| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Gastrich" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2005 02:25:57 PM |
| Object: |
Is faith in God reasonable? |
I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug Krueger. It's
being hosted at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (IIDB). See here:
http://iidebate5.jcsm.org
Enjoy and God bless,
Jason Gastrich
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 90,000 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: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 06:43:07 PM |
|
|
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Mr. Neil wrote:
Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like your other two
debates with Krueger, I think you're going to end up being the
weinie.
Am I obligated to respond to your ad hominems?
No, you choose to, but I suppose it's easier than responding to many
of the cogent replies made by atheists in this thread.
(-: Ian :-)
I haven't read anything cogent. Perhaps people under my killfile have
finally decided to post something cogent.
Jason has responded often enough to me to believe that he reads all, he
just pretends we are killfiled.
He knows that if he does respond I'll ask if he has learned anything and why
he:
1. asked for a repeat of the questions
2. Said he rememenber then
3.denied they existed
4. said he would answer one somebody posted for him, the 17 minutes later
5. said they did not exist.
It's so much easier to keep track of the truth.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 08:39:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:34:03 -0800, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Mr. Neil wrote:
Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like your other two
debates with Krueger, I think you're going to end up being the
weinie.
Am I obligated to respond to your ad hominems?
No, you choose to, but I suppose it's easier than responding to many
of the cogent replies made by atheists in this thread.
(-: Ian :-)
I haven't read anything cogent. Perhaps people under my killfile have
finally decided to post something cogent.
He has a killfile. The great Herr Doctor Debater! LOL
He'll take on a meek and polite atheist thinking he may have a mark
but when it comes to a hard core, in your face atheist asking point
blank questions, he killfiles them.
How boringly ordinary for a christian. Run from the brass ring and
look for someone bleeding to death.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secular Fundamentalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 02:41:58 PM |
|
|
The gates of free.christians slowly swung open, and there stood "Jason
Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com>,who intoned thus:
Ian Braidwood wrote:
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Mr. Neil wrote:
Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like your other two
debates with Krueger, I think you're going to end up being the
weinie.
Am I obligated to respond to your ad hominems?
No, you choose to, but I suppose it's easier than responding to many
of the cogent replies made by atheists in this thread.
(-: Ian :-)
I haven't read anything cogent. Perhaps people under my killfile have
finally decided to post something cogent.
JG
Don't you just love it when they bring their own rope?
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ultra Maroon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 01:04:46 AM |
|
|
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Mr. Neil wrote:
Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like your other two
debates with Krueger, I think you're going to end up being the
weinie.
Am I obligated to respond to your ad hominems? It's funny how you
can't
deal with my arguments, so you just go after me.
One more thing, Gasbag, dealin' with your arguments ain't no thang.
But as soon as someone does, you run like a cockroach. Spare us the
fake bravery, dude. No one's impressed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ultra Maroon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 12:49:40 AM |
|
|
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Mr. Neil wrote:
Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like your other two
debates with Krueger, I think you're going to end up being the
weinie.
Am I obligated to respond to your ad hominems? It's funny how you
can't
deal with my arguments, so you just go after me. Very mature.
Gasbag, actually I made an observation along these lines. Sit thee and
I shall share it with thee. Y'see, I notice that a fellow named David
Vestal, indeed, in this very thread, *did* deal with your "arguments,"
and you're specifically avoiding his comments, so you can whine about
ad homs.
Mebbe there's a reason for that, ya think?
Are you sure you don't want to run to Sermon Audio really quick and
delete your two Krueger debates the way you did with the Dan Barker
interview?
I offered Dan Barker a rematch, but after he read my research and my
answers
regarding alleged Bible errors, he declined. Go figure.
Well, now, we hear tell that it didn't go down *quite* this way, but I
also think we've reached a point with you where nothing you say can be
taken as truthful. Yeah, you "offered" Dan a rematch and he turned you
down flat. But he has another explanation for that and I tend to buy
his 'cause it makes more sense and jibes with my observations. You,
very mature that you are, want to imply that he's afraid of you.
T'ain't so, Gasbag. Git over yerself.
I told him I was
going to replace our debate with answers to the questions he asked
during
the debate if he would not offer me a rematch and he didn't care.
Why should he?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Vestal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 11:40:13 AM |
|
|
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Mr. Neil wrote:
Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like your other two
debates with Krueger, I think you're going to end up being the
weinie.
