Religions > Bible > Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation"
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2007 06:07:36 PM |
| Object: |
Physics now questions the ToE, advances biblical "Creation" |
Basically in that the speed of light may not actually be "constant"....
***Speed of light slowing down?***
Chris Bennett - WorldNetDaily.com
"The theory of evolution requires unfathomable lengths of time - eons ... billions and billions of
years. Even with all that time, it's still hard to imagine how complex biochemicals such as
hemoglobin or chlorophyll self assembled in the primordial goo. But to those of us who question the
process, the answer is always the same. Time. More time than you can grasp - timespans so vast that
anything is possible, even chance combinations of random chemicals to form the stunning complexities
of reproducing life."
"Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into confusion virtually all of the
accepted temporal paradigms of 20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution. Further, it raises the distinct possibility that
scientific validation exists for a (gasp) literal interpretation of the seminal passages of Genesis.
Goodbye Scopes trial."
"The theory is deceptively simple: The speed of light is not constant, as we've been taught since
the early 1930s, but has been steadily slowing since the first instance of time."
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John
Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat
of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it
is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined. answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)"
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
18 Sep 2007 10:38:20 PM |
|
|
On Sep 19, 3:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1189997149.491437.149440@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 17, 9:26 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189912545.124964.283780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 16, 9:07 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1189871531.196022.310730@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 15, 11:36 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189820971.118967.286270@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 15, 7:24 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
You haven't shown that any Bible writer intended deception.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
DID JESUS EXIST?
by Frank R. Zindler
The American Atheist, Summer 1998.
Updated from The Probing Mind series, January 1987
I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth existed.
Some writers feel a need to justify this assumption at length
against people who try from time to time to deny it. It would
be easier, frankly, to believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus'
contemporary, was a figment of the imagination than to
believe that there never was such a person as Jesus.
- N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996)
For most of my life, I had taken it for granted that Jesus,
although certainly not a god, was nevertheless an historical
personage - perhaps a magician skilled in hypnosis. To be
sure, I knew that some of the world's greatest scholars had
denied his existence. Nevertheless, I had always more or less
supposed that it was improbable that so many stories could
have sprung up about someone who had never existed. Even in
the case of other deities, such as Zeus, Thor, Isis, and
Osiris, I had always taken it for granted that they were
merely deified human heroes: men and women who lived in the
later stages of prehistory - persons whose reputations got
better and better the longer the time elapsed after their
deaths. Gods, like fine wines, I supposed, improved with age.
About a decade ago, however, I began to reexamine the
evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I was astounded at
what I didn't find. In this article, I would like to show how
shaky the evidence is regarding the alleged existence of a
would-be messiah named Jesus. I now feel it is more
reasonable to suppose he never existed. It is easier to
account for the facts of early Christian history if Jesus
were a fiction than if he once were real.
<snip>
How passionate!
I didn't write it.
And if you ignore all ancient writings describing them,
what evidence have we of Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates?
We have their own writings to show that they existed. In any
case, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates were never said to be gods
or the sons of gods.
No, although Hercules was reputed to be a son of Zeus.
Hercules didn't exist either.
Son, you're entitled to your religion. Just don't try to tell
me it's science.
"Dad", you're entitled to your religion, but all the evidence
tells us that it is utter fiction.
All the evidence tells ME is that a lot of atheists BELIEVE it to
be utter fiction. That doesn't make them right.
Atheists also believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are fiction.
That doesn't mean they are real.
Santa Claus is a corrupted myth based on the very real St. Nicholas
of Mira.
And Jesus may be a corrupted myth drawn from various ancient virgin
birth and death-rebirth legends.
And He may be God the Son intervening in human history to create a new
synthetic religion incorporating and fulfilling those myths and legends.
He and his mythological father would first of all have to actually
exist. They don't.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
19 Sep 2007 11:58:05 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190173100.177499.68170@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 19, 3:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189997149.491437.149440@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 17, 9:26 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189912545.124964.283780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 16, 9:07 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1189871531.196022.310730@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 15, 11:36 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189820971.118967.286270@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 15, 7:24 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
You haven't shown that any Bible writer intended
deception.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
DID JESUS EXIST?
by Frank R. Zindler
The American Atheist, Summer 1998.
