| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bill" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2005 01:23:47 AM |
| Object: |
The inerrant Bible |
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God.
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous biblical
tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It is an
impossible story.
1. The largest boat ever built could not even come close to housing Noah,
his sons, wives and two of every type of animal on earth. And this was a
boat built of wood many thousands of years ago. There are 1.7 million KNOWN
species of animals on this planet.
And how many hundreds of millions of known species of insects, plants,
molds etc. on this planet?
2. Where did they house all of the new born during this ten month escapade?
3. In addition, the ship would have to carry a TEN MONTHS supply of food and
fresh water for the people and thousands of animals for them to survive.
What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone
extinct. How did they dispose of the hundreds of tons of manure? It must
have been one stinking ship!
4. Now according to the Bible the earth was flooded for ten months. This
would kill off all the vegetation. What did the animals eat for an
additional year or more after the flood subsided?
5. Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove
returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out
again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive
the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't
germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. 8:8-11.
6. And according to this myth, Noah was also over 600 years old!
This is a grossly implausible tale that ranks with Santa Claus, The Easter
Bunny and The Tooth Fairy!
Genesis 6:6
6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was
filled with pain.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face
of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and
birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."
9 Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he
walked with God.
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family,
because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven
[a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every
kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind
of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the
earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days
and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living
creature I have made."
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7
And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to
escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of
birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female,
came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after
the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the
second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and
the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth
forty days and forty nights.
13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with
his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with
them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to
their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its
kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs
of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and
entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every
living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters
increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and
increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the
water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under
the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the
mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [b] , [c] 21 Every living
thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all
the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on
dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living
thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the
creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped
from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.
Genesis 7:6 (New International Version)
6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.
7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to
escape the waters of the flood
Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that
were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters
receded.
3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and
fifty days the water had gone down,
4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on
the mountains of Ararat.
5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day
of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible
Genesis 9 God's Covenant With Noah
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and
increase in number and fill the earth.
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and
all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground,
and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you
the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand
an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an
accounting for the life of his fellow man.
Before man learned how to create a fire, he had no choice but to eat raw
meat.
Simple logic that refutes the existence of omnipotent gods
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?
The objective evidence is rather strong that no Gods created man, but quite
the opposite,
that man created Gods.
Bill
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 11:48:05 AM |
|
|
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:DugKd.101395$w62.39014@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God.
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous biblical
tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It is an
impossible story.
1. The largest boat ever built could not even come close to housing Noah,
his sons, wives and two of every type of animal on earth. And this was a
boat built of wood many thousands of years ago. There are 1.7 million
KNOWN
species of animals on this planet.
And how many hundreds of millions of known species of insects, plants,
molds etc. on this planet?
Don't you get it? It was a miracle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
30 Jan 2005 07:39:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:48:05 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:DugKd.101395$w62.39014@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God.
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous biblical
tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It is an
impossible story.
1. The largest boat ever built could not even come close to housing Noah,
his sons, wives and two of every type of animal on earth. And this was a
boat built of wood many thousands of years ago. There are 1.7 million
KNOWN
species of animals on this planet.
And how many hundreds of millions of known species of insects, plants,
molds etc. on this planet?
Don't you get it? It was a miracle.
In the fictional world of fantasy anything can happen.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 01:01:42 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God.
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous
biblical
tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It is an
impossible story.
Hi Bill. Crossposting this sort of thing to alt.atheism
and Christian groups is considered bad form. There is
enough hostility and flammage going on here as it is.
No need to stir up more, is there?
Cheersr
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 05:28:58 PM |
|
|
For your simple mind this story applies to BOTH atheists and Christians.
Who appointed you as director of news groups??
--
Bill
<jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1106917302.762150.318080@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bill wrote:
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God.
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous
biblical
tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It is an
impossible story.
Hi Bill. Crossposting this sort of thing to alt.atheism
and Christian groups is considered bad form. There is
enough hostility and flammage going on here as it is.
No need to stir up more, is there?
Cheersr
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 07:46:03 PM |
|
|
Bill wrote:
For your simple mind this story applies to BOTH atheists and
Christians.
Oh dear. Since cross posting such flamebait to
groups with opposing views is certified troll behavior
are you a troll or just a newbee, or what?
Who appointed you as director of news groups??
Great. Just what alt.atheism needs: An irrational
atheist. Clue: your question is an interrogation
fallacy, sport. It presupposes an answer to a
question you didn't bother to ask. Didn't you
know that or didn't you care?
