Is faith in God reasonable?

Religions > Atheism > Is faith in God reasonable?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Jason Gastrich"
Date:	29 Mar 2005 08:25:57 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: "bibleverse"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	29 Mar 2005 08:49:09 PM

"...that which may be known of God is manifest in
them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
(Romans 1:19-20)
.

User: "Jim07D5"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	29 Mar 2005 09:12:54 PM

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> said:

It's called a formal debate. Have judges been appointed?
Jim07D5
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 01:14:31 AM

Jim07D5 wrote:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> said:

It's called a formal debate. Have judges been appointed?
Jim07D5

I think just the format was intended to be formal.
Jason apparently does not know what this means and is following the "debate"
format of the politician.
If he decided to be a missionary in deepest darkest Africa, he would
probably assume everybody spoke and read English.
(Unlike the family I know who went to Africa as missionaries and spent well
over a year learning... French.)
.

User: "David Vestal"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 12:44:16 AM

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:pRi2e.470$e06.419@twister.socal.rr.com:

And here's my analysis of his opening statement, originally posted to the
IIDB here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2284078#post2284078
Quoting:
Jason has devoted his opening statement to these five "arguments".
THE INERRANT BIBLE
In this section, Jason asserts that the Bible is inerrant because he has
published a book rebutting another book (the SAB) that provides a large
list of errors in the bible.
Thus, Jason's argument depends on these premises:
1) That the SAB contains a comprehensive list of the Bible's errors.
2) That Jason's reconciliation of EVERY ONE these errors is accurate.
Premise 1 is certainly false. For instance, the SAB says very little on
the subject of textual criticism. It doesn't at all address the issues
that arise from the rampant copying evident between the three synoptics.
It says nothing about passages that are commonly viewed as later
interpolations, such as the Markan appendix or 1 John 5:7. It says
nothing about the discrepancies between the two renditions of the Lord's
prayer, which almost certainly refer to the same occasion. Clearly, the
SAB is not a comprehensive list of biblical errors, and thus the bible
can't be proved inerrant by comprehensively refuting it.
Premise 2 is also false. http://www.gastrich.org/ hilariously details
several of the gaffes Gastrich made in the writing of his book. In one
case, Gastrich multiplies 700 and 100 to arrive at a product of 7000. In
another, Gastrich misreads Strong's Concordance so badly that he
translates a word as the conjunction of two definitions of the word's
lexicological root! In general, it is clear that Jason's approach is to
investigate an alleged error until some a situation can be found by
which, no matter the implausibility, the issue can be construed as not
being an error. This is not a search for facts, but a search for escapes.
MY [Jason's] LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
Debate after debate, Jason still hasn't learned that his story isn't
proof, or even evidence, of anything. This entire section is nothing more
than his "testimony." He does not address why we should believe his
testimony, rather than the testimony of a Jehovah's Witness, a Moonie, a
Mormon, a Scientologist, a Hindu, a Muslim, or any of a hundred other
religions. He does not address what sets his stories of miracles apart
from other miraculous stories, such as those of Moroni, Medjugorje, or
Mary-On-A-Grilled-Cheese-Sandwich. Thus, his story evidences nothing.
MIRACLES AND THE EFFECTS OF PRAYER
This section is mostly an extension of the last. In it, Jason regales us
with unverifiable stories of "miraculous" healings he's done or
experienced. With several debates under his belt, one would think that
Jason would have discovered by now that mere stories of miracles prove
nothing; calling them a dime a dozen vastly overvalues them. The trouble
is, they're so common that almost every religion has them. To put it in
biblical terms, seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud
of liars, why ought Jason's stories be given special credence? Jason does
not tell us why.
The only other item in this section is Jason's assertion that prayer is
correlated with physical and mental health. So are relaxation and
meditation techniques, which produce similar physiological and
psychological states; Jason does not say why prayer, and not relaxation
or meditation, should be construed as evidence for god, while quite
similar actions should be viewed as purely natural.
FULFILLED BIBLICAL PROPHECIES
Jason moves on to flogging a few prophecies. He mentions the "suffering
servant" passages of Isaiah 53 just long enough to give us a (nonworking
for me) link to his website's discussion of it. The suffering servant has
many refutations, but if it's going to be asserted as Messianic, perhaps
Jason should spend a little time describing why it SHOULD be read as
Messianic (there's no evidence that it should), and why he can be