Updated from The Probing Mind series, January 1987
I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth
existed. Some writers feel a need to justify this
assumption at length against people who try from time to
time to deny it. It would be easier, frankly, to believe
that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus' contemporary, was a figment
of the imagination than to believe that there never was
such a person as Jesus. - N. T. Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God (Fortress, 1996) For most of my life, I had
taken it for granted that Jesus, although certainly not a
god, was nevertheless an historical personage - perhaps a
magician skilled in hypnosis. To be sure, I knew that some
of the world's greatest scholars had denied his existence.
Nevertheless, I had always more or less supposed that it
was improbable that so many stories could have sprung up
about someone who had never existed. Even in
the case of other deities, such as Zeus, Thor, Isis, and
Osiris, I had always taken it for granted that they were
merely deified human heroes: men and women who lived in
the later stages of prehistory - persons whose reputations
got better and better the longer the time elapsed after
their deaths. Gods, like fine wines, I supposed, improved
with age.
About a decade ago, however, I began to reexamine the
evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I was astounded at
what I didn't find. In this article, I would like to show
how shaky the evidence is regarding the alleged existence
of a would-be messiah named Jesus. I now feel it is more
reasonable to suppose he never existed. It is easier to
account for the facts of early Christian history if Jesus
were a fiction than if he once were real.
<snip>
How passionate!
I didn't write it.
And if you ignore all ancient writings describing them,
what evidence have we of Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates?
We have their own writings to show that they existed. In any
case, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates were never said to be
gods or the sons of gods.
No, although Hercules was reputed to be a son of Zeus.
Hercules didn't exist either.
Son, you're entitled to your religion. Just don't try to
tell me it's science.
"Dad", you're entitled to your religion, but all the evidence
tells us that it is utter fiction.
All the evidence tells ME is that a lot of atheists BELIEVE it
to be utter fiction. That doesn't make them right.
Atheists also believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are
fiction. That doesn't mean they are real.
Santa Claus is a corrupted myth based on the very real St.
Nicholas of Mira.
And Jesus may be a corrupted myth drawn from various ancient virgin
birth and death-rebirth legends.
And He may be God the Son intervening in human history to create a
new synthetic religion incorporating and fulfilling those myths and
legends.
He and his mythological father would first of all have to actually
exist. They don't.
And you know this because the spirit of the ungod appeared to you in a
non-burning bush and told you?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
19 Sep 2007 09:07:56 PM |
|
|
On Sep 20, 12:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1190173100.177499.68170@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 19, 3:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189997149.491437.149440@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 17, 9:26 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189912545.124964.283780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 16, 9:07 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1189871531.196022.310730@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 15, 11:36 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189820971.118967.286270@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 15, 7:24 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
You haven't shown that any Bible writer intended
deception.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
DID JESUS EXIST?
by Frank R. Zindler
The American Atheist, Summer 1998.
Updated from The Probing Mind series, January 1987
I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth
existed. Some writers feel a need to justify this
assumption at length against people who try from time to
time to deny it. It would be easier, frankly, to believe
that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus' contemporary, was a figment
of the imagination than to believe that there never was
such a person as Jesus. - N. T. Wright, Jesus and the
Victory of God (Fortress, 1996) For most of my life, I had
taken it for granted that Jesus, although certainly not a
god, was nevertheless an historical personage - perhaps a
magician skilled in hypnosis. To be sure, I knew that some
of the world's greatest scholars had denied his existence.
Nevertheless, I had always more or less supposed that it
was improbable that so many stories could have sprung up
about someone who had never existed. Even in
the case of other deities, such as Zeus, Thor, Isis, and
Osiris, I had always taken it for granted that they were
merely deified human heroes: men and women who lived in
the later stages of prehistory - persons whose reputations
got better and better the longer the time elapsed after
their deaths. Gods, like fine wines, I supposed, improved
with age.
