any of your gods inerrant words can be changed?

This concludes my argument for God's existence.

Thank you very much. It took me about five minutes to shred your
arguments. A jesuit would have been more difficult.

Now, please don't forget that I was asked to make this post.

Indeed, we did ask for it. But we got... nothing. It took you more
than 2 years to come up with _this_?

Several people
told me I should post an argument for God's existence, so I did. I hope I'm
not accused of preaching or belittled.

No, only nothing new or even remotely original. Pity. But expected.

I may be just like you. My criteria
for evidence has simply been met when it comes to the existence of God and I
'm happy to share the above with you.

I have seen no evidence. Assertions, plenty. But no evidence. Sorry.

Space and time don't allow everything God has done for me or through me.
Perhaps I'll be able to write more at a later time.

Would you mind if I don't hold my breath?

I'm just a sinner saved by God's grace. I'm not perfect or holier than
everyone. I make mistakes and I need God's forgiveness.

That you certainly do. And since you claim more knowledge than most
have, expect a much larger (is that remotely possible?) punishment.
For you should know much better. Exactly like those erring priests
having some fun with choir boys. (Please do not think I infer you mess
around with kids.)

The difference between me and the atheist isn't necessarily my "goodness."
It's my "forgiveness." I've been forgiven by God because I've humbly
approached Him, confessed my sins, and believed in Jesus Christ. If you wish
to know more about the gospel message, we have it in audio and text formats
on our web site. See http://gospel.jcsm.org .

How exactly do you know that?
.

User: "quibbler"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	29 Dec 2004 11:39:41 AM

In article <dl35t05r2gejcgusg6kga0k9tbogs19565@4ax.com>, Jos Flachs
<"wcruise"@ksc15.th.com> says...

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

The points I'm going to make will be taken from my debate with Dr. Eddie
Tabash. This debate took place on 9-11-2004.

You lost, I assume?

Yes, rather apparently, except perhaps in his own mind. Maybe some of
the bussed-in xian peanut gallery liked his sophomoric *****, but it
wouldn't impress anyone with a brain.
--
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: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	29 Dec 2004 10:03:30 AM

In our last episode <dl35t05r2gejcgusg6kga0k9tbogs19565@4ax.com>, Jos
Flachs lept out of the bushes shouting:
<snippage>

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

1. The Inerrant Bible

A good start. The bible contains many errors.

Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.

So you have hard evidence Noah was bobbing the 7 seas in his boat? What
about moses leaving Egypt, with his Hebrew tour group?

Hebrew tour group. <snicker>

In my rebuttal, I found reasonable and logical explanations for every
single, alleged error in the Bible.

No, I can't agree here. You applied the more common apologies. Nothing
remotely original.

Now, I conclude that the Bible is a book without error.

That is your privilege. Hardly a soul today does. Not even the pope.

Fulfilled, biblical prophecy is another authenticator of the scriptures
and of God's existence. For instance, there are numerous Messianic
prophecies that Jesus Christ fulfilled. These can be seen at
http://fmp.jcsm.org .

Indeed, but again: not very strong apologies. All have been refuted by
qualified scientists.

They're not even "fulfilled prophecies." I cannot get over that people are
so dense it never occurs to them that writers of the NT had access to the
OT.
There is simply no way to ever show that they did not write the NT to *fit
the OT and "look" like prophecy was "fulfilled."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.

User: "none"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	29 Dec 2004 04:03:15 PM

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 +0000, Jason Gastrich wrote:

1. The Inerrant Bible

no such thing. there are errors in the bible.

2. My long term relationship with the biblical God.

i have a long-term lack of such a relationship.

3. The evidence for creation and the terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes
in the evolutionary/abiogenesis theories.

there is none of the former, and none of the latter, either.

4. God is a pre-condition of logic, reason, and morality.

no. formal logic textbooks do not start out with the axiom "god exists" on
page one - i happen to know that for a fact. reason works fine for me, and
i've never been anything but an atheist; by the same token, i can say
without bragging that i'm among the most moral people i've ever spoken to,
and that's no thanks to any god.
........
you said a bunch of things, and now i've said their exact opposites.
neither of us provided any good reason why anybody should take one of our
words above the others'. so, why on earth should *i* believe *you*?
(that last bit, incidentally, is called "reason". free hint: trying to
answer "becuz of gawd!" is not going to impress anybody, no.)
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	01 Jan 2005 04:17:21 PM

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

Moralities aren't "discovered", they are made. At various times and
places, all sorts of things that you don't think are moral
(infanticide, cannibalism, etc.) have been moral. Morality is what
some group/society holds as proper. Nothing more.