Am I obligated to respond to your ad hominems? It's funny how you
can't
deal with my arguments, so you just go after me. Very mature.
I and several other people dealt with your arguments (such as they
were), and you did not respond. It's funny how you can't deal with the
responses that dealt with your arguments, so you just go after others
that didn't. Very transparent.
Are you sure you don't want to run to Sermon Audio really quick and
delete your two Krueger debates the way you did with the Dan Barker
interview?
I offered Dan Barker a rematch, but after he read my research and my
answers
regarding alleged Bible errors, he declined.
How do you know he read your "research" and answers? You did so poorly
against him that he'd have had no real reason to. Furthermore, you
replaced the debate with your answers to what you somewhat
melodramatically called "Dan Barker's 30 questions," despite that some
aren't questions, and none are posed as part of any organized list of
questions presented to you by him. You just picked some points out of
the debate on which you were thoroughly trashed, and made an
after-the-fact recording. Comparing your answers to the portions of
the debate that inspired them makes for a hilarious pastime.
The transcript is at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/free.christians/msg/067fe8bb2ac032df
While I'm on that subject, Gastrich, why did you tell Grinder that you
felt it would be "only fair and appropriate" for Grinder to host your
post-hoc damage-control "30 questions" recording with the debate MP3,
when you yourself don't do the same?
Go figure. I told him I was
going to replace our debate with answers to the questions he asked
during
the debate if he would not offer me a rematch and he didn't care.
Barker was undoubtedly following the suggestion of Proverbs 26:4.
Krueger made it clear before your current debate that he was afraid of
the consequences of NOT following that suggestion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 05:45:14 AM |
|
|
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Mr. Neil wrote:
Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like your other two
debates with Krueger, I think you're going to end up being the weinie.
Am I obligated to respond to your ad hominems? It's funny how you can't
deal with my arguments, so you just go after me. Very mature.
Mature? You are mature?
After your stunt with the Atheist list, no, it is obvious
you are not very mature. Nor honest.
And by golly! You seem to be ignoring my standing
challenge to convert me by the miracle working
abilities Jesus promised his followers.
What? Was John 14:12-4 just so much malarkey?
Why obviously, yes!
So was Mark 11, Matthew 18, 22 and so on. Now, how
mature is it to believe in obvious nonsense like this?
When its obviously not true!
What! You and all your church buddies can't call on
Jesus as per John 14 to convert one measly lil ol' Atheist?
Why, you don't even answer my challenges. You just shuffle
your feet, stare at the ground and then walk off.
Is it mature to be challenged like this and not
get a clue, "Hey, these bible promises straight from
Jesus about miracle working abilities doesn't work
as promised! Its nonsense!"
Do you think you have a chance here among us Atheists
as long as I can make this challenge, point out the facts
and watch you squirm?
********************************************
Mark 11:23-4
For verily I say this unto you, That
whosoever shall say unto this mountain,
Be thou removed, and be thou cast
into the sea; and shall not doubt
in his heart, but shall believe that
those things which he saith shall
come to pass; he shall have whatsoever
he saith.
Therefore I say unto you, What things
soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe
ye recieve them and ye shall have them.
Matthew 18:19-20
Again I say unto you, that if two
of you shall agree on earth as
touching anything that they shall
ask, it shall be done for them of
my father which is in heaven.
For where two or three are gathered
in my name, there I am in the midst
of them.
Matthew 21:22
And all things,whatsoever ye shall ask
in prayer, believeing, ye shall recieve.
John 14:12-14
12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on me, the works that I do shall he
do also; and greater works than these shall
he do;because I go unto my Father.
13: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name,
that will I do, that the Father may be
glorified in the Son.
14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name,
I will do it.
***********************************************
Are you sure you don't want to run to Sermon Audio really quick and
delete your two Krueger debates the way you did with the Dan Barker
interview?
I offered Dan Barker a rematch, but after he read my research and my
answers
regarding alleged Bible errors, he declined. Go figure. I told him I was
going to replace our debate with answers to the questions he asked during
the debate if he would not offer me a rematch and he didn't care.
Regards,
Jason
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Neil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 01:05:14 AM |
|
|
My goodness, Jason. You're awfully sensative about your interview with
Dan Barker.
Why should Dan give you a rematch? The first one wasn't even a match.