About a decade ago, however, I began to reexamine the
evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I was astounded at
what I didn't find. In this article, I would like to show
how shaky the evidence is regarding the alleged existence
of a would-be messiah named Jesus. I now feel it is more
reasonable to suppose he never existed. It is easier to
account for the facts of early Christian history if Jesus
were a fiction than if he once were real.
<snip>
How passionate!
I didn't write it.
And if you ignore all ancient writings describing them,
what evidence have we of Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates?
We have their own writings to show that they existed. In any
case, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates were never said to be
gods or the sons of gods.
No, although Hercules was reputed to be a son of Zeus.
Hercules didn't exist either.
Son, you're entitled to your religion. Just don't try to
tell me it's science.
"Dad", you're entitled to your religion, but all the evidence
tells us that it is utter fiction.
All the evidence tells ME is that a lot of atheists BELIEVE it
to be utter fiction. That doesn't make them right.
Atheists also believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are
fiction. That doesn't mean they are real.
Santa Claus is a corrupted myth based on the very real St.
Nicholas of Mira.
And Jesus may be a corrupted myth drawn from various ancient virgin
birth and death-rebirth legends.
And He may be God the Son intervening in human history to create a
new synthetic religion incorporating and fulfilling those myths and
legends.
He and his mythological father would first of all have to actually
exist. They don't.
And you know this because the spirit of the ungod appeared to you in a
non-burning bush and told you?
Is that what your god is? A burning bush?
Thanks for proving my point.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
20 Sep 2007 08:27:27 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1190254076.285426.12000@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 20, 12:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190173100.177499.68170@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 19, 3:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189997149.491437.149440@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 17, 9:26 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189912545.124964.283780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 16, 9:07 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1189871531.196022.310730@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 15, 11:36 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189820971.118967.286270@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.c
om:
On Sep 15, 7:24 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
You haven't shown that any Bible writer intended
deception.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
DID JESUS EXIST?
by Frank R. Zindler
The American Atheist, Summer 1998.
Updated from The Probing Mind series, January 1987
I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth
existed. Some writers feel a need to justify this
assumption at length against people who try from time
to time to deny it. It would be easier, frankly, to
believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus' contemporary, was
a figment of the imagination than to believe that there
never was such a person as Jesus. - N. T. Wright, Jesus
and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996) For most of my
life, I had taken it for granted that Jesus, although
certainly not a god, was nevertheless an historical
personage - perhaps a magician skilled in hypnosis. To
be sure, I knew that some of the world's greatest
scholars had denied his existence. Nevertheless, I had
always more or less supposed that it was improbable
that so many stories could have sprung up
about someone who had never existed. Even in
the case of other deities, such as Zeus, Thor, Isis,
and Osiris, I had always taken it for granted that they
were merely deified human heroes: men and women who
lived in the later stages of prehistory - persons whose
reputations got better and better the longer the time
elapsed after their deaths. Gods, like fine wines, I
supposed, improved with age.
About a decade ago, however, I began to reexamine the
evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I was astounded
at what I didn't find. In this article, I would like to
show how shaky the evidence is regarding the alleged
existence of a would-be messiah named Jesus. I now feel
it is more reasonable to suppose he never existed. It
is easier to account for the facts of early Christian
history if Jesus were a fiction than if he once were
real.
<snip>
How passionate!
I didn't write it.
And if you ignore all ancient writings describing them,
what evidence have we of Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates?
We have their own writings to show that they existed. In
any case, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates were never said to
be gods or the sons of gods.
No, although Hercules was reputed to be a son of Zeus.
Hercules didn't exist either.
Son, you're entitled to your religion. Just don't try to
tell me it's science.
"Dad", you're entitled to your religion, but all the
evidence tells us that it is utter fiction.
All the evidence tells ME is that a lot of atheists BELIEVE
it to be utter fiction. That doesn't make them right.
Atheists also believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are
fiction. That doesn't mean they are real.
Santa Claus is a corrupted myth based on the very real St.
Nicholas of Mira.
And Jesus may be a corrupted myth drawn from various ancient
virgin birth and death-rebirth legends.
And He may be God the Son intervening in human history to create a
new synthetic religion incorporating and fulfilling those myths
and legends.
He and his mythological father would first of all have to actually
exist. They don't.
