- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 22 2010,23:06) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 22 2010,16:45) Forget the italicising and bolding of scriptural platitudes. Use the thing between your ears!
Honestly I am amazed how many religious folk trot out mindless nonsense about being part of a plan unleashed by a perfect creator,
and then they won't use the brain they allege was given to them by that perfect Imaginary Friend.
Do they not really trust their God-given brain?? Obviously they trust the writings of men over it.[/rant]
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Yes Stuart, you should drop the man made writings of a false evolution!
Your God-given mind should realize the garbage it really is! (Jer.2:27)BD, I would like to point directly to 'the problem': satan's 'title' is 'i am'!
Look in the context of what Stuart is talking about to PROVE my point.Judgmental accusations against “OUR YHVH”=117(The Creator). Then, more Judgmental accusations on
how Stuart feels(based on satan's influence of his mind) we should share mindless thoughts like Stuarts.
BD, can you NOT SEE this is REALLY satan's title in work in Stuarts mind to blaspheme?At least Stuart admits that our brains were God-given! So there is hope my Brother!
I believe you are not wasting your time, and glad you came back, my Brother!God bless
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
STU has the Atheists disease, he doesn't accept any evidence to be allowed to validate or prove the existence of God. No matter how logical or plausible an explanation of God is the disease will cause the mind to glitch.In regards to “I am” it is not always used in the way you described it, STU could have said “I am going to submit to God and give up my judgemental accusations”
All “I am” or I'm (if you prefer) saying is you are taking a common identifier and applying it to Satan, when it is clear that the Bible doesn't teach this at all.
This simply has to stop if you are to go forward. Your basic number presentation is impressive but you in your need to be more impressive have corrupted your main point which was to prove to nonbelievers that God does exist.
It's not just you many bible coders, mystics and diviners have done this. They find something wonderful from God and they get wrapped up in it so much the power of it seduces them and they start getting lost it sometimes ends in tragedy.
I just want you to get back to basics and give all praise that is due to God to God and not the numbers, the numbers don't actually prove God exists to those who have the Atheists disease anyway. Your evdence and proof only helped you and other believers be more convinced and that's because it's easy for us to see God in anything or situation.
Stuarts blasphemy simply proves he has a fractured mind, because you can only blaspheme an actual living reality, you cannot Blaspeme something that does not exist so his protest against God shows a certain insanity of calling something imaginary and then talking about it as if it is real. I keep telling him that if God is imaginary and Stuart is sane he would not be able to have a conversation about or with God but he does all the time.
Now if STU does not believe in the Bible or the Quran he should show his sceptism about the Holy Books and leave God out of it. Because essentially Stu admittedly has stated he cannot know if God exists STU can only say with certainty that he does not believe in God the way that we do.
This would actually be the best starting point for him to cure his disease of Atheism and that is to be intellectually honest. He should consider stating that I don't know if there is a God but I don't believe that God would be described or involved in this world as others believe. That would be honest and acceptable to God
BD
Quote What is the evidence that socrates lived?
The independent, CORROBORATING eyewitness accounts of his life. They might be wrong, they could be a conspiracy, there might never have been a Socrates. I think it reasonable to conclude that there was no conspiracy: there is no vested interest in lying about him.Quote How could it be unreasonable to believe in the existence of God but not Socrates?
There is evidence for Socrates and no particular reason to doubt it. You have presented no such evidence for your god. The supposed eyewitness accounts of your god do not corroborate any specific claim about it.I conclude, reasonably that there was such a person as Socrates, subject to further evidence to the contrary. With your god we are at the stage of no evidence either way, and certainly no evidence that is unambiguous. I consider the former belief reasonable and the latter unreasonable.
Quote Every culture has come to the conclusion that there is a God independent of other cultures yet every culture has not independently discovered Socrates and many have still never heard of him.
Argument ad populum, against which you were warned by kejonn in your discussion with him. Another logical fallacy of an argument. I really wish you would learn something about this.Quote As I said you don't apply the same logic equally to God as you do other things.
As I said to you, the ‘evidence’ you claim to have presented so far is not unambiguous. Remember? Two kidneys is evidence for two cooperative gods, or none, as well as for one. People deciding there are gods is evidence that there are as many gods as there have been belief systems in them.This is ALL ambiguous evidence!
Quote you really believe that the 5 senses came about without reason.
I believe that statement came about without reason!Quote That is why I say that you have the Atheist Disease you betray your own sense of logic and reason when it comes to God.
What god? None of my senses tell me there is any such thing. I think the truth is that none of your senses tell you there is any such thing either.Stuart
Ed
Quote Yes Stuart, you should drop the man made writings of a false evolution!