confident that the gospel writers didn't make up stories about Jesus to
fit his life to Isaiah. Sadly, he does neither.
A few paragraphs of irrelevant sermonizing later, Jason again points us
to his website, where he claims we'll find a list of 60 fulfilled
Messianic prophecies. Unfortunately, this link also doesn't work for me;
perhaps his website is down. However, I've encountered such seemingly-
impressive lists of Messianic prophecies before, and had no trouble
ripping it to shreds (see http://tinyurl.com/yv4fu). Since Jason doesn't
waste any space actually discussing the prophecies, we can't say whether
he has a better list than the one I ran across.
Next, he trots out the old standby, Daniel 9. Amazingly, he puts forth as
evidence his assertion that Farrell Till thinks the prophecy is off by
"only" three days! I don't know whether that's what Till thinks or not. I
do know that I could never do this prophecy the justice that Jim Lippard
does here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...prophecies.html
Note also at the bottom Lippard's comments on rebuttals he received from
Steve Hinrichs and Stephen E. Jones.
Lastly in this section, Jason asserts, as though it were evidentiary,
that if you artfully intersperse connecting words between the translated
meanings of the Hebrew names of the first five men in the genealogy of
Abraham, you get the gospel message.
From HITCHCOCK'S BIBLE NAMES DICTIONARY (which I found at
http://www.ccel.org/bible_names/title.html), I looked up these names, and
found these translations:
Adam: earthy; red
Seth: put; who puts; fixed
Enosh (Enos in Hitchcock's): mortal man; sick; despaired of; forgetful
Kenan: buyer; owner
Mahalalel (Mahalaleel in Hitchcock's): praising God
Jared: a ruling; commanding; coming down
Enoch: dedicated; disciplined
Methuselah: he has sent his death
Lamech: poor; made low
Noah: repose; consolation
Jason diligently plays with these until he comes to this aggregate: "Man
(is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the blessed God shall come down
teaching (that) his death shall bring (the) despairing rest."
There are times when my stupefaction exceeds by ability to express it.
This argument has brought me to one of those times.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
ID, an untestable, valueless conjecture that a mysterious something
guided the development of life, is the last of Jason's five great pillars
of argument.
He begins by falsely calling a few creationist websites "peer-reviewed"
and "scientific." They are neither, except in the sense that articles
written by creationists may then be reviewed by creationists. They are
certainly not peer-reviewed as the term applies to mainstream science,
and Jason is certainly aware of this.
Segueing clumsily into the Argument from Design, Jason recites a laundry
list of factors without which life couldn't happen. He does not provide
support for his assertion that life couldn't happen without these
factors, and he doesn't address other rebuttals to this argument, such as
the multiverse theory or the (quite rational) assertion that rather than
the universe being tuned to our type of life, our type of life is tuned
to the universe.
Jumping off of the Anthropic Principle and onto Irreducible Complexity,
Jason asks us how well 10% of an eye would work. He is apparently unaware
that a (truly) peer-reviewed paper written more than a decade ago by
Nilsson/Pelger tells us that the answer is "better than 9%, and not as
good as 11%." Unfortunately for Jason, this is exactly the sort of answer
that evolution predicts, and exactly the sort of answer that IC cannot
have.
Jason asks where the "stuff" for the Big Bang came from, and apparently
thinks he has scored a point when he tells us that "the bible answers
this question for us."
Astoundingly, Jason turns on a dime; a few paragraphs ago he glowingly
described creationist websites as "scientific," and now he decries that
scientific education is mere lies and indoctrination, and that atheistic
scientists were inevitably indoctrinated!
Nimbly spinning yet again on the same dime, Jason THEN asserts that "the
majority of scientists" somehow avoided this crushing indoctrination, and
have "discovered" that "faith in god is reasonable!"
In situations like these, a mere exclamation point seems so inadequate.
CONCLUSION
Jason concludes (mercifully) by asking Doug why more than 45% of Earth's
population is Christian. At least, that's what I suppose he meant by "the
majority of the world is over 90% Christian." It isn't, of course; by the
last count I saw, the world is approximately 33% Christian, and that 33%
is divided into thousands of groups, each of which think the rest are
quite wrong, and mostly unchristian. In fact, a great many of them
wouldn't agree with Jason's gospel affirmation, which is apparently the
criterion by which Jason will or won't call someone a Christian. This is
the incredible expando-constricto-tent of Christianity: astoundingly vast
when the situation calls for impressively large numbers, and astoundingly
tiny when the TRUE Christians need to be delineated from the mere
pretenders.
Jason then asks "the important questions of life" (why are we here? et.
al.), apparently thinking that because the Bible has an opinion on the
subject (several different ones, in fact), that God is thereby evidenced.
.