And you know this because the spirit of the ungod appeared to you in
a non-burning bush and told you?
Is that what your god is? A burning bush?
Thanks for proving my point.
Is there any point in writing to you? I mean can you really read or are
you getting some non-interested party to explain the hard words to you?
You clearly either did not understand what I said or simply decided to be
obtuse about it in order to avoid the question I asked.
I can understand that. Because you really cannot defend your claim.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
21 Sep 2007 04:20:46 AM |
|
|
On Sep 21, 9:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1190254076.285426.12000@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 20, 12:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190173100.177499.68170@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 19, 3:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189997149.491437.149440@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 17, 9:26 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189912545.124964.283780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 16, 9:07 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1189871531.196022.310730@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 15, 11:36 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189820971.118967.286270@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.c
om:
On Sep 15, 7:24 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
You haven't shown that any Bible writer intended
deception.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html
DID JESUS EXIST?
by Frank R. Zindler
The American Atheist, Summer 1998.
Updated from The Probing Mind series, January 1987
I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth
existed. Some writers feel a need to justify this
assumption at length against people who try from time
to time to deny it. It would be easier, frankly, to
believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus' contemporary, was
a figment of the imagination than to believe that there
never was such a person as Jesus. - N. T. Wright, Jesus
and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996) For most of my
life, I had taken it for granted that Jesus, although
certainly not a god, was nevertheless an historical
personage - perhaps a magician skilled in hypnosis. To
be sure, I knew that some of the world's greatest
scholars had denied his existence. Nevertheless, I had
always more or less supposed that it was improbable
that so many stories could have sprung up
about someone who had never existed. Even in
the case of other deities, such as Zeus, Thor, Isis,
and Osiris, I had always taken it for granted that they
were merely deified human heroes: men and women who
lived in the later stages of prehistory - persons whose
reputations got better and better the longer the time
elapsed after their deaths. Gods, like fine wines, I
supposed, improved with age.
About a decade ago, however, I began to reexamine the
evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I was astounded
at what I didn't find. In this article, I would like to
show how shaky the evidence is regarding the alleged
existence of a would-be messiah named Jesus. I now feel
it is more reasonable to suppose he never existed. It
is easier to account for the facts of early Christian
history if Jesus were a fiction than if he once were
real.
<snip>
How passionate!
I didn't write it.
And if you ignore all ancient writings describing them,
what evidence have we of Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates?
We have their own writings to show that they existed. In
any case, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates were never said to
be gods or the sons of gods.
No, although Hercules was reputed to be a son of Zeus.
Hercules didn't exist either.
Son, you're entitled to your religion. Just don't try to
tell me it's science.
"Dad", you're entitled to your religion, but all the
evidence tells us that it is utter fiction.
All the evidence tells ME is that a lot of atheists BELIEVE
it to be utter fiction. That doesn't make them right.
Atheists also believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are
fiction. That doesn't mean they are real.
Santa Claus is a corrupted myth based on the very real St.
Nicholas of Mira.
And Jesus may be a corrupted myth drawn from various ancient
virgin birth and death-rebirth legends.
And He may be God the Son intervening in human history to create a
new synthetic religion incorporating and fulfilling those myths
and legends.
He and his mythological father would first of all have to actually
exist. They don't.
And you know this because the spirit of the ungod appeared to you in
a non-burning bush and told you?
Is that what your god is? A burning bush?
Thanks for proving my point.
Is there any point in writing to you? I mean can you really read or are
you getting some non-interested party to explain the hard words to you?
You clearly either did not understand what I said or simply decided to be
obtuse about it in order to avoid the question I asked.
I can understand that. Because you really cannot defend your claim.
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your head. I can
only imagine that you lack the intellectual capacity to follow my
arguments. Note here that I am trying to give you credit here: I
could be like Christopher Lee and just dismiss you as being
deliberately deceptive.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
21 Sep 2007 12:39:49 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1190366446.805680.122150@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 21, 9:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190254076.285426.12000@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 20, 12:58 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190173100.177499.68170@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 19, 3:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189997149.491437.149440@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 17, 9:26 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189912545.124964.283780@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 16, 9:07 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1189871531.196022.310730@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.c
om:
On Sep 15, 11:36 pm, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1189820971.118967.286270@d55g2000hsg.googlegroup
s.c om:
On Sep 15, 7:24 am, Dave Oldridge
<doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
You haven't shown that any Bible writer intended
deception.