I suppose this also means you will not be
answering inconvenient questions or backing
up any of your claims--like "god does not exist"-
-either. Am I right?
Viscount of alt.atheism Debate Standards and Practicese
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 09:54:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Bill wrote:
For your simple mind this story applies to BOTH atheists and
Christians.
Oh dear. Since cross posting such flamebait to
groups with opposing views is certified troll behavior
Who appointed you as director of news groups??
I suppose this also means you will not be
answering inconvenient questions or backing
up any of your claims--like "god does not exist"-
-either. Am I right?
I cant wait until the next world wide apocalyptic pandemic so I can
legally destroy the demonic hordes of theists and atheists alike.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 01:17:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:23:47 +0000, Bill wrote:
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God.
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous biblical
tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It is an
impossible story.
The Noah's ark story is impressive on many levels, including the technical
difficulties of building such a large boat of wood, collecting all the
animals, raining hard enough to cover the world in 40 days, dispersing all
the animals afterward, etc. What I find most impressive, however, is the
sheer IDIOCY of it! You are talking about a God who can pull a Universe
out of His ***** in 6 days! If He didn't like it, why bother with a flood?
Why not just destroy *everything* and start over? He could certainly take
Noah and his family to Heaven if He wanted to "save" them, but why worry
about saving animals? Was He low on raw materials? Too busy making other
Universes? Lazy? Stupid? Non-existent?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
30 Jan 2005 07:42:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:17:03 GMT, MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:23:47 +0000, Bill wrote:
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God.
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous biblical
tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It is an
impossible story.
The Noah's ark story is impressive on many levels, including the technical
difficulties of building such a large boat of wood, collecting all the
animals, raining hard enough to cover the world in 40 days, dispersing all
the animals afterward, etc. What I find most impressive, however, is the
sheer IDIOCY of it!
Of course it is idiocy! The Bible is nothing but idiocy!
You are talking about a God who can pull a Universe
out of His ***** in 6 days! If He didn't like it, why bother with a flood?
Why not just destroy *everything* and start over? He could certainly take
Noah and his family to Heaven if He wanted to "save" them, but why worry
about saving animals? Was He low on raw materials? Too busy making other
Universes? Lazy? Stupid? Non-existent?
'Creating' a universe is the epitome of stupid, but that's
superstition for you.
--
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: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 05:21:04 PM |
|
|
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Bill dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
The Bible is claimed to be the inerrant word of God.
The story of Noah and the flood is only one of many ridiculous
biblical tales with no authentication or plausibility of any kind. It
is an impossible story.
Most christers don't attend church to study the bible. They go there for
comeraderie, the quick fix for death, and because that's what you're
supposed to do on Sunday morning. They don't have a clue what the bible
actually says, even if they keep one in the house. All they know are the
basic stories, and they were taught at a very early age not to question
them, or they will get in trouble upstairs.
When people like us start debunking their comfy stories, they get angry.
Some angry enough to kill. After all, you are telling them they will never
see their grandparents again. Ever. Some even have deceased children who
they expect are little angels in the sky now - they hold on to this like
reins on a spooked horse. This is why most of them hate us, and a lot of
that has to do with the fact that subconsciously a lot of them know we are
correct.
Atheists don't proselytize. I won't stand on a street corner and proclaim
to passers by that god doesn't exist. It's pointless. Sure, when they
come in here to preach, I go into defense mode. But when we start threads
like this in their groups, we are going against what atheism stands for.
And we are doing what we complain to them and their ISPs about.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 06:09:28 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
(snip a sentence)
But when we start threads
like this in their groups, we are going against what atheism stands for.
You speak as if you think that atheism has dogma and stands for
things.
You may stand for things but "atheist" is just an adjective.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 06:45:54 PM |
|
|
on 28 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, John Popelish dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
(snip a sentence)
But when we start threads
like this in their groups, we are going against what atheism stands for.
You speak as if you think that atheism has dogma and stands for
things.
You may stand for things but "atheist" is just an adjective.
True, bad choice of words. "Going against the grain" perhaps?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
29 Jan 2005 04:27:26 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 28 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, John Popelish dropped trou, farted,
whirled,
then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
(snip a sentence)
But when we start threads
like this in their groups, we are going against what atheism
stands for.
You speak as if you think that atheism has dogma and stands for
things.