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust.

And purportedly objective morality excuses subjective morality.
For instance, what does "Thou shall not kill" mean?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "Jason Gastrich"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	01 Jan 2005 06:01:47 PM

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust.

And purportedly objective morality excuses subjective morality.

There is no excuse for subjective morality.

For instance, what does "Thou shall not kill" mean?

The phrase from the Bible means, "Thou shalt not murder."
JG
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.

User: "Ernest Major"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	02 Jan 2005 05:02:39 AM

In article <e8HBd.38387$nP1.22910@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason Gastrich
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> writes

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust.

And purportedly objective morality excuses subjective morality.

There is no excuse for subjective morality.

Unfortunately the existence of many different allegedly objective
moralities means that to all intents and purposes all we have are
subjective moralities.
(My opinion is that some cultural differences in morality represent
environmental differences, some are arbitrary - as in what clothing is
considered necessary for modesty - and in some cases one culture really
is superior morally (in that respect) to another. Unfortunately I don't
have an objective criterion - excepts perhaps the Golden Rule - for
distinguishing among the 3 categories.)
It's not a very convincing argument for Christianity when claims are
made of moral superiority, when standing in the sewers.
--
alias Ernest Major
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	02 Jan 2005 05:51:14 AM

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism

Jason Gastrich <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> writes

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust.

And purportedly objective morality excuses subjective morality.

There is no excuse for subjective morality.

Unfortunately the existence of many different allegedly objective
moralities means that to all intents and purposes all we have are
subjective moralities.

I think most people, regardless of any religions or socialized
subjective morals, don't like the idea of being killed, or stolen
from, or lied to, or cheated on, simply because most people don't like
those things being done to them as individuals.
Apparently though, for warrior type societies, it's okay to kill other
people by the millions if your tribal leader, or cult leader, or
church, or king, or president tells you that it's okay to do so.
One of the ways they do this is to promulgate the afterlife idea by
suggesting or promising that you'll live a happy afterlife if you die
in battle, in service to your country, or king, or cult leader, or
church.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	03 Jan 2005 12:40:40 PM

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:02:39 +0000 (UTC), Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In article <e8HBd.38387$nP1.22910@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason Gastrich
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> writes

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust.

And purportedly objective morality excuses subjective morality.

There is no excuse for subjective morality.

Unfortunately the existence of many different allegedly objective
moralities means that to all intents and purposes all we have are
subjective moralities.

(My opinion is that some cultural differences in morality represent
environmental differences, some are arbitrary - as in what clothing is
considered necessary for modesty - and in some cases one culture really
is superior morally (in that respect) to another. Unfortunately I don't
have an objective criterion - excepts perhaps the Golden Rule - for
distinguishing among the 3 categories.)

It's not a very convincing argument for Christianity when claims are
made of moral superiority, when standing in the sewers.

That is how Christian moral superiority stacks up-sewer level.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	01 Jan 2005 10:20:07 PM

In our last episode <e8HBd.38387$nP1.22910@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
Gastrich lept out of the bushes shouting:

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust.

And purportedly objective morality excuses subjective morality.

There is no excuse for subjective morality.

So what's your excuse?

For instance, what does "Thou shall not kill" mean?

The phrase from the Bible means, "Thou shalt not murder."

Which isn't even defined in the Bible is it?
So "murder" depends on the, oh, subjective definition of the society of
the time...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	02 Jan 2005 10:25:09 AM

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 04:20:07 +0000 (UTC), "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In our last episode <e8HBd.38387$nP1.22910@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
Gastrich lept out of the bushes shouting:

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust.

And purportedly objective morality excuses subjective morality.

There is no excuse for subjective morality.

So what's your excuse?

For instance, what does "Thou shall not kill" mean?

The phrase from the Bible means, "Thou shalt not murder."

Which isn't even defined in the Bible is it?