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.htm
l
DID JESUS EXIST?
by Frank R. Zindler
The American Atheist, Summer 1998.
Updated from The Probing Mind series, January 1987
I have taken it for granted that Jesus of Nazareth
existed. Some writers feel a need to justify this
assumption at length against people who try from
time to time to deny it. It would be easier,
frankly, to believe that Tiberius Caesar, Jesus'
contemporary, was a figment of the imagination than
to believe that there never was such a person as
Jesus. - N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God
(Fortress, 1996) For most of my
life, I had taken it for granted that Jesus,
although certainly not a god, was nevertheless an
historical personage - perhaps a magician skilled in
hypnosis. To be sure, I knew that some of the
world's greatest scholars had denied his existence.
Nevertheless, I had always more or less supposed
that it was improbable that so many stories could
have sprung up about someone who had never existed.
Even in the case of other deities, such as Zeus,
Thor, Isis, and Osiris, I had always taken it for
granted that they were merely deified human heroes:
men and women who lived in the later stages of
prehistory - persons whose reputations got better
and better the longer the time elapsed after their
deaths. Gods, like fine wines, I
supposed, improved with age.
About a decade ago, however, I began to reexamine
the evidence for the historicity of Jesus. I was
astounded at what I didn't find. In this article, I
would like to show how shaky the evidence is
regarding the alleged existence of a would-be
messiah named Jesus. I now feel
it is more reasonable to suppose he never existed.
It is easier to account for the facts of early
Christian history if Jesus were a fiction than if he
once were real.
<snip>
How passionate!
I didn't write it.
And if you ignore all ancient writings describing
them, what evidence have we of Aristotle, Plato, or
Socrates?
We have their own writings to show that they existed.
In any case, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates were never
said to be gods or the sons of gods.
No, although Hercules was reputed to be a son of Zeus.
Hercules didn't exist either.
Son, you're entitled to your religion. Just don't try
to tell me it's science.
"Dad", you're entitled to your religion, but all the
evidence tells us that it is utter fiction.
All the evidence tells ME is that a lot of atheists
BELIEVE it to be utter fiction. That doesn't make them
right.
Atheists also believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are
fiction. That doesn't mean they are real.
Santa Claus is a corrupted myth based on the very real St.
Nicholas of Mira.
And Jesus may be a corrupted myth drawn from various ancient
virgin birth and death-rebirth legends.
And He may be God the Son intervening in human history to
create a new synthetic religion incorporating and fulfilling
those myths and legends.
He and his mythological father would first of all have to
actually exist. They don't.
And you know this because the spirit of the ungod appeared to you
in a non-burning bush and told you?
Is that what your god is? A burning bush?
Thanks for proving my point.
Is there any point in writing to you? I mean can you really read or
are you getting some non-interested party to explain the hard words
to you?
You clearly either did not understand what I said or simply decided
to be obtuse about it in order to avoid the question I asked.
I can understand that. Because you really cannot defend your claim.
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your head. I can
It didn't. What it did was clearly demonstrate that you're unable to
argue your point at all, and that you lack the intellectual capacity to
argue it, hence the personal attacks.
only imagine that you lack the intellectual capacity to follow my
arguments. Note here that I am trying to give you credit here: I
could be like Christopher Lee and just dismiss you as being
deliberately deceptive.
Gee, you had me fooled!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
21 Sep 2007 11:03:32 PM |
|
|
On Sep 22, 1:39 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your head. I can
It didn't. What it did was clearly demonstrate that you're unable to
argue your point at all,
You're projecting.
and that you lack the intellectual capacity to
argue it,
You're projecting.
hence the personal attacks.
You're projecting.
I've been nothing but honest with you. And I've cut you a hell of a
lot of slack. Too much, apparently.
only imagine that you lack the intellectual capacity to follow my
arguments. Note here that I am trying to give you credit here: I
could be like Christopher Lee and just dismiss you as being
deliberately deceptive.