User: "NUNIA"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 02:08:30 AM

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pRi2e.470$e06.419@twister.socal.rr.com...

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

--

your gonna get creamed fool.
.

User: "Kenny Leong"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	03 Apr 2005 10:17:12 PM

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pRi2e.470$e06.419@twister.socal.rr.com>...

Jason...let me save you a lot of time by explaining to you how the
christian beliefs rips itself apart.
First...you should already know that you've been taught that your god
is all-knowing. You've also been taught that your god is a perfect
planner and perfect designer.
So....before god's product (the universe) was created...the universe
did not yet exist. This is completely obvious. Now....when the
universe was not yet in existence, your god was actually hanging
around by him/her/itself.
If nothing but god was around, and then god decided to choose to make
'something'....then it should be obvious to you that your god would
know every single future 'mechanical' action and movement of god's
future product. Why would god know every single future mechanical
action/movement of the product? It's because god is supposed to be
all-knowing, and god was the only one around that could have chosen
'those' mechanical actions by 'perfect planning and perfect design'.
The product wasn't even around to make any decisions....because it
wasn't even in existence. Thus the future actions of the product are
actually god's own 'actions'. The product would be nothing more than
an extension of god....since an all-knowing, perfect planning and
perfect designing god can NEVER make a product that would behave
differently than what god had perfectly planned in terms of mechanical
actions/movement....in advance of the product's creation. I'm sure you
understand this much so far.
Now...since every mechanical action/movement in god's product
(ie...the universe containing people, devil, etc etc) was already
chosen by god in advance of the product's creation, then NONE of god's
products can have free-will (call this Condition A).
But christians believe that people have free will (call this Condition
B). Condition B clashes with Condition A....and this actually shows
that the christian belief is fatally flawed.... ie the fatal flaw is
the belief that the following two conditions can co-exist.....the
first condition being that god is supposed to be all-knowing, perfect
planning and perfect designing.....the second condition is the belief
that people have free will. But unfortunately...an all-knowing,
perfect planning/designing entity (ie your 'god') knows every single
future mechanical action for the product before the product is
created. And the reason for knowing those future mechanical actions is
because the creator chose those future mechanical actions.....because
the product was not even there to have those 'known' future mechanical
actions determined. So the only THING that could have determined the
future mechanical actions in god's product was god
him/her/itself.......because as I already said....the product was not
part of the planning process (because it wasn't even around when god
was writing the script, and doing the choreography, and
directing/filming/producing the 'movie').
So....if you understand the fatal flaw in your christian belief, then
you should know that an all-knowing, perfect planning, and perfect
designing god can't make a product with free-will...since all the
mechanical actions have already been chosen in advance by god. And
such an entity (ie god) could never be upset or angry or sad about the
behaviour of the product...because all the mechanical actions were
known to god in advance of the product's creation (because god chose
those actions). In such such a universe created by an all-knowing,
perfect planning and perfect designing god, there is no 'right' and
'wrong', 'good', 'bad', and 'evil' etc....since the product's actions
are perfectly executed. And if such a 'god' decided to create anything
physically.....then god's observation of the product would be nothing
more than to watch a movie re-run....where the movie was
script-written, directed, filmed, and produced by god in advance. Thus
you can see that words like 'punishment', 'judgement day', 'sin' etc
all become irrelevant in such a world created by an all-knowing,
perfect planner/designer. Nothing the product does in terms of
mechanical actions would 'surprise' or 'upset' such a creator.
But if you believe that the product 'could' upset the creator...then
you're obviously thinking of a creator that has something
lacking.....such as lacking knowledge of some degree. But
unfortunately....this clashes with your belief that your god is
all-knowing.
Kenny
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	04 Apr 2005 12:27:02 AM

In alt.atheism on 3 Apr 2005 15:17:12 -0700,

(Kenny Leong) let us all know that:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pRi2e.470$e06.419@twister.socal.rr.com>...

Jason...let me save you a lot of time by explaining to you how the
christian beliefs rips itself apart.

Allow me to answer as Jason:
Kenny, just visit my website "Skeptics Annotated Bible: In No
Need of Correction" or buy my book, which reads like a *****-and-Jane
reader and is a hackneyed load of *****.
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: "Kenny Leong"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	04 Apr 2005 04:51:40 AM

Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message news:<1c2151lquu87inr7oj8fljghu1thapggjh@4ax.com>...

In alt.atheism on 3 Apr 2005 15:17:12 -0700,

(Kenny Leong) let us all know that:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pRi2e.470$e06.419@twister.socal.rr.com>...

Jason...let me save you a lot of time by explaining to you how the
christian beliefs rips itself apart.

Thanks for answering on Jason't behalf Don. I have to pay to torture
myself?!! What's happening to the world these days!
Kenny
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	04 Apr 2005 01:47:17 AM

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on 3 Apr 2005 15:17:12 -0700,

(Kenny Leong) let us all know that:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pRi2e.470$e06.419@twister.socal.rr.com>...

I owe somebody a nickel. I bet the answer to Jason's first post would be up
within a couple of days and it's been far longer.
I will pay the bet but next time the clock starts ONLY when Doug stops
laughing every time he tries to respond.
And giggling. Giggling counts.
.

User: "Kenny Leong"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	04 Apr 2005 04:54:44 AM

"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<F014e.1204$qD2.46@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on 3 Apr 2005 15:17:12 -0700,

(Kenny Leong) let us all know that:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pRi2e.470$e06.419@twister.socal.rr.com>...

I owe somebody a nickel. I bet the answer to Jason's first post would be up
within a couple of days and it's been far longer.

I will pay the bet but next time the clock starts ONLY when Doug stops
laughing every time he tries to respond.

And giggling. Giggling counts.

Oh geez...sorry about that Mike. Didn't know you had a nickel on the line.
Kenny
.

User: "Carol Lee Smith"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	09 Apr 2005 07:16:53 AM

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Don Kresch wrote:

Jason...let me save you a lot of time by explaining to you how the
christian beliefs rips itself apart.

I don't doubt that.
Don, you post with an altered, spam-proof eddress.
Please e-mail me.
Thanks.
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	29 Mar 2005 09:51:31 PM

In alt.atheism on Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:25:57 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
The answer is emphatically no. Don't use the debate to plug
your books, cds, or website.
Don
.

User: "Just Mark"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	29 Mar 2005 10:13:29 PM

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:25:57 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

The answer is emphatically no. Don't use the debate to plug
your books, cds, or website.

Don

I missed the question, Don. To what are you replying?
Just Mark
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	29 Mar 2005 11:36:15 PM

In alt.atheism on 29 Mar 2005 14:13:29 -0800, "Just Mark"
<neverassumeyouknow@yahoo.com> let us all know that:

Don Kresch wrote:

In alt.atheism on Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:25:57 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

The answer is emphatically no. Don't use the debate to plug
your books, cds, or website.

Don

I missed the question, Don. To what are you replying?

It doesn't matter. Nothing that Gastrich posts is of any merit.
All he does is troll and schill for his website, cds, and books.
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: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 12:59:16 PM

In our last episode <pRi2e.470$e06.419@twister.socal.rr.com>, Jason
Gastrich pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

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

Trying to increase your little website's traffic? How about a link to the
actual IIDB site where the "debate" actually resides? Like this:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=118609
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.

User: "Ultra Maroon"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 06:55:38 AM

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger.
Ssssaaayyyy, Gasbag, didja happen to notice there was already a thread
in the group about that? We knew yesterday. Given your opening
statement, I'd ask "where were you?"