So "murder" depends on the, oh, subjective definition of the society of
the time...

One of Dan Barker's essays goes into this, listing the various words
used for kill/slay/slaughter/murder/etc and what they have been
translated to.
It does _not_ mean murder.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	03 Jan 2005 07:41:52 AM

In our last episode <799gt094nulo6rerijm9lrr8trcbqic68j@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee lept out of the bushes shouting:

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 04:20:07 +0000 (UTC), "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

In our last episode <e8HBd.38387$nP1.22910@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
Gastrich lept out of the bushes shouting:

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust.

And purportedly objective morality excuses subjective morality.

There is no excuse for subjective morality.

So what's your excuse?

For instance, what does "Thou shall not kill" mean?

The phrase from the Bible means, "Thou shalt not murder."

Which isn't even defined in the Bible is it?

So "murder" depends on the, oh, subjective definition of the society of
the time...

One of Dan Barker's essays goes into this, listing the various words used
for kill/slay/slaughter/murder/etc and what they have been translated to.

It does _not_ mean murder.

Is that one online?
I've been meaning to read him. He's the pastor who deconverted right? I
suspect his story would make an interesting read.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	03 Jan 2005 09:48:29 AM

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:41:52 +0000 (UTC), "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

For instance, what does "Thou shall not kill" mean?

The phrase from the Bible means, "Thou shalt not murder."

Which isn't even defined in the Bible is it?

So "murder" depends on the, oh, subjective definition of the society of
the time...

One of Dan Barker's essays goes into this, listing the various words used
for kill/slay/slaughter/murder/etc and what they have been translated to.

It does _not_ mean murder.

Is that one online?

I haven't seen it online.
Several of his essays are available at
http://www.ffrf.org/timely/

I've been meaning to read him. He's the pastor who deconverted right? I
suspect his story would make an interesting read.

More than a pastor - he was a well known composer of "Christian
music".
His story is an interesting read. It's in a book called Losing Faith
in Faith which I got from Prometheus Books.
But the trouble with this and other books is that they preach to the
converted. The people who _should_ read it won't.
I bought it to try and understand the fundy mindset.
I can thoroughly recommend it. And as a teaser include the following
extracts. Get the book to see the rest of it. I guarantee you won't be
disappointed:
This is copied without permission from "Inaccurate conception", one of
his essays published in "Losing Faith in Faith"; any typos are my own:
[begin insert]
I thought I had understood the words atheism and agnosticism until I
embraced them both and discovered they are pregnant with significance.
In conversations with Christians I have found that most words need to
be carefully defined before we can have a meaningful dialog.
People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist
and an agnostic. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you
a Republican or an American?" The two words serve different concepts
and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism describes knowledge in
general; atheism addresses belief in a god specifically.
.....
One common fallacy about agnosticism is that it is a halfway house
between theism and atheism. It cannot be, since it performs in a
different arena and since the question, "Do you have a belief in a
god?" can only be answered with a yes or no. ("Maybe" or "I don't
know" are simply delays. They do not answer the question. A person who
deliberately avoids the issue in this manner should not be called
agnostic, but rather something like indecisive or unprepared. Of
course it is not dishonest to delay answering the question for want of
clarification of terms; but the question, when answered, can only
prompt a yes or no response).
.....
It turns out the word atheism means much less that I had thought
[previously when he was theist]. It is merely the lack of theism. It
is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. It betrays
nothing of morality or motives. In my case, becoming an atheist was a
positive move - the removal of the negative baggage of religious
fallacy. But that is rather like having a large debt cancelled. It has
brought me up to zero, to where my mind is free to think. Being a
freethinker is potentially quite positive. (See "What is a
freethinker? [another essay in the same book])
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a
difference between believing there is no god and not believing there
is a god - both are atheistic, though common usage has ignored the
latter. (George Smith, in Atheism: The Case Against God, examines this
distinction as the difference between "explicit" (or "critical" and
"implicit" atheism.) Atheism is the absence of belief in a god, or
gods, whether that absence is due to a critical rejection of theistic
assertions, to unfamiliarity with the subject (as with a baby, or a
non-theistic culture), or to noncommittal agnostic/skeptic principles.
If you have a belief in a god you are a theist, otherwise you are
atheist. Atheist and nontheist are the same word, though of course
they may carry a different stigma in today's society. Smith suggests
the term anti-theist for the small subset of atheists who positively
deny the existence of a god. Of course, most atheists will sometimes
speak of "denying" god, or state that "there is no god" informally; it
may not be unjustifiable to think of a "lack of belief in god" as a
relaxed "belief that there is no god" when repeated attempts to prove
theism continually fail. All of us agree that it is permissable to say
"there is no Santa Claus" even though such a statement can't be
proved. HOWEVER, EVEN THE ATHEISTS WHO "DENY" THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD
(WHICH I SOMETIMES DO IN CASUAL CONVERSATION), WILL HAVE TO BACK OFF
WHEN PRESSED AGAINST THE PHILOSOPHICAL WALL, AND ADMIT THAT A LACK OF
BELIEF IS NOT A BELIEF[my emphasis].
[end insert]
The next extract is also copied without permission from "Murder he
wrote", another essay published in the same book; again, any typos are
my own:
[begin insert]
Do the Ten Commandments really say "Thou shalt not murder"? The Hebrew
word for "kill" in Exodus 20:13 is ratsach. (The word for "slay" in
the contradictory command in Exodus 32:27 is haraq). Depending on
which version you use there are about ten Hebrew words which are
translated "kill". The five most common, in Hebrew order (with
translation in order of King James frequency) are:
muth: (825) die, slay, put to death, kill
nakah: (502) smite, kill, slay, beat, wound, murder
haraq: (172) slay, kill, murder, destroy
zabach: (140) sacrifice, kill
ratsach: (47) slay[23], murder[17], kill[6], be put to death[1]
Modern preachers must be smarter than the Hebrew translators if they
claim that ratsach means "murder" exclusively. Muth, nakah, haraq,
zabach and ratsach appear to be spilled all over the bible in an
imprecise and overlapping jumble of contexts, in much the same way
modern writers will swap synonyms.
[end insert]
He then gives several examples, quoting chapter and verse, showing
both the modern translation and the original word used. It is clear
that if "ratsach" always means murder then the meanings of these
verses becomes completely different.
.