You may stand for things but "atheist" is just an adjective.
True, bad choice of words. "Going against the grain" perhaps?
How about "reducing ourselves to their level"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
30 Jan 2005 04:00:42 AM |
|
|
In article <1107016045.990626.279830@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net says...
True, bad choice of words. "Going against the grain" perhaps?
How about "reducing ourselves to their level"?
I'm in favor of it, on occasion. How else will they understand us,
unless we use little words and let them color in their bible/coloring
books while we read to them about real subjects like *science*.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
30 Jan 2005 07:42:09 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
In article <1107016045.990626.279830@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
jfacts@earthlink.net says...
True, bad choice of words. "Going against the grain" perhaps?
How about "reducing ourselves to their level"?
I'm in favor of it, on occasion. How else will they understand us,
unless we use little words and let them color in their bible/coloring
books while we read to them about real subjects like *science*.
The ones you're talking about never will understand
atheists. What would these faux Christians (the ones
who hang around a.a.) say about atheists if the
situation was reversed? What if _we_ were loitering
in alt.christianity, attacking Christians and spouting
outrageous lies about them, going out of our way to
do it? What if there were atheists like Duke, who
spent all their free time posting upwards of 80 or
more messages daily, 7/365, to christian groups
projecting an attitude of fake superiority? Wouldn't
they say "you guys must be really insecure about
your atheism"? And wouldn't they be right?
For good reason or bad, the very existence of
atheists make the ones who invade a.a. feel
insecure. At the same time they unconsciously
reveal they think atheists superior to themselves.
When they insist that atheism or evolution is a
religion or that atheists or evolutionists need
faith, these are attempts to pull atheists down to
what they see is their level. You can't pull anyone
down to your level who isn't above you.
That's why the invaders are here. For some reason
our very existence causes them anxiety and makes
them feel inferior. Their outrageous behavior is
more understandable when considered in this light.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 06:46:36 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
Most christers don't attend church to study the bible. They go
there for comeraderie, the quick fix for death, and because
that's what you're supposed to do on Sunday morning. They don't
have a clue what the bible actually says, even if they keep one
in the house. All they know are the basic stories, and they were
taught at a very early age not to question them, or they will get
in trouble upstairs.
When people like us start debunking their comfy stories, they get
angry. Some angry enough to kill. After all, you are telling them
they will never see their grandparents again. Ever. Some even
have deceased children who they expect are little angels in the
sky now - they hold on to this like reins on a spooked horse. This
is why most of them hate us, and a lot of that has to do with the
fact that subconsciously a lot of them know we are correct.
Atheists don't proselytize. I won't stand on a street corner and
proclaim to passers by that god doesn't exist. It's pointless.
Sure, when they come in here to preach, I go into defense mode.
But when we start threads like this in their groups, we are going
against what atheism stands for. And we are doing what we complain
to them and their ISPs about.
I don't know... I have mixed feelings. A few of the nutters might be
reached that way, and as you admit you couldn't stand on a street
corner with an anti-Bible sandwich board without risking a drive by
shooting. To say that you should not proselytize when in this case it
is merely the promotion of rationality, is rather defeatist. Shall we
all retire to our bunkers to await the new dark age? Is is true that
even those who are reachable won't read a posting that is deemed
impolite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
31 Jan 2005 09:21:56 PM |
|
|
.... Shall we
all retire to our bunkers to await the new dark age?
Aren't you already in a dark age if you imagine that you can't stand for
rationality in a street corner without the risk of being shot? But theists do
not have the burden of proving that they are theists, neither do they cease
being theists if their statements are not understood. They do have the burden,
like everyone else, of backing up their statements with evidence, and if the
evidence is lacking, it means that the theist lacks the evidence, not that
those he is addressing lack evidence of or belief in theism. Thus atheism is
really only applicable to a theist, because only one who knows and believes
the claims of theism can tell what a-theism or non-theism is. The same could
be said of agnostics in relation to gnosis. Atheists are really disaffected
gnostics, but because they can't come up with a catchy phrase like agnosis,
( which is ridiculous ), they've thought up atheism, which sounds like a belief
but really isn't; this describes accurately what they resent about gnosis.