It's being hosted at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (IIDB).
See here:

snipperoo ol' Gasbag's redirect.
Here's the actual link, without having to go through Gassy's page so he
can hike his hit count:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth=ADread.php?t=3D118609
Funny stuff, too! Ol' Gassy spent two weeks putting it together, and
it reads like it was done in an afternoon. No wonder he sez it weren't
difficult. It's his same old arguments.
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 07:58:45 AM

Ultra Maroon wrote:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug
Krueger.

Ssssaaayyyy, Gasbag, didja happen to notice there was already a thread
in the group about that? We knew yesterday. Given your opening
statement, I'd ask "where were you?"

It's being hosted at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (IIDB).
See here:

snipperoo ol' Gasbag's redirect.

Here's the actual link, without having to go through Gassy's page so
he can hike his hit count:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showth�read.php?t=118609

Funny stuff, too! Ol' Gassy spent two weeks putting it together, and
it reads like it was done in an afternoon. No wonder he sez it
weren't difficult. It's his same old arguments.

I started the thread and Jason is pretending I've been plonked.
It takes a bit of luck on my part to get him to respond and show that he
does in fact read everything I post.
Among other things I have to leave off the question where I ask if he has
learned anything since the first time he pretended to kill file me.
He has answered it indirectly. I read his opening comments in his "debate".
"In the pursuit of the truth, you're supposed to address the other guys'
arguments and evidence. When people don't even mention that evidence and
those arguments, and then just claim that the hypothesis has been disproven,
that tells you something about the weakness of their position."
-Richard Elliott Friedman
Jason will not do this. He does not have the education or training to do
anything but post his sermons.

.

User: "Just Mark"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	29 Mar 2005 09:04:02 PM

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger.
You've started your _what_? I read your opening statement, Jason. You
obviously have no working definition of "debate".
But then, you've called yourself a "counselor" (and you're not
one...which may be a felony in your state); you've called yourself
"Doctor" (and you're not one...and won't be one even *with* the
unaccredited diploma-mill degree); so it shouldn't surprise me that you
think you're a debator, too.
Cheers to Doug for putting up with your pedantic nonsense.
JM
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 03:11:38 AM

"Just Mark" <neverassumeyouknow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112130242.592010.136870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger.

You've started your _what_? I read your opening statement, Jason. You
obviously have no working definition of "debate".

But then, you've called yourself a "counselor" (and you're not
one...which may be a felony in your state); you've called yourself
"Doctor" (and you're not one...and won't be one even *with* the
unaccredited diploma-mill degree); so it shouldn't surprise me that you
think you're a debator, too.

Cheers to Doug for putting up with your pedantic nonsense.

JM

How long does Doug have before he posts his response?
I can't wait to see him rip Jason to shreds. It won't take
much effort. Jason's challenge was truly pathetic.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible thumper thumper
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.

User: "Grinder"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 04:12:33 AM

Michelle Malkin wrote:

"Just Mark" <neverassumeyouknow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112130242.592010.136870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger.

You've started your _what_? I read your opening statement, Jason. You
obviously have no working definition of "debate".

But then, you've called yourself a "counselor" (and you're not
one...which may be a felony in your state); you've called yourself
"Doctor" (and you're not one...and won't be one even *with* the
unaccredited diploma-mill degree); so it shouldn't surprise me that you
think you're a debator, too.

Cheers to Doug for putting up with your pedantic nonsense.

JM

How long does Doug have before he posts his response?
I can't wait to see him rip Jason to shreds. It won't take
much effort. Jason's challenge was truly pathetic.

Three weeks per debator per round.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	29 Mar 2005 09:21:37 PM

In our last episode
<1112130242.592010.136870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Just Mark
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger.

You've started your _what_? I read your opening statement, Jason. You
obviously have no working definition of "debate".

But then, you've called yourself a "counselor" (and you're not one...which
may be a felony in your state); you've called yourself "Doctor" (and
you're not one...and won't be one even *with* the unaccredited
diploma-mill degree); so it shouldn't surprise me that you think you're a
debator, too.

Cheers to Doug for putting up with your pedantic nonsense.

I'm curious what the hell Doug can do with the gibberish Gasbag posted.
The screed often doesn't even parse...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.

User: "Secular Fundamentalist"
Title: Re: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	29 Mar 2005 09:57:46 PM

I was working in the lab, late one night
when my eyes beheld an eerie sight.
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> from the slab began to
rise
and suddenly, to my surprise, wrote:

In our last episode
<1112130242.592010.136870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Just Mark
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger.

You've started your _what_? I read your opening statement, Jason. You
obviously have no working definition of "debate".

But then, you've called yourself a "counselor" (and you're not one...which
may be a felony in your state); you've called yourself "Doctor" (and
you're not one...and won't be one even *with* the unaccredited
diploma-mill degree); so it shouldn't surprise me that you think you're a
debator, too.

Cheers to Doug for putting up with your pedantic nonsense.

I'm curious what the hell Doug can do with the gibberish Gasbag posted.
The screed often doesn't even parse...

"After finding answers to all of the alleged Bible errors, I�ve
concluded that every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. Therefore,
we can conclude that the unverifiable claims are true as well. This is
a reasonable measure of faith."
Come on, that makes perfect sense. it means: "I'm a lying, devious
twister, and nobody is going to stop me spouting non-sequiturs 'til
the cows come home".
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 12:08:21 AM

In our last episode <2jjj41psfm99f9q69qudssouqeakgucmjn@4ax.com>, Secular
Fundamentalist pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

I was working in the lab, late one night when my eyes beheld an eerie
sight.
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> from the slab began to rise
and suddenly, to my surprise, wrote:

In our last episode
<1112130242.592010.136870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Just Mark
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger.