Gee, you had me fooled!
If that were the case then I wouldn't be the first person to fool you
into believing something.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
22 Sep 2007 07:27:39 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190433812.971102.201340@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 22, 1:39 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your head. I
can
It didn't. What it did was clearly demonstrate that you're unable to
argue your point at all,
You're projecting.
and that you lack the intellectual capacity to
argue it,
You're projecting.
hence the personal attacks.
You're projecting.
Nope. Just observing that you're still ducking my question.
I've been nothing but honest with you. And I've cut you a hell of a
lot of slack. Too much, apparently.
Apparently you don't know how to be honest with me. If "cutting me
slack" means calling people "liars" all the time when you don't even know
them and thus claiming to have magical psychic powers, then pardon me for
being skeptical.
only imagine that you lack the intellectual capacity to follow my
arguments. Note here that I am trying to give you credit here: I
could be like Christopher Lee and just dismiss you as being
deliberately deceptive.
Gee, you had me fooled!
If that were the case then I wouldn't be the first person to fool you
into believing something.
Definitely not. I play poker. It happens all the time. The trick is to
know just how probable it is and call the bluffs enough of the time to
make them unprofitable. Of course there's a happy medium where that
works to your advantage and you have to take each player into account
when you try to estimate where that is. A player who bluffs all the time
can be "put on" a random hand. A player who never bluffs can be "put
on" a tight range. It's the player who OCCASIONALLY bluffs who manages
to really nail you, at least part of the time.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
23 Sep 2007 07:46:27 PM |
|
|
On Sep 23, 8:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1190433812.971102.201340@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 22, 1:39 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your head. I
can
It didn't. What it did was clearly demonstrate that you're unable to
argue your point at all,
You're projecting.
and that you lack the intellectual capacity to
argue it,
You're projecting.
hence the personal attacks.
You're projecting.
Nope. Just observing that you're still ducking my question.
Look again. There's no question typed above. All you have to offer
is personal attacks and lies.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
25 Sep 2007 10:52:52 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1190594787.253189.34780@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 23, 8:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190433812.971102.201340@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 22, 1:39 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your head.
I
can
It didn't. What it did was clearly demonstrate that you're unable
to argue your point at all,
You're projecting.
and that you lack the intellectual capacity to
argue it,
You're projecting.
hence the personal attacks.
You're projecting.
Nope. Just observing that you're still ducking my question.
Look again. There's no question typed above. All you have to offer
is personal attacks and lies.
You deleted the question that you refused to answer.
All you have to offer is personal attacks and lies. STUFF IT UP YOUR
WHATEVER!
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
26 Sep 2007 01:17:46 AM |
|
|
On Sep 26, 11:52 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1190594787.253189.34780@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 23, 8:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190433812.971102.201340@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 22, 1:39 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your head.
I
can
It didn't. What it did was clearly demonstrate that you're unable
to argue your point at all,
You're projecting.
and that you lack the intellectual capacity to
argue it,
You're projecting.
hence the personal attacks.
You're projecting.
Nope. Just observing that you're still ducking my question.
Look again. There's no question typed above. All you have to offer
is personal attacks and lies.
You deleted the question that you refused to answer.
Check again. There was no question in the post I was replying to.
I remember waaay back you asked me if I had seen a non-burning bush.
Well, of course I have seen bushes that weren't burning so I didn't
treat it as a real question. The point I made at the time was that
whatever the details of your religion are don't matter to an atheist
unless you actually have evidence to support your beliefs. Do you?
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
27 Sep 2007 02:56:21 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1190787466.344516.179150@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 26, 11:52 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190594787.253189.34780@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 23, 8:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190433812.971102.201340@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 22, 1:39 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your
head. I
can
It didn't. What it did was clearly demonstrate that you're
unable to argue your point at all,
You're projecting.
and that you lack the intellectual capacity to
argue it,
You're projecting.
hence the personal attacks.
You're projecting.
Nope. Just observing that you're still ducking my question.
Look again. There's no question typed above. All you have to
offer is personal attacks and lies.