Your God-given mind should realize the garbage it really is! (Jer.2:27)
If my mind is ‘garbage’ how is it going to have self-awareness of that fact? You have not disproved evolution by natural selection, you have just ranted about it. I’m afraid for you that the fact of evolution, explained by the theory of natural selection, as used by many thousands of scientists all over the world as a tool in their daily work, work that produces reliable outcomes for you an I in medicine, for example, outweighs your rantings about it!And then there is all the evidence that supports it and the fact that so far no one has disproved it. Including you.
Quote Stuart feels(based on satan's influence of his mind) we should share mindless thoughts like Stuarts.
BD, can you NOT SEE this is REALLY satan's title in work in Stuarts mind to blaspheme?
Unlike you, who requires angels to explain my motives, I think I can explain your thinking in quite straightforward evolutionary terms. Who of us is it that has a blinding influence in their view, really?Quote At least Stuart admits that our brains were God-given!
I think you will find, if you real a bit more carefully that I did not suggest anything of the sort!Stuart
BD
Quote STU has the Atheists disease, he doesn't accept any evidence to be allowed to validate or prove the existence of God. No matter how logical or plausible an explanation of God is the disease will cause the mind to glitch.
Wrong. It is just that your ‘evidence’ is not evidence for your god.Quote Your basic number presentation is impressive
You are joking, right?Quote Your evdence and proof only helped you and other believers be more convinced and that's because it's easy for us to see God in anything or situation.
Indeed. Those with the god delusion will interpret everything in mythological terms, forgetting that there is nothing convincing about the logical fallacy of circular argument.Quote Stuarts blasphemy simply proves he has a fractured mind, because you can only blaspheme an actual living reality, you cannot Blaspeme something that does not exist so his protest against God shows a certain insanity of calling something imaginary and then talking about it as if it is real. I keep telling him that if God is imaginary and Stuart is sane he would not be able to have a conversation about or with God but he does all the time. Do you believe that the imaginary friends entertained by young children are real? If not, would you consider your own mind to be ‘fractured’ if you were to have a conversation with a young person about that imaginary friend? Of course not. Actually what has happened is that the religious cannot see the world from a non-believer’s point of view, probably because they have invested so much emotional energy in convincing their own brains to accept the reality of things that are not really there that they dare not consider the opposite view for fear of their edifice of fantasy crumbling. I could have a conversation about the Roman gods with an ancient Roman. I don’t think you would be able to do that.
Quote Now if STU does not believe in the Bible or the Quran he should show his sceptism about the Holy Books and leave God out of it. Because essentially Stu admittedly has stated he cannot know if God exists STU can only say with certainty that he does not believe in God the way that we do.
You misrepresent me AGAIN (for the reasons I have outlined above). There is no evidence for any god whatsoever. There are very good candidate explanations for why humans would believe in gods that are not really there. This leads me to conclude that there are no gods, even though no one, including you, can know whether there is any such thing.Islam: the religion for slow learners. And liars?
Quote This would actually be the best starting point for him to cure his disease of Atheism and that is to be intellectually honest. He should consider stating that I don't know if there is a God but I don't believe that God would be described or involved in this world as others believe.
That is not honest because it assumes the existence of some kind of god, where no such belief is justified as a truth claim, not by you or anyone. I really wonder what you think the word ‘faith’ means.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,07:31) BD Quote What is the evidence that socrates lived?
The independent, CORROBORATING eyewitness accounts of his life. They might be wrong, they could be a conspiracy, there might never have been a Socrates. I think it reasonable to conclude that there was no conspiracy: there is no vested interest in lying about him.Quote How could it be unreasonable to believe in the existence of God but not Socrates?
There is evidence for Socrates and no particular reason to doubt it. You have presented no such evidence for your god. The supposed eyewitness accounts of your god do not corroborate any specific claim about it.I conclude, reasonably that there was such a person as Socrates, subject to further evidence to the contrary. With your god we are at the stage of no evidence either way, and certainly no evidence that is unambiguous. I consider the former belief reasonable and the latter unreasonable.
Quote Every culture has come to the conclusion that there is a God independent of other cultures yet every culture has not independently discovered Socrates and many have still never heard of him.
Argument ad populum, against which you were warned by kejonn in your discussion with him. Another logical fallacy of an argument. I really wish you would learn something about this.Quote As I said you don't apply the same logic equally to God as you do other things.
As I said to you, the ‘evidence’ you claim to have presented so far is not unambiguous. Remember? Two kidneys is evidence for two cooperative gods, or none, as well as for one. People deciding there are gods is evidence that there are as many gods as there have been belief systems in them.This is ALL ambiguous evidence!