You've started your _what_? I read your opening statement, Jason. You
obviously have no working definition of "debate".

But then, you've called yourself a "counselor" (and you're not
one...which may be a felony in your state); you've called yourself
"Doctor" (and you're not one...and won't be one even *with* the
unaccredited diploma-mill degree); so it shouldn't surprise me that you
think you're a debator, too.

Cheers to Doug for putting up with your pedantic nonsense.

I'm curious what the hell Doug can do with the gibberish Gasbag posted.
The screed often doesn't even parse...

"After finding answers to all of the alleged Bible errors, I�ve concluded
that every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. Therefore, we can
conclude that the unverifiable claims are true as well. This is a
reasonable measure of faith."

Come on, that makes perfect sense. it means: "I'm a lying, devious
twister, and nobody is going to stop me spouting non-sequiturs 'til the
cows come home".

You're gettin' a little too good at translating Gastricheese.
Be afraid, be very afraid...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.

User: "Secular Fundamentalist"
Title: Re: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	29 Mar 2005 09:48:56 PM

I was working in the lab, late one night
when my eyes beheld an eerie sight.
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> from the slab began to
rise
and suddenly, to my surprise, wrote:

In our last episode
<1112130242.592010.136870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Just Mark
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger.

You've started your _what_? I read your opening statement, Jason. You
obviously have no working definition of "debate".

But then, you've called yourself a "counselor" (and you're not one...which
may be a felony in your state); you've called yourself "Doctor" (and
you're not one...and won't be one even *with* the unaccredited
diploma-mill degree); so it shouldn't surprise me that you think you're a
debator, too.

Cheers to Doug for putting up with your pedantic nonsense.

I'm curious what the hell Doug can do with the gibberish Gasbag posted.
The screed often doesn't even parse...

OK, let me attempt to parse the following phrase:
"Obviously, the scriptures wouldn�t be �profitable� if there were
errors in them."
What I think he is trying to imply is that it wouldn't be in the
interests of the authors of the bible if they made errors while
writing it.
Being extremely charitable, we can assume that he means that nobody
who set out to make people believe something would have anything to
gain from being inconsistent or inaccurate, either intentionally or
otherwise.
The assumption behind this is that religious people only ever act with
the best of intentions and will always, to the best of their ability,
try to be accurate. Don't laugh, I'm just trying to make sense of what
Jason is saying.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 02:59:28 AM

In our last episode <mpij41pbvfc4375e2u5f6skeocuet6j63g@4ax.com>, Secular
Fundamentalist pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

I was working in the lab, late one night when my eyes beheld an eerie
sight.
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> from the slab began to rise
and suddenly, to my surprise, wrote:

In our last episode
<1112130242.592010.136870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Just Mark
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger.

You've started your _what_? I read your opening statement, Jason. You
obviously have no working definition of "debate".

But then, you've called yourself a "counselor" (and you're not
one...which may be a felony in your state); you've called yourself
"Doctor" (and you're not one...and won't be one even *with* the
unaccredited diploma-mill degree); so it shouldn't surprise me that you
think you're a debator, too.

Cheers to Doug for putting up with your pedantic nonsense.

I'm curious what the hell Doug can do with the gibberish Gasbag posted.
The screed often doesn't even parse...

I thought it had something to do with selling his "book."

Being extremely charitable, we can assume that he means that nobody who
set out to make people believe something would have anything to gain from
being inconsistent or inaccurate, either intentionally or otherwise.

Ignoring, of course, that our Western journalistic mindset is a very
recent thing and in the ancient world they didn't really care as
"inerrant" wasn't the point.

The assumption behind this is that religious people only ever act with
the best of intentions and will always, to the best of their ability,
try to be accurate. Don't laugh, I'm just trying to make sense of what
Jason is saying.

You're gonna pull something doing that...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.

User: "Just Mark"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	29 Mar 2005 09:31:34 PM

Mark K. Bilbo wrote:

In our last episode
<1112130242.592010.136870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, Just Mark
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger.

You've started your _what_? I read your opening statement, Jason.

You

obviously have no working definition of "debate".

But then, you've called yourself a "counselor" (and you're not

one...which

may be a felony in your state); you've called yourself "Doctor"

(and

you're not one...and won't be one even *with* the unaccredited
diploma-mill degree); so it shouldn't surprise me that you think

you're a

debator, too.

Cheers to Doug for putting up with your pedantic nonsense.

I'm curious what the hell Doug can do with the gibberish Gasbag

posted.

The screed often doesn't even parse...

Great point. That'll be the interesting part.
JM
.