You deleted the question that you refused to answer.
Check again. There was no question in the post I was replying to.
That's because I edited it out of the reply. But if you go back up the
thread you'll find it.
I remember waaay back you asked me if I had seen a non-burning bush.
Well, of course I have seen bushes that weren't burning so I didn't
treat it as a real question. The point I made at the time was that
whatever the details of your religion are don't matter to an atheist
unless you actually have evidence to support your beliefs. Do you?
And whatever the silly reasons for your insistence that your infidel
opinions are actually facts, I don't really give a damn. To me, your
blatant, militant atheism is no different from ANY religious
fundamentalism. Your dogma is just as unsupported as mine, but you're a
flaming hypocrite about it. Another typical fundy trait.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
27 Sep 2007 11:00:29 AM |
|
|
On Sep 27, 3:56 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1190787466.344516.179150@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Check again. There was no question in the post I was replying to.
That's because I edited it out
And how do you propose I was able to edit one of your posts?
I remember waaay back you asked me if I had seen a non-burning bush.
Well, of course I have seen bushes that weren't burning so I didn't
treat it as a real question. The point I made at the time was that
whatever the details of your religion are don't matter to an atheist
unless you actually have evidence to support your beliefs. Do you?
And whatever the silly reasons for your insistence that your infidel
opinions are actually facts, I don't really give a damn. To me, your
blatant, militant atheism is no different from ANY religious
fundamentalism. Your dogma is just as unsupported as mine, but you're a
flaming hypocrite about it. Another typical fundy trait.
Non-answer noted.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
27 Sep 2007 11:21:55 AM |
|
|
On Sep 28, 12:00 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 3:56 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1190787466.344516.179150@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Check again. There was no question in the post I was replying to.
That's because I edited it out
And how do you propose I was able to edit one of your posts?
Doh! My one weakness: I get confused about pronouns. :)
Anyway, if YOU editted out the question then the question wasn't
there.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
28 Sep 2007 01:18:05 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1190910115.134906.93740@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 12:00 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 3:56 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190787466.344516.179150@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Check again. There was no question in the post I was replying
to.
That's because I edited it out
And how do you propose I was able to edit one of your posts?
Doh! My one weakness: I get confused about pronouns. :)
Anyway, if YOU editted out the question then the question wasn't
there.
It WAS there in the post you replied to where you attacked me instead of
answering it.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
28 Sep 2007 09:38:50 AM |
|
|
On Sep 28, 2:18 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1190910115.134906.93740@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 12:00 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 3:56 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190787466.344516.179150@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Check again. There was no question in the post I was replying
to.
That's because I edited it out
And how do you propose I was able to edit one of your posts?
Doh! My one weakness: I get confused about pronouns. :)
Anyway, if YOU editted out the question then the question wasn't
there.
It WAS there in the post you replied to where you attacked me instead of
answering it.
You're a lying piece of *****, Dave. I've been very civil with you.
Far, far more civil than you apparently deserved.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 07:16:05 PM |
|
|
Martin Phipps <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1190990330.000283.73920@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:18 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190910115.134906.93740@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 12:00 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 3:56 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190787466.344516.179150@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Check again. There was no question in the post I was replying
to.
That's because I edited it out
And how do you propose I was able to edit one of your posts?
Doh! My one weakness: I get confused about pronouns. :)
Anyway, if YOU editted out the question then the question wasn't
there.
It WAS there in the post you replied to where you attacked me instead
of answering it.
You're a lying piece of *****, Dave. I've been very civil with you.
Far, far more civil than you apparently deserved.
You're a lying piece of *****, Martin. It's there, if you will look back
up the thread. But then, you won't. And I won't right now either. I've
got more things to do in my life than keep proving that fundy atheists
are just as honest as their theist counterparts, which is to say, not at
all.
You're all nasty people who set out to be as nasty as possible. May you
enjoy each other's nasty company for an eternity of nastiness...
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
30 Sep 2007 11:46:13 PM |
|
|
On Oct 1, 8:16 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1190990330.000283.73920@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 2:18 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1190910115.134906.93740@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
On Sep 28, 12:00 am, Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 27, 3:56 pm, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1190787466.344516.179150@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Check again. There was no question in the post I was replying
to.