Briefly, they wish to be organized like a religion in order to fight religion,
but lack the vocabulary to do so. Therefore, the word "atheist" really only
describes a particular point of view of theists which indicates their ignorance
of the evidence of theism, not theists themselves.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
29 Jan 2005 04:33:37 PM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
Most christers don't attend church to study the bible. They go
there for comeraderie, the quick fix for death, and because
that's what you're supposed to do on Sunday morning. They don't
have a clue what the bible actually says, even if they keep one
in the house. All they know are the basic stories, and they were
taught at a very early age not to question them, or they will get
in trouble upstairs.
When people like us start debunking their comfy stories, they get
angry. Some angry enough to kill. After all, you are telling them
they will never see their grandparents again. Ever. Some even
have deceased children who they expect are little angels in the
sky now - they hold on to this like reins on a spooked horse. This
is why most of them hate us, and a lot of that has to do with the
fact that subconsciously a lot of them know we are correct.
Atheists don't proselytize. I won't stand on a str eet corner and
proclaim to passers by that god doesn't exist. It's pointless.
Sure, when they come in here to preach, I go into defense mode.
But when we start threads like this in their groups, we are going
against what atheism stands fo r. And we are doing what we complain
to them and their ISPs about.
I don't know... I have mixed feelings. A few of the nutters might be
reached that way, and as you admit you couldn't stand on a street
corner with an anti-Bible sandwich board without risking a drive by
shooting. To say that you should not proselytize when in this case it
is merely the promotion of rationality, is rather defeatist.
When one is in a.a. shooting down fundy invaders or in
the public sector, questioning the basis of fundy promoted
laws that impact you and yours, that is one thing. Going
out of our way to debunk believers is something altogether
different.
I've got no problem with promoting rationality. However the
person making a claim always has the burden of proof. The
claim "no gods exist" may be true but it cannot be shown to
be true and thus is not a rational claim.
Shall we
all retire to our bunkers to await the new dark age? Is is true that
even those who are reachable won't read a posting that is deemed
impolite.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
30 Jan 2005 07:45:13 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 08:33:37 -0800, wrote:
Dave wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
Most christers don't attend church to study the bible. They go
there for comeraderie, the quick fix for death, and because
that's what you're supposed to do on Sunday morning. They don't
have a clue what the bible actually says, even if they keep one
in the house. All they know are the basic stories, and they were
taught at a very early age not to question them, or they will get
in trouble upstairs.
When people like us start debunking their comfy stories, they get
angry. Some angry enough to kill. After all, you are telling them
they will never see their grandparents again. Ever. Some even
have deceased children who they expect are little angels in the
sky now - they hold on to this like reins on a spooked horse. This
is why most of them hate us, and a lot of that has to do with the
fact that subconsciously a lot of them know we are correct.
Atheists don't proselytize. I won't stand on a str eet corner and
proclaim to passers by that god doesn't exist. It's pointless.
Sure, when they come in here to preach, I go into defense mode.
But when we start threads like this in their groups, we are going
against what atheism stands fo r. And we are doing what we complain
to them and their ISPs about.
I don't know... I have mixed feelings. A few of the nutters might be
reached that way, and as you admit you couldn't stand on a street
corner with an anti-Bible sandwich board without risking a drive by
shooting. To say that you should not proselytize when in this case it
is merely the promotion of rationality, is rather defeatist.
When one is in a.a. shooting down fundy invaders or in
the public sector, questioning the basis of fundy promoted
laws that impact you and yours, that is one thing. Going
out of our way to debunk believers is something altogether
different.
I've got no problem with promoting rationality. However the
person making a claim always has the burden of proof. The
claim "no gods exist" may be true but it cannot be shown to
be true and thus is not a rational claim.
Yes, it is true, can be shown to be true, and is a rational statement,
if one cared enough to make it.
Shall we
all retire to our bunkers to await the new dark age? Is is true that
even those who are reachable won't read a posting that is deemed
impolite.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
31 Jan 2005 06:46:18 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 29 Jan 2005 08:33:37 -0800, wrote:
Dave wrote:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
Most christers don't attend church to study the bible. They go
there for comeraderie, the quick fix for death, and because
that's what you're supposed to do on Sunday morning. They don't
have a clue what the bible actually says, even if they keep one
in the house. All they know are the basic stories, and they
were
taught at a very early age not to question them, or they will
get
in trouble upstairs.
When people like us start debunking their comfy stories, they
get
angry. Some angry enough to kill. After all, you are telling
them
they will never s ee their grandparents again. Ever. Some even
have deceased children who they expect are little angels in the
sky now - they hold on to this like reins on a spooked horse.