In fact, Dan considered it an interview, but you keep insisting that it
was a debate. And even if we could consider it a debate, it doesn't
work in your favor, because he destroyed every single point you brought
up.
Besides, you've evaded my point. Why did you delete the Barker
interview from Sermon Audio? If you're supplying a commentary, why
didn't you provide it in addition to the Barker interview instead of
erasing the original interview? It couldn't POSSIBLY be because of how
embarrassing your performance was, could it?
Hey, I have an idea. Let's let everyone hear just how well you did,
and maybe they'll be able to draw their own conclusions on just why you
aren't providing a copy of the interview anymore. Here it is free for
download from ExChristian.net!
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2004/10/jason-gastrich-vs-dan-barker.php
~Neil
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grinder" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 01:54:07 AM |
|
|
Mr. Neil wrote:
My goodness, Jason. You're awfully sensative about your interview with
Dan Barker.
Why should Dan give you a rematch? The first one wasn't even a match.
In fact, Dan considered it an interview, but you keep insisting that it
was a debate. And even if we could consider it a debate, it doesn't
work in your favor, because he destroyed every single point you brought
up.
Besides, you've evaded my point. Why did you delete the Barker
interview from Sermon Audio? If you're supplying a commentary, why
didn't you provide it in addition to the Barker interview instead of
erasing the original interview? It couldn't POSSIBLY be because of how
embarrassing your performance was, could it?
Hey, I have an idea. Let's let everyone hear just how well you did,
and maybe they'll be able to draw their own conclusions on just why you
aren't providing a copy of the interview anymore. Here it is free for
download from ExChristian.net!
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2004/10/jason-gastrich-vs-dan-barker.php
Here's a transcript:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/free.christians/msg/99a151487b8054b1
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. Neil" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 04:59:33 AM |
|
|
Ah, cool. I was looking for a transcript of it earlier for the 56k
gang. Thanks for posting that.
Jason Gastrich wrote:
Am I obligated to respond to your ad hominems? It's funny how you
can't
deal with my arguments, so you just go after me. Very mature.
You must be mistaking me for Doug Krueger. I'm not your debate
opponent, Jason. By calling the debate "a roast", I was simply
predicting the result of this debate based on your opening statement,
which was extremely poor.
I don't know what you want me to "deal with", exactly. If you want my
opinion of your opening statement, I find it largely anecdotal. And
no, you don't get special points for predicting that people would say
that. Fallacies don't stop being fallacies just because you predicted
what your opponent is going to say, Jason. Eddie Tabash already
refuted your "admissible testimony" claim seven months ago. Admissible
evidence is only acceptable if it is scientifically sound. An anecdote
is still an anecdote, and unfortunately, most of your opening statement
is nothing but anecdotes..
You really shot yourself in the foot by bringing up your November 1998
illness. You credit your recovery to having received prayer upon the
alter. It's bad enough that this is a post hoc fallacy, but you openly
admitted in that same paragraph THAT YOU WERE ALREADY STARTLING TO FEEL
BETTER before that happened!
You are going to get destroyed, Jason. You obviously didn't prepare
for this debate at all. You cookie-cuttered from past debates. The
next four rounds are going to be a gruling uphill battle for you. What
the hell were you thinking challenging Krueger?
~Neil
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 04:03:07 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:36:03 -0800, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mr. Neil wrote:
Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like your other two
debates with Krueger, I think you're going to end up being the weinie.
Am I obligated to respond to your ad hominems?
Possibly. Since you started the debate, common courtesy would demand
an answer from you.
It's funny how you can't
deal with my arguments, so you just go after me. Very mature.
Actually, you get answers tailored to your mental level. Which is
kindergarten.
Are you sure you don't want to run to Sermon Audio really quick and
delete your two Krueger debates the way you did with the Dan Barker
interview?
I offered Dan Barker a rematch, but after he read my research and my answers
regarding alleged Bible errors, he declined. Go figure.
Were you 10 years old, I'd be happy to hop in for a rematch myself.
Since you are likely around 30 yrs old, I politely decline.
I told him I was
going to replace our debate with answers to the questions he asked during
the debate if he would not offer me a rematch and he didn't care.
One reaps what one sows.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 12:43:48 AM |
|
|
TV's Mr. Neil wrote:
Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like your other two debates
with Krueger, I think you're going to end up being the weinie.
He's going to end up looking like he's holding his weenie in his hand.