That's because I edited it out
And how do you propose I was able to edit one of your posts?
Doh! My one weakness: I get confused about pronouns. :)
Anyway, if YOU editted out the question then the question wasn't
there.
It WAS there in the post you replied to where you attacked me instead
of answering it.
You're a lying piece of *****, Dave. I've been very civil with you.
Far, far more civil than you apparently deserved.
You're a lying piece of *****, Martin. It's there, if you will look back
up the thread.
Unlike you, I actually remember what's been said in this thread. Do
you realize that google will archive this thread for years to come?
How will you live with the shame?
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
23 Sep 2007 02:17:21 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:20:46 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
You clearly either did not understand what I said or simply decided to be
obtuse about it in order to avoid the question I asked.
I can understand that. Because you really cannot defend your claim.
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your head. I can
only imagine that you lack the intellectual capacity to follow my
arguments. Note here that I am trying to give you credit here: I
could be like Christopher Lee and just dismiss you as being
deliberately deceptive.
I only started doing that when he started lying about atheists. A
common failing in theists.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
25 Sep 2007 10:07:49 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:fredf3l6esng5jcs93mrj721gkeg645c5g@4ax.com:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:20:46 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
You clearly either did not understand what I said or simply decided
to be obtuse about it in order to avoid the question I asked.
I can understand that. Because you really cannot defend your claim.
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your head. I can
only imagine that you lack the intellectual capacity to follow my
arguments. Note here that I am trying to give you credit here: I
could be like Christopher Lee and just dismiss you as being
deliberately deceptive.
I only started doing that when he started lying about atheists. A
common failing in theists.
When did *I* start lying about atheists?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
23 Sep 2007 08:05:26 PM |
|
|
On Sep 24, 3:17 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:20:46 -0700, Martin Phipps
<phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:27 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
You clearly either did not understand what I said or simply decided to be
obtuse about it in order to avoid the question I asked.
I can understand that. Because you really cannot defend your claim.
It's not my fault if what I say goes completely over your head. I can
only imagine that you lack the intellectual capacity to follow my
arguments. Note here that I am trying to give you credit here: I
could be like Christopher Lee and just dismiss you as being
deliberately deceptive.
I only started doing that when he started lying about atheists. A
common failing in theists.
I think you actually started calling him a liar a bit early but, hey,
good call as it turned out. I usually try to give people more benefit
of the doubt.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
17 Sep 2007 06:40:35 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:15:45 -0700, Martin Phipps
<martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:07 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1189871531.196022.310730@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
"Dad", you're entitled to your religion, but all the evidence tells us
that it is utter fiction.
All the evidence tells ME is that a lot of atheists BELIEVE it to be
utter fiction. That doesn't make them right.
Somebody tell the lying priest the difference between "conclude" and
"believe", and not to replace the one carrying the intended meaning
with one that doesn't.
Atheists also believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are fiction.
That doesn't mean they are real.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: A sampling of PhDs who reject evolution |
18 Sep 2007 02:31:27 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:5qpse39k71pc75ab7lbetc7ni1jolflbqf@4ax.com:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:15:45 -0700, Martin Phipps
<martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 9:07 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:
Martin Phipps <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1189871531.196022.310730@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
"Dad", you're entitled to your religion, but all the evidence
tells us that it is utter fiction.
All the evidence tells ME is that a lot of atheists BELIEVE it to be
utter fiction. That doesn't make them right.
Somebody tell the lying priest the difference between "conclude" and
"believe", and not to replace the one carrying the intended meaning
with one that doesn't.
The only thing the lying atheist fundy pig CONCLUDES is that HE is the
only god there is. Like all his fundy brothers, he's a flaming
narcissist and a liar.
Atheists also believe Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are fiction.
That doesn't mean they are real.
Atheist fundies like Lee are a figment of their own imagination. The ego
he worships is an illusion not shared by others. That's why he's such a
nasty libeller.
And I'm not attacking him because he's an atheist but because he's a
fundy libeller. HONEST atheists exist, but he's not one of them.
--
Dave Oldridge | | |