This
is why most of them hate us, and a lot of that has to do with
the
fact that subconsciously a lot of them know we are correct.
Atheists don't proselytize. I won't stand on a str eet corner
and
proclaim to passers by that god doesn't exist. It's pointless.
Sure, when they come in here to preach, I go into defense mode.
But when we start threads like this in their groups, we are
going
against what atheism stands fo r. And we are doing what we
complain
to them and their ISPs about.
I don't know... I have mixed feelings. A few of the nutters might
be
reached that way, and as you admit you couldn't stand on a street
corner with an anti-Bible sandwich board without risking a drive
by
shooting. To say that you should not proselytize when in this case
it
is merely the promotion of rationality, is rather defeatist.
When one is in a.a. shooting down fundy invaders or in
the public sector, questioning the basis of fundy promoted
laws that impact you and yours, that is one thing. Going
out of our way to debunk believers is something altogether
different.
I've got no problem with promoting rationality. However the
person making a claim always has the burden of proof. The
claim "no gods exist" may be true but it cannot be shown to
be true and thus is not a rational claim.
Yes, it is true, can be shown to be true, and is a rational
statement,
if one cared enough to make it.
Ok, show me. if you can, you might also want to get
the a.a. FAQ changed since it disagrees with you.
y
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
01 Feb 2005 07:12:38 PM |
|
|
On 31 Jan 2005 10:46:18 -0800, wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 29 Jan 2005 08:33:37 -0800, wrote:
[]
I've got no problem with promoting rationality. However the
person making a claim always has the burden of proof. The
claim "no gods exist" may be true but it cannot be shown to
be true and thus is not a rational claim.
Yes, it is true, can be shown to be true, and is a rational
statement, if one cared enough to make it.
Ok, show me. if you can, you might also want to get
the a.a. FAQ changed since it disagrees with you.
y
Whether the FAQ is changed doesn't matter.
What is laughingly called a 'definition' is a joke. It
blatantly begs the question, hand waves furiously, and provides zero
information.
Http://www.m-w.com/
]>Main Entry: 1god
]>Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
]>Function: noun
]>Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High
]>German got god
]>Date: before 12th century
]>1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality:
This begs the question by an unsupported assumption. Further the
words supreme and ultimate are meaningless handwaving and a
glittering generality.
]>as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is
]>worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
Once again begs the question by an unsupported assertion.
The word perfect is again meaningless handwaving and a glittering
generality. And the 'perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness'
is more unsupported assertion and meaningless handwaving.
"Worshipped as creator and ruller of the universe" is
another unsupported assertion that 'x' "created and rules" anything.
It's also broken logic in that the question of "who created
the creator" is not asked and is handwaved away.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
03 Feb 2005 02:23:49 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 31 Jan 2005 10:46:18 -0800, wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 29 Jan 2005 08:33:37 -0800, wrote:
[]
I've got no problem with promoting rationality. However the
person making a claim always has the burden of proof. The
claim "no gods exist" may be true but it cannot be shown to
be true and thus is not a rational claim.
Yes, it is true, can be shown to be true, and is a rational
statement, if one cared enough to make it.
Ok, show me. if you can, you might also want to get
the a.a. FAQ changed since it disagrees with you.
y
Whether the FAQ is changed doesn't matter.
What is laughingly called a 'definition' is a joke.
What are you talking about? I said:
"I've got no problem with promoting rationality. However the
person making a claim always has the burden of proof. The
claim "no gods exist" may be true but it cannot be shown to
be true and thus is not a rational claim."
You said:
"Yes, it is true, can be shown to be true, and is a rational
statement, if one cared enough to make it."
You claim I am wrong (another claim) so I'm saying
show me how it is possible to show that no gods exist.
I have no idea what all the rest of this is about.
It
b latantly begs the question, hand waves furiously, and provides zero
information.
Http://www.m-w.com/
]>Main Entry: 1god
]>Pronunciation: 'g=E4d also 'god
]>Function: noun
]>Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High
]>Ger man got god
]>Date: before 12th century
]>1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality:
This begs the question by an unsupported assumption. Further the
words supreme and ultimate are meaningless handwaving and a
glittering generality.
]>as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is
]>worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
Once again begs the question by an unsupported assertion.
The word perfect is again meaningless handwaving and a glittering
generality. And the 'perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness'
is more unsupported assertion and meaningless handwaving.
"Worshipped as creator and ruller of the universe" is
another unsupported assertion that 'x' "created and rules" anything.