User: "Harvest Dancer"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable?	30 Mar 2005 04:22:17 AM

Jason Gastrich 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

You mean http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=118609
That way we can go to the debate without a click-through at JCSM.
Jason Harvestdancer
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? -- FALSEHOOD OF CREATIONISM	29 Mar 2005 11:22:35 PM

Jason Gastrich wrote:

===>As I can tell, your argument fails the very first test:
it does not define the subject.
WHAT IS "GOD"?
After that major failure, you go on to claim that your can prove
"God", whatever it happens to mean, by
"five main parts. These include:
1. The Inerrant Bible
2. My Long-term Relationship with God
3. Miracles and the Effects of Prayer
4. Fulfilled Biblical Prophecies
5. Intelligent Design
===>1. You back up your claim of "inerrant" with that abused cliche
from 1 Timothy that, literally, all writings are breathed by "theos".
The problem with that is threefold:
(A) the word "theos" is undefined,
(B) the word "writings" is undefined, and
(C) the identity of the writer is uncertain, but most likely FAKE.
Aside from those clear and immediately obvious FACTS, there
is the basic fact that in no stretch of the imagination could the
author of that statement have referred to the BIBLE, since there was
as yet no such thing, and furthermore there is the general character
of the works compiled in the Bible by Church leaders hundreds of years
later, i.e. that each piece is the personal, private, usally independent*
ideas, opinions, speculations and fantasies of the author of that
"book".
(*disregarding obvious quotes, references and copying of portions
of a book by another writer).
Therefore, in no way can 1 Timothy 3:16-17 be used in support
of anything.
As for further illustrations of "errancy", let me just remind you of a few
items:
(1) In the very appearence of the god YHWH, Genesis and Exodus
contradict one another, the former repeatedly referring to YHWH
and having YHWH introduce himself by that name, while the latter
book has YHWH declare to "Moses" that until that moment no one
knew him by that name.
(2) In the first Gospel, you have a collection of errors:
- non-existing "virgin birth prophecy" attributed to Isaiah
- non-existing "star" standing still over a house
- never-recorded infanticide by King Herod, connected with
an unrelated passage from Jeremiah
- escape to Egypt by Joseph & family, contradicted by LUKE,
connected with an unrelated verse from Hosea
- Jesus sitting on two asses, based on a misreading of Zeachariah
- references to non-existent "prophecies"
THUS, your main argument FAILS!
NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.
As for the others,
(2) reminds me of Harvey the Rabbit from the move by that title
about Elwood P. Dowd "a friendly, likeable drunk who has a
best friend named Harvey, a six foot three and a half inch invisible
white rabbit." You have no more evidence of your "Long-term Relationship"
than Elwood has of his.
(SEE: http://www.tigersweat.com/movies/harvey/)
NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.
3. "Miracles" and "effects of prayer" are well contradicted
by a LACK of any "miracles" when one would be really
needed (e.g. TSUNAMI), and the LACK of effects of prayer
whenever a prayer remains "unanswered".
NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.
4. There is not a simgle "prophecy" that you can prove to
have been "fulfilled".
And your picking out Isaiah 53, which, as you claim,
"gives specific details about the crucifixion of Christ"
is the best proof of the bankruptcy of your argument
There is NOTHING in Isaiah 53, a lament about events that
had happened to a "servant" some hundreds of years before Jesus,
that has ANYTHING to do with Jesus,
As for your reference to "DANIEL", aside from the FACT that
it is well known to be just a restrospective work of an author
who wrote about some historical events AFTER THE FACT,
presenting them AS IF they had been foretold by the mythincal
"Daniel", you even MISQUOTE IT, when you claim that
"he predicted the exact day that Jesus Christ would ride into Jerusalem
on a donkey and let people worship Him as Messiah the Prince (or King)".
There's no such "prediction", not even such a suggestion anywhere in
"DANIEL".
NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.
And, finally, your #5, "Intelligent Design", which is
a self-contradictory argument of creationists trying to
destroy science and scientific inquiry by postulating a
non-designed, always-existing extra-cosmic super-natural
"intelligence" to explain everything that naturally exists.
You falsely claim the existence of "peer-reviewed" science
to prove the reality of the ancient creation fable of Genesis!
You refer to "Answers in Genesis", which is presented as
"a Christian apologetics ministry that equips the church to
uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse."
Thus, you promote the American Taliban conspiracy aimed at
destroying scientific knowledge and replacing it with ancient
Hebrew fables.
("We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.")
The Christian-creationist argument goes like this:
"[since] the court indicated that only and any-theories on origins
based on established facts could be made mandatory, or supplementary,
in the teaching curriculum" [therefore] The emphasis on established facts
for origins teaching gives Christians an unprecedented opportunity to teach
publicly information leading to the conclusion that there must be a Creator
and that the Creator must be the God of the Bible."
What a phony, twisted, dishonest jump, to conclude that some claimed,
yet non-existent "established facts for origins" actually
"gives Christians an unprecedented opportunity
to teach publicly information leading to the conclusion that
there must be a Creator and that the Creator must be the God of the Bible."
Most believing Christians will honestly admit, as the Bible itself states,
that their beliefs are based on "FAITH", not on any "established facts".
"The conclusion that there must be a Creator" is not based on ANY
"established fact"! And to boot, even if some extraterrestrial intelligence
is invoked to explain life on Earth and terrestrial evolution, in what way
would that justify the assertion that
"the Creator must be the God of the Bible"???
(Ref.: Supreme Court Rules on Teaching Creationism
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. ) -- L.

--

--------

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: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? --	31 Mar 2005 05:49:33 PM

REPOST OF EARLIER COMMENTS
Libertarius wrote:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

===>As I can tell, your argument fails the very first test:
it does not define the subject.
WHAT IS "GOD"?

After that major failure, you go on to claim that your can prove
"God", whatever it happens to mean, by
"five main parts. These include:

1. The Inerrant Bible
2. My Long-term Relationship with God
3. Miracles and the Effects of Prayer
4. Fulfilled Biblical Prophecies
5. Intelligent Design

===>1. You back up your claim of "inerrant" with that abused cliche
from 1 Timothy that, literally, all writings are breathed by "theos".
The problem with that is threefold:
(A) the word "theos" is undefined,
(B) the word "writings" is undefined, and
(C) the identity of the writer is uncertain, but most likely FAKE.