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ultra Maroon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 12:50:25 AM |
|
|
towelie wrote:
TV's Mr. Neil wrote:
Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like your other two
debates
with Krueger, I think you're going to end up being the weinie.
He's going to end up looking like he's holding his weenie in his
hand.
He's gotta have one for that. He don't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
30 Mar 2005 01:11:47 AM |
|
|
No.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carson West" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
03 Apr 2005 06:22:28 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:25:57 +0000, Jason Gastrich wrote:
I've started my debate with atheist professor and
author Doug Krueger.
And a very poor start it is, Jason. You seem to be rehashing some of your
old arguments; and the idea that your personal "experiences," which I
highly doubt, after all, are "evidence" is quite a stretch. Your opening
statement was so loaded with fallacies, assumptions, and begging the
question that it's quite difficult to decide where to begin.
It's being hosted at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (IIDB).
see here: [Snip]
Jason, why do you insist on making everyone go through your boards in
order to see content that isn't hosted at or provided by you? The actual
link is here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=118609
Or, using the tinyurl utility:
http://tinyurl.com/3klgj
Some in the audience might be amused at some of the commentary in the
"Peanut Gallery:"
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2248768#post2248768
http://tinyurl.com/49hls
Note some of the commentary on how long it was taking you to post your
opening statement; and how curious it was that you posted it very soon
after there was a comment posted in the newsgroups as well.
I've read further in the thread, and I can see that you've already
dismissed the commentary of your critics as probably lacking in cogency
while, at the same time, suggesting that those cogent arguments, if they
exist, are blocked by your kill-file. Your responses to Mike Painter have
shown that your comments about kill-files are largely disingenuous, so I
think those comments can be safely dismissed. However, since there is no
indication in any of your writing that Libertarius or David Vestal have
been kill-filed, perhaps you can address their rebuttals. You have plenty
of time. Doug hasn't responded yet, you have three weeks once he does,
you seem to have plenty of time to yak in the Padres talk groups, and
your arguments are nothing new--you've made them before. So perhaps it
would be a good idea to talk about their responses or, at least, show us
the messages in which you declared that they had already been kill-filed.
I suspect that they were kill-filed the moment they posted their
rebuttals. However, we also know that you will come in to Google Groups
from time to time and see what's being said and written--you all but
confessed to that--so it shouldn't be difficult to pull up their rebuttals
and, since you view your arguments as so strong and your debate
capabilities as so formidable, show how they are wrong or illogical or how
they have failed in whatever way to rebut your comments.
Tossing in some of my own thoughts on your opening statement:
I notice the claim, again, to an inerrant Bible and I'm not surprised that
you would continue to make this claim, even though the Bible is clearly
not inerrant. I'm thinking that you must do this since it's such a major
part of your selling point for your "book." However, I have now had a
chance to examine your "book" and, like so many others, I find it
intellectually deficient in many ways. I would, of course, *love* to
debate you on that subject. Perhaps I'll get my chance. Regardless, the
Bible is not inerrant, the "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" is not a complete
list of Bible flaws and problems, and you did not effectively rebut or
refute what *is* contained in the SAB. Your claims are false. So much
for the first pillar of your argument platform.
Your "long-term relationship" with G-d is entirely subjective and does not
qualify as evidence, nor would it be persuasive to anyone who does not
already believe as you do. You seem to want us to believe that your own
experiences with allegedly answered prayer and observed miracles should be
convincing, while more specific experiences by those whom you presume to
address--those of the reading audience whom have not seen prayers answered
nor have they experienced or witnessed healings or other miracles. But
why should your unobserved and unexperienced "miracles" trump those of
your readers? In fact, given your rather unsavory reputation, why should
I, as your reader, believe you when you speak of your alleged experiences,
especially when I have not experienced those things nor do I know of
anyone who truly has? And remember, Jason, I was a Christian of your very
type for many years. I even attended Scott Memorial Baptist Church, as
you did, though it is now "Shadow Mountain Community Church." I heard
many of the same people that you did, and I listened to them, as you did.