It's also broken logic in that the question of "who created
the creator" is not asked and is handwaved away.
--
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.
=20
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
03 Feb 2005 05:21:56 AM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2005 18:23:49 -0800, said in
alt.atheism:
What are you talking about? I said:
"I've got no problem with promoting rationality. However the
person making a claim always has the burden of proof.
And you're wrong. The burden attaches to existentially positive
claims.
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
04 Feb 2005 06:57:19 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2005 18:23:49 -0800, wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 31 Jan 2005 10:46:18 -0800, wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 29 Jan 2005 08:33:37 -0800, wrote:
[]
I've got no problem with promoting rationality. However the
person making a claim always has the burden of proof. The
claim "no gods exist" may be true but it cannot be shown to
be true and thus is not a rational claim.
Yes, it is true, can be shown to be true, and is a rational
statement, if one cared enough to make it.
Ok, show me. if you can, you might also want to get
the a.a. FAQ changed since it disagrees with you.
y
Whether the FAQ is changed doesn't matter.
What is laughingly called a 'definition' is a joke.
What are you talking about? I said:
"I've got no problem with promoting rationality. However the
person making a claim always has the burden of proof. The
claim "no gods exist" may be true but it cannot be shown to
be true and thus is not a rational claim."
You said:
"Yes, it is true, can be shown to be true, and is a rational
statement, if one cared enough to make it."
You claim I am wrong (another claim) so I'm saying
show me how it is possible to show that no gods exist.
I have no idea what all the rest of this is about.
I'm sorry you're unable to read for comprehension.
It
b latantly begs the question, hand waves furiously, and provides zero
information.
Http://www.m-w.com/
]>Main Entry: 1god
]>Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
]>Function: noun
]>Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High
]>Ger man got god
]>Date: before 12th century
]>1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality:
This begs the question by an unsupported assumption. Further the
words supreme and ultimate are meaningless handwaving and a
glittering generality.
]>as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is
]>worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe
Once again begs the question by an unsupported assertion.
The word perfect is again meaningless handwaving and a glittering
generality. And the 'perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness'
is more unsupported assertion and meaningless handwaving.
"Worshipped as creator and ruller of the universe" is
another unsupported assertion that 'x' "created and rules" anything.
It's also broken logic in that the question of "who created
the creator" is not asked and is handwaved away.
--
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: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
28 Jan 2005 06:52:22 PM |
|
|
on 28 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Dave dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
Atheists don't proselytize. I won't stand on a street corner and
proclaim to passers by that god doesn't exist. It's pointless.
Sure, when they come in here to preach, I go into defense mode.
But when we start threads like this in their groups, we are going
against what atheism stands for. And we are doing what we complain
to them and their ISPs about.
I don't know... I have mixed feelings. A few of the nutters might be
reached that way, and as you admit you couldn't stand on a street
corner with an anti-Bible sandwich board without risking a drive by
shooting. To say that you should not proselytize when in this case it
is merely the promotion of rationality, is rather defeatist. Shall we
all retire to our bunkers to await the new dark age? Is is true that
even those who are reachable won't read a posting that is deemed
impolite.
Jews, Muslims and Hindus keep their religion mostly to themselves. I can
respect that, and that is the reason a lot of us go on the warpath against
Christians. I'm for live and let live, until they get in my face, then
watch out...
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The inerrant Bible |
29 Jan 2005 05:02:05 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
on 28 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Dave dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then
shouted:
Vic Sagerquist wrote:
Atheists don't proselytize. I won't stand on a street corner and
proclaim to passers by that god d oesn't exist. It's pointless.
Sure, when they come in here to preach, I go into defense mode.
But when we start threads like this in their groups, we are going
against what atheism stands for. And we are doing what we complain
to them and their ISPs about.
I don't know... I have mixed feelings. A few of the nutters might
be
reached that way, and as you admit you couldn't stand on a street
corner with an anti-Bible sandwich board without risking a drive by
sho oting. To say that you should not proselytize when in this case
it
is merely the promotion of rationality, is rather defeatist. Shall
we
all retire to our bunkers to await the new dark age? Is is true
that
even those who are reachable won't re ad a posting that is deemed
impolite.
Jews, Muslims and Hindus keep their religion mostly to themselves. I
can
respect that, and that is the reason a lot of us go on the warpath
against
Christians. I'm for live and let live, until they get in my face,
then
watch out...
Amen to that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