User: "Tukla Ratte"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	06 Jan 2005 11:54:59 AM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
< snip >

His story is an interesting read. It's in a book called Losing Faith
in Faith which I got from Prometheus Books.

But the trouble with this and other books is that they preach to the
converted. The people who _should_ read it won't.

I bought it to try and understand the fundy mindset.

I took an Abnormal Psychology course in college. That helps a lot, too.
< snip >
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.

User: "John Wilkins"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	06 Jan 2005 03:52:04 PM

Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

< snip >

I took an Abnormal Psychology course in college. That helps a lot, too.

< snip >

I *have* an abnormal psychology, but I still don't understand 'em.
--
John S. Wilkins

web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	07 Jan 2005 12:18:49 PM

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:52:04 +0000 (UTC),

(John
Wilkins) wrote:

Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

< snip >

I took an Abnormal Psychology course in college. That helps a lot, too.

< snip >

I *have* an abnormal psychology, but I still don't understand 'em.

Heheheheheheh
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	03 Jan 2005 07:10:23 PM

In our last episode <0lpit0tqj7hrpfpeqfjbimd4b66dn96oil@4ax.com>,
Christopher A. Lee lept out of the bushes shouting:

I bought it to try and understand the fundy mindset.

Heh. Be glad you had to buy a book to try to understand it rather than
being raised in it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	02 Jan 2005 09:27:22 AM

In our last episode <e8HBd.38387$nP1.22910@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
Gastrich lept out of the bushes shouting:

There is no excuse for subjective morality.

Why does reality need an "excuse?" That which is simply is. No "excuse"
needed.
You do not have an "absolute" morality. The morality of the Christian
religion has changed with the times and circumstance just as much as
anybody's...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.

User: "Bobby D. Bryant"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	01 Jan 2005 10:39:50 PM

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005, "Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust.

And purportedly objective morality excuses subjective morality.

There is no excuse for subjective morality.

For instance, what does "Thou shall not kill" mean?

The phrase from the Bible means, "Thou shalt not murder."