Addressing some of your specific "miracles," I would suggest to you that
the diagnosis of "eye-strain headaches" is iffy, at best, but it doesn't
surprise me that one as vain as you would be distressed at having to wear
glasses. However, eye-strain headaches are often misdiagnosed as such,
and often the headaches have another cause--stress, most frequently. You
claim that it was a miracle that you were "cured" of these headaches, but
I suspect that there was a much more down-to-earth explanation, and that's
even assuming that it really happened as you described. The episode with
the tendonitis strikes me as very unlikely to be a miracle. You were on
high doses of ibuprofen and you're still relatively young. You say that
your therapy was anticipated to go much longer than it did, but I submit
to you that such things are scheduled to err on the side of caution, and
that it is not at all unusual for a person to cease needing therapy before
they know it. Doctors and therapists are often giving "worst case
scenarios" to their patients because they must do so in order to avoid
litigation. For example, I had LASIK done, and I was given all sorts of
potential problems that could occur. Not one of them did. By the same
token, I know about tendonitis and I know quite a few who have had
it--including me. I didn't need therapy at all, and of those I know who
did, not one of them prayed for healing, and all of them stopped needing
therapy before it was anticipated that they would. Would you call all of
those things "miracles?"
Of course, we have no evidence, whatsoever, of the alleged healings of the
others you list. Would you care to provide the necessary information so
that they can be verified? I will assume that you would not, yet you
want us to uncritically take your word on the subject and you want us to
view it as evidence. Others have already pointed out that it's not
evidence, and you even used the correct term when you said it was
"testimony." In the case of the other two healings, it's also *hearsay*
testimony--second-hand, at best. You try to counter that criticism ahead
of time by making appeals to what would be acceptable in a court of law.
I was a police officer and appeared in court many times. I always
understood that there was a clear difference between a testimony, or
statements by witnesses, and evidence; and I understood that *my*
testimony, as a police officer, was *not* evidence. My testimonies in
cases were understood as in support of evidence or evidence supported my
testimony, but evidence and testimony are not viewed as the same things in
a court of law--even "expert" testimony, as you implied your testimony
should be viewed, is not evidence. There's a difference between "taken
seriously," which is really what you want us to do with you, and evidence.
So much for that! Your personal experiences with G-d, such as they might
be, are your own, and have no bearing on the rest of us, nor do they
constitute "reasonable evidence."
The alleged fulfilled prophesies are worth an entire series of posts on
their own, but your alleged "compelling research," as you describe it, is
neither convincing nor conclusive. Most of it constitutes speculation and
much of it is a stretch. Again, it won't convince anyone who isn't
already a believer. In fact, most of this kind of thing is actually
designed not to convert anyone to the faith or even to show that the faith
is reasonable and supported by evidence. The "fulfilled prophesy"
argument works best with those who already believe and want affirmation.
No rational person, studied in the literature or the history of the time,
would find these arguments credible.
Your claims about intelligent design are also not persuasive--nor are they
designed to be--to anyone who doesn't already believe. Your 150 factors
that allow for life on Earth, even when viewed improperly, as you have
done, are just as compelling for a *lack* of intelligent design, when one
considers the vastness of the Universe. Much of what you and your fellow
creationists and IDists believe and tout is wrong, misrepresented, or
misinterpreted.
To summarize this already overly-long missive, I, as a reader, found your
opening statement flawed and even misapplied to the subject of the debate.
If it is "resolved" that a belief in God is "reasonable," you haven't
shown it by any stretch. Claims and more claims from one who can only
presume to represent himself as an "expert" are not going to be
convincing. Using arguments that are already flawed or known to be false
will likewise prove unconvincing. Your best hope is that Doug is merciful
with you, but that might be a vain hope. You make much of the viewership
of the debates as they appear--the numbers impress you. I suggest that
it's not so much that you and your debates are widely popular or that your
arguments are compelling and reasonable. I think it can be explained by a
simple, human concept, that is, that it's actually enjoyable to see one of
your arrogance and ignorance get his come-uppance. However, if you are
merely an object of entertainment for the rest of us as you search for
your 15 minutes of fame, I guess that's not so bad.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? |
29 Mar 2005 07:38:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:25:57 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug Krueger. It's
being hosted at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (IIDB). See here:
http://iidebate5.jcsm.org
I read it. No new ground at all. Boring and tedious. Can you spell
BEG THE QUESTION? The ones you obviously can't answer without using a
lot of confusing word soup.
I'm not an atheist professor but if I was him right now I'd be
laughing so hard I'd ***** myself.
"I’ve found reasonable and accurate answers to every alleged error
in the Bible."
ROTFLMFAO!
Bats are birds. Rabbits chew cud. Great flood.....etc...
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