Quote you really believe that the 5 senses came about without reason.
I believe that statement came about without reason!Quote That is why I say that you have the Atheist Disease you betray your own sense of logic and reason when it comes to God.
What god? None of my senses tell me there is any such thing. I think the truth is that none of your senses tell you there is any such thing either.Stuart
First of all you are starting to get it. You should always say “What God?” As an atheist you can never speak about God in a way that indicates that “God is” otherwise you are being insane.Now, You can not possibly know about eyewitness accounts of Socrates anymore than I could about Jesus, Moses, Muhammad or any other individual that you have not even met the eye witnesses of. Your eyewitnesses may have not even existed.
Do you have any corroborating evidence that your eyewitnesses existed and so on and so on?
you said “there is no vested interest in lying about him”
There certainly could be no vested interest in Jews saying that they were disobedient to “God” and there also would be no vested interest in putting all sorts of rules and restrictions upon oneself.
2 kidneys is the evidence of function in form with a purpose of process.
Actually stating that independent discovery of God from all cultures is not Argument Ad Populum it is a recognition of INDEPENDENT STUDY
If there are scientific independent studies on the effects of exercise and all the studies independently found a correlation between weight bearing exercise and muscle mass would that be argument ad populum?
Of Course not!
You are starting to become more lucid and that's good news.
BD
Your god is an unjust, sexist monster, according to any reasonable interpretation of your mythology. Now are you so pedantic that you think me insane if I do not explain after every statement that I am writing conditionally? You discuss all the time this god of yours and yet you cannot even demonstrate that it exists to even the most basic standard. Actually it is not me who is pretending here! I am just supposing!
I can read the independent and corroborating eyewitness accounts of Socrates as well as you can read the anonymous alleged accounts of Jesus that are not corroborated with evidence from outside of the tales and writings of christians. The contemporary Romans were fanatical diarists, and yet all Josephus and Tacitus report are what they were told by christians!
There was enough of a vested interest in lying about Jesus that early christians actually altered the writing of Josephus. With this action alone they brought any credibility the anonymous gospels may have had into disrepute (note that the authors who wrote about Socrates were not anonymous!).
Why did you attempt to use facts about organ systems as evidence of your god earlier? Is the fact that you have two kidneys evidence for your god or not? If so, how is it specific evidence for one god?
No, you HAVE committed argument ad populum because you are attempting to argue that because lots of people, whether independently or not, have believed in gods therefore there must be such a thing, or things. The argument fails in particular because those independent cultures have described a vast range of contradictory qualities in their gods. You should note too the dangers of accidentally attempting to demonstrate the truth of polytheism by the same argument.
Scientific studies like the one you describe do not collect opinions, they collect empirical data.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,09:52) BD Your god is an unjust, sexist monster, according to any reasonable interpretation of your mythology. Now are you so pedantic that you think me insane if I do not explain after every statement that I am writing conditionally? You discuss all the time this god of yours and yet you cannot even demonstrate that it exists to even the most basic standard. Actually it is not me who is pretending here! I am just supposing!
I can read the independent and corroborating eyewitness accounts of Socrates as well as you can read the anonymous alleged accounts of Jesus that are not corroborated with evidence from outside of the tales and writings of christians. The contemporary Romans were fanatical diarists, and yet all Josephus and Tacitus report are what they were told by christians!
There was enough of a vested interest in lying about Jesus that early christians actually altered the writing of Josephus. With this action alone they brought any credibility the anonymous gospels may have had into disrepute (note that the authors who wrote about Socrates were not anonymous!).
Why did you attempt to use facts about organ systems as evidence of your god earlier? Is the fact that you have two kidneys evidence for your god or not? If so, how is it specific evidence for one god?
No, you HAVE committed argument ad populum because you are attempting to argue that because lots of people, whether independently or not, have believed in gods therefore there must be such a thing, or things. The argument fails in particular because those independent cultures have described a vast range of contradictory qualities in their gods. You should note too the dangers of accidentally attempting to demonstrate the truth of polytheism by the same argument.
Scientific studies like the one you describe do not collect opinions, they collect empirical data.
Stuart
I guess you glitched again. That is to be expected.I never said you were pretending, if that were the case you wouldn't have a disease but with the disease you “suppose” whatever you say is really rational.
You have no knowledge whatsoever about the authors who wrote about Socrates, why do you “suppose” that you do?
I used facts about “organ systems” to show that they function in accordance to a purpose. There are no gods so what do you mean? The “organ systems” show a process of purpose. Even the way the tongue fits in your mouth surrouded by teeth this is not an accident. How the whale has a blow hole that doesn't cause him to drown but makes it possible for him to live. How a dome seems to have no support holding up its middle.