Indeed. And did you think I wouldn't follow up that dodge with "What
does 'Thou shall not murder' mean in your objective morality?"
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.

User: "Jason Gastrich"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	30 Dec 2004 02:30:57 AM

none wrote:

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 +0000, Jason Gastrich wrote:

1. The Inerrant Bible

no such thing. there are errors in the bible.

Prove it.

2. My long term relationship with the biblical God.

i have a long-term lack of such a relationship.

3. The evidence for creation and the terrific weaknesses, flaws, and
holes in the evolutionary/abiogenesis theories.

there is none of the former, and none of the latter, either.

Someone tell me. Is this hand waving, an argument by assertion, or both?

4. God is a pre-condition of logic, reason, and morality.

How did you discover morality?

you said a bunch of things, and now i've said their exact opposites.
neither of us provided any good reason why anybody should take one of
our words above the others'. so, why on earth should *i* believe
*you*?

I wrote a five page argument for God's existence. You wrote a few lines on
about half a page and didn't address the vast majority of my points. Please
don't feel that you've written an equal or adequate rebuttal.
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.

User: "Ken Shaw"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	30 Dec 2004 11:32:02 AM

Jason, did you miss this post?
Found originally at:
http://tinyurl.com/45ngh
<old post>
An update.
I received this reply today:
<quote>
Dear Mr. Shaw:
James Madison was a member of the governor's council in
1778, not a delegate to the Virginia General Assembly.
You can verify this by reading sections of vol. 1 of the
Papers of James Madison. To my knowledge, the Journals of
the Virginia General Assembly do not contain the text of
speeches. There might be some preserved in newspapers of
the time, but the newspaper record is somewhat sporadic at
best for this period. You should request a more specific
citation than the one you were given in order to track
this down.
Best,
David Mattern
</quote>
Jason, a responsible person would at this point either do the research
to confirm this quote or stop using it. At the very least contact which
ever web site you say references the speech as 1778 to the VA GA and
find out the original source for this claim so you can present more than
an unsupported claim.
Ken
</old post>
You will be proving your integrity by addressing this issue won't you?
Ken
P.S. Once again to remind you I never let an issue drop until it is
settled.
.

User: "Bonz"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	31 Dec 2004 11:56:38 PM

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

User: "Jason Gastrich"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	01 Jan 2005 02:39:04 PM

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust. Think about it.
Regards,
Jason

��Bonz�� a.a #1497
BAAWA knight
The word "scientist" in my Email addy has an extra N

--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	01 Jan 2005 04:31:42 PM

In alt.atheism on Sat, 1 Jan 2005 20:39:04 +0000 (UTC), "Jason
Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust.

No, it doesn't. You confuse subjectivism with relativism.
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"
.

User: "steve_h"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	01 Jan 2005 03:03:45 PM

Jason Gastrich wrote:

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust. Think

about it.
It doesn't excuse, but it does explain.
The holocaust happened. It happened in a civilised christian country.
How do you explain that?

Regards,
Jason

��Bonz�� a.a #1497
BAAWA knight
The word "scientist" in my Email addy has an extra N

User: "Jason Gastrich"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	01 Jan 2005 03:15:12 PM

steve_h wrote:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust. Think

about it.

It doesn't excuse, but it does explain.

The holocaust happened. It happened in a civilised christian country.

What was "Christian" about Nazi Germany?
Regards,
Jason

How do you explain that?

Regards,
Jason

��Bonz�� a.a #1497
BAAWA knight
The word "scientist" in my Email addy has an extra N

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	02 Jan 2005 11:07:02 AM

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8IEBd.37968$nP1.14547@twister.socal.rr.com...

steve_h wrote:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

Bonz wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:30:57 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did you discover morality?

This subjective morality excuses things like the Holocaust. Think

about it.

It doesn't excuse, but it does explain.

The holocaust happened. It happened in a civilised christian country.

What was "Christian" about Nazi Germany?

You mean besides Hitler and the general population?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence	01 Jan 2005 04:03:00 PM

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in news:8IEBd.37968
$nP1.14547@twister.socal.rr.com:

The holocaust happened. It happened in a civilised christian country.

What was "Christian" about Nazi Germany?

Among other things, the German amry's motto, "God is with us."
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.

Page 11 of 14