Aside from those clear and immediately obvious FACTS, there
is the basic fact that in no stretch of the imagination could the
author of that statement have referred to the BIBLE, since there was
as yet no such thing, and furthermore there is the general character
of the works compiled in the Bible by Church leaders hundreds of years
later, i.e. that each piece is the personal, private, usally independent*
ideas, opinions, speculations and fantasies of the author of that
"book".
(*disregarding obvious quotes, references and copying of portions
of a book by another writer).

Therefore, in no way can 1 Timothy 3:16-17 be used in support
of anything.

As for further illustrations of "errancy", let me just remind you of a few
items:

(1) In the very appearence of the god YHWH, Genesis and Exodus
contradict one another, the former repeatedly referring to YHWH
and having YHWH introduce himself by that name, while the latter
book has YHWH declare to "Moses" that until that moment no one
knew him by that name.

(2) In the first Gospel, you have a collection of errors:
- non-existing "virgin birth prophecy" attributed to Isaiah
- non-existing "star" standing still over a house
- never-recorded infanticide by King Herod, connected with
an unrelated passage from Jeremiah
- escape to Egypt by Joseph & family, contradicted by LUKE,
connected with an unrelated verse from Hosea
- Jesus sitting on two asses, based on a misreading of Zeachariah
- references to non-existent "prophecies"

THUS, your main argument FAILS!
NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

As for the others,
(2) reminds me of Harvey the Rabbit from the move by that title
about Elwood P. Dowd "a friendly, likeable drunk who has a
best friend named Harvey, a six foot three and a half inch invisible
white rabbit." You have no more evidence of your "Long-term Relationship"
than Elwood has of his.
(SEE: http://www.tigersweat.com/movies/harvey/)

NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

3. "Miracles" and "effects of prayer" are well contradicted
by a LACK of any "miracles" when one would be really
needed (e.g. TSUNAMI), and the LACK of effects of prayer
whenever a prayer remains "unanswered".

NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

4. There is not a simgle "prophecy" that you can prove to
have been "fulfilled".
And your picking out Isaiah 53, which, as you claim,
"gives specific details about the crucifixion of Christ"
is the best proof of the bankruptcy of your argument
There is NOTHING in Isaiah 53, a lament about events that
had happened to a "servant" some hundreds of years before Jesus,
that has ANYTHING to do with Jesus,

As for your reference to "DANIEL", aside from the FACT that
it is well known to be just a restrospective work of an author
who wrote about some historical events AFTER THE FACT,
presenting them AS IF they had been foretold by the mythincal
"Daniel", you even MISQUOTE IT, when you claim that
"he predicted the exact day that Jesus Christ would ride into Jerusalem
on a donkey and let people worship Him as Messiah the Prince (or King)".
There's no such "prediction", not even such a suggestion anywhere in
"DANIEL".

NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

And, finally, your #5, "Intelligent Design", which is
a self-contradictory argument of creationists trying to
destroy science and scientific inquiry by postulating a
non-designed, always-existing extra-cosmic super-natural
"intelligence" to explain everything that naturally exists.

You falsely claim the existence of "peer-reviewed" science
to prove the reality of the ancient creation fable of Genesis!
You refer to "Answers in Genesis", which is presented as
"a Christian apologetics ministry that equips the church to
uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse."

Thus, you promote the American Taliban conspiracy aimed at
destroying scientific knowledge and replacing it with ancient
Hebrew fables.
("We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.")
The Christian-creationist argument goes like this:
"[since] the court indicated that only and any-theories on origins
based on established facts could be made mandatory, or supplementary,
in the teaching curriculum" [therefore] The emphasis on established facts
for origins teaching gives Christians an unprecedented opportunity to teach
publicly information leading to the conclusion that there must be a Creator
and that the Creator must be the God of the Bible."

What a phony, twisted, dishonest jump, to conclude that some claimed,
yet non-existent "established facts for origins" actually
"gives Christians an unprecedented opportunity
to teach publicly information leading to the conclusion that
there must be a Creator and that the Creator must be the God of the Bible."
Most believing Christians will honestly admit, as the Bible itself states,
that their beliefs are based on "FAITH", not on any "established facts".
"The conclusion that there must be a Creator" is not based on ANY
"established fact"! And to boot, even if some extraterrestrial intelligence
is invoked to explain life on Earth and terrestrial evolution, in what way
would that justify the assertion that
"the Creator must be the God of the Bible"???
(Ref.: Supreme Court Rules on Teaching Creationism
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. ) -- L.

User: "David D. aa#2219 thanks to Gastrich"
Title: Re: Is faith in God reasonable? --	31 Mar 2005 06:13:15 PM

Libertarius wrote:

REPOST OF EARLIER COMMENTS

Libertarius wrote:

Jason Gastrich 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

Enjoy and God bless,
Jason Gastrich

"theos".

The problem with that is threefold:
(A) the word "theos" is undefined,
(B) the word "writings" is undefined, and
(C) the identity of the writer is uncertain, but most likely FAKE.

Aside from those clear and immediately obvious FACTS, there
is the basic fact that in no stretch of the imagination could the
author of that statement have referred to the BIBLE, since there

was

as yet no such thing, and furthermore there is the general

character

of the works compiled in the Bible by Church leaders hundreds of

years

later, i.e. that each piece is the personal, private, usally

independent*

ideas, opinions, speculations and fantasies of the author of that
"book".
(*disregarding obvious quotes, references and copying of portions
of a book by another writer).

Therefore, in no way can 1 Timothy 3:16-17 be used in support
of anything.

As for further illustrations of "errancy", let me just remind you

of a few

items:

(1) In the very appearence of the god YHWH, Genesis and Exodus
contradict one another, the former repeatedly referring to YHWH
and having YHWH introduce himself by that name, while the latter
book has YHWH declare to "Moses" that until that moment no one
knew him by that name.

(2) In the first Gospel, you have a collection of errors:
- non-existing "virgin birth prophecy" attributed to Isaiah
- non-existing "star" standing still over a house
- never-recorded infanticide by King Herod, connected with
an unrelated passage from Jeremiah
- escape to Egypt by Joseph & family, contradicted by LUKE,
connected with an unrelated verse from Hosea
- Jesus sitting on two asses, based on a misreading of Zeachariah
- references to non-existent "prophecies"

THUS, your main argument FAILS!
NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

As for the others,
(2) reminds me of Harvey the Rabbit from the move by that title
about Elwood P. Dowd "a friendly, likeable drunk who has a
best friend named Harvey, a six foot three and a half inch

invisible

white rabbit." You have no more evidence of your "Long-term

Relationship"

than Elwood has of his.
(SEE: http://www.tigersweat.com/movies/harvey/)

NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

3. "Miracles" and "effects of prayer" are well contradicted
by a LACK of any "miracles" when one would be really
needed (e.g. TSUNAMI), and the LACK of effects of prayer
whenever a prayer remains "unanswered".

NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

4. There is not a simgle "prophecy" that you can prove to
have been "fulfilled".
And your picking out Isaiah 53, which, as you claim,
"gives specific details about the crucifixion of Christ"
is the best proof of the bankruptcy of your argument
There is NOTHING in Isaiah 53, a lament about events that
had happened to a "servant" some hundreds of years before Jesus,
that has ANYTHING to do with Jesus,

As for your reference to "DANIEL", aside from the FACT that
it is well known to be just a restrospective work of an author
who wrote about some historical events AFTER THE FACT,
presenting them AS IF they had been foretold by the mythincal
"Daniel", you even MISQUOTE IT, when you claim that
"he predicted the exact day that Jesus Christ would ride into

Jerusalem

on a donkey and let people worship Him as Messiah the Prince (or

King)".

There's no such "prediction", not even such a suggestion anywhere

"DANIEL".

NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

And, finally, your #5, "Intelligent Design", which is
a self-contradictory argument of creationists trying to
destroy science and scientific inquiry by postulating a
non-designed, always-existing extra-cosmic super-natural
"intelligence" to explain everything that naturally exists.

You falsely claim the existence of "peer-reviewed" science
to prove the reality of the ancient creation fable of Genesis!
You refer to "Answers in Genesis", which is presented as
"a Christian apologetics ministry that equips the church to
uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse."

Thus, you promote the American Taliban conspiracy aimed at
destroying scientific knowledge and replacing it with ancient
Hebrew fables.
("We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the

book.")

The Christian-creationist argument goes like this:
"[since] the court indicated that only and any-theories on origins
based on established facts could be made mandatory, or

supplementary,

in the teaching curriculum" [therefore] The emphasis on established

facts

for origins teaching gives Christians an unprecedented opportunity

to teach

publicly information leading to the conclusion that there must be a

Creator

and that the Creator must be the God of the Bible."

What a phony, twisted, dishonest jump, to conclude that some

claimed,

yet non-existent "established facts for origins" actually
"gives Christians an unprecedented opportunity
to teach publicly information leading to the conclusion that
there must be a Creator and that the Creator must be the God of the

Bible."

Most believing Christians will honestly admit, as the Bible itself

states,

that their beliefs are based on "FAITH", not on any "established

facts".

"The conclusion that there must be a Creator" is not based on ANY
"established fact"! And to boot, even if some extraterrestrial

intelligence

is invoked to explain life on Earth and terrestrial evolution, in

what way

would that justify the assertion that
"the Creator must be the God of the Bible"???
(Ref.: Supreme Court Rules on Teaching Creationism
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. ) -- L.

It's very interesting that jason has chosen to ignore
this and yet is happy to natter an whine to others in
this thread. Di you see the responses to Mr Neil's
short response to Gastrich's opening post in the
thread?
Mr Neil wrote:

Get out the wienies. As Doug would say, it's
time for a roast!

Shortly afterwards Jason replied Mr Neil's post
as well as Ian Braidwood. The conversation went
as follows:
Jason Gastrich wrote:

I think the wienies are already out and about.

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.

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.

Ian Braidwood replied:

No, you choose to, but I suppose it's easier than
responding to many of the cogent replies made by
atheists in this thread.

To which Jason replied:

I haven't read anything cogent. Perhaps people
under my killfile have finally decided to post
something cogent.

I suppose it is possible that both yourself and David
Vestal are in Jason's kill file but I doubt it. Jason is
just ignoring the substance and lashing out at the
chaff. He hopes the substance will go away.
As usual it is very interesting to note which posts Jason
actually responds to. His choice reveals his complete
lack of honesty and suggests he has no ability to argue
his case. Given his very selective patterns of response
in usenet it makes it even more remarkable that he
chooses to challenge and debate people that regularly
'clean his clock' and reveal him as to be a complete
fool. Each to his own, I suppose.
David D.
.

Page 1 of 3