Empirical Data is shown to be collected data based upon the facts related by the participants of the study.
If a study asks the participants how they felt they are using the data as empiricle.
The Atheism Disease is not a state of disbelief it is a state of disbelief in any evidence of God.
An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe, they can examine honestly the argument for God and decide for themselves. Those with the disease however cannot honestly examine it is a really miserable state to be in.
BD
Quote I guess you glitched again. That is to be expected.
It is to be expected because all you are doing is guessing.Quote I never said you were pretending, if that were the case you wouldn't have a disease but with the disease you “suppose” whatever you say is really rational.
The conclusion to that is that I am not pretending, that in fact I am a theist who is insanely denying the god in which I believe. It is not me suffering from insanity here!You are indulging in yet another event of circular logic. The logical fallacies tumble from you like sewage from a broken sewer.
Quote You have no knowledge whatsoever about the authors who wrote about Socrates, why do you “suppose” that you do?
Well, as you should know but don’t, history is pieced together from evidence, which itself has to be treated carefully. The conclusions you make from the evidence of the writing about Socrates is that it is far more likely than not that there was such a person. This is not a black-and-white situation. You should learn something about epistemology and empiricism as well.Quote I used facts about “organ systems” to show that they function in accordance to a purpose. There are no gods so what do you mean? The “organ systems” show a process of purpose. Even the way the tongue fits in your mouth surrouded by teeth this is not an accident. How the whale has a blow hole that doesn't cause him to drown but makes it possible for him to live. How a dome seems to have no support holding up its middle.
OK. So what then? That has little to do with the point I was making about purpose.Quote Empirical Data is shown to be collected data based upon the facts related by the participants of the study. If a study asks the participants how they felt they are using the data as empiricle.
The study you described would NOT ask the participants how they felt though, would it?! Empirical evidence does not always depend on human opinion, and probably only a tiny fraction of the research done in the world does anyway.Quote The Atheism Disease is not a state of disbelief it is a state of disbelief in any evidence of God.
In that case it is the disease of the theist, because it is you who thinks he has provided adequate evidence, when in fact you have not. You are essentially calling me a liar without evidence to back it up, because you are suggesting that I would not accept any evidence of your god. Actually I still have not seen any evidence of your god. Do you have any, or is it ALL just evidence for any old supernatural fantasy that anyone might like to make up?By the way, everytime I have suggested you are a liar I have supported my view with evidence.
Quote An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe, they can examine honestly the argument for God and decide for themselves.
What argument? You have not made one yet that is not an assertion or a logical fallacy. Don’t expect people to accept your accusations as a substitute for having an argument. That would be ad hominem!Quote Those with the disease however cannot honestly examine it is a really miserable state to be in.
I have honestly examined everything you have given me, and shown you why it is not evidence. So, is this more of the theist disease, not accepting other’s valid criticisms?Don’t forget that in our everyday lives we do not see, hear, smell, feel or taste your god. Yet you claim there is something supernatural there. The burden of proof is on you: it is you defending your sanity against the accusation that all you perceive is the emperor’s new clothes.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,13:36) BD Quote I guess you glitched again. That is to be expected.
It is to be expected because all you are doing is guessing.Quote I never said you were pretending, if that were the case you wouldn't have a disease but with the disease you “suppose” whatever you say is really rational.
The conclusion to that is that I am not pretending, that in fact I am a theist who is insanely denying the god in which I believe. It is not me suffering from insanity here!You are indulging in yet another event of circular logic. The logical fallacies tumble from you like sewage from a broken sewer.
Quote You have no knowledge whatsoever about the authors who wrote about Socrates, why do you “suppose” that you do?
Well, as you should know but don’t, history is pieced together from evidence, which itself has to be treated carefully. The conclusions you make from the evidence of the writing about Socrates is that it is far more likely than not that there was such a person. This is not a black-and-white situation. You should learn something about epistemology and empiricism as well.Quote I used facts about “organ systems” to show that they function in accordance to a purpose. There are no gods so what do you mean? The “organ systems” show a process of purpose. Even the way the tongue fits in your mouth surrouded by teeth this is not an accident. How the whale has a blow hole that doesn't cause him to drown but makes it possible for him to live. How a dome seems to have no support holding up its middle.
OK. So what then? That has little to do with the point I was making about purpose.Quote Empirical Data is shown to be collected data based upon the facts related by the participants of the study. If a study asks the participants how they felt they are using the data as empiricle.
The study you described would NOT ask the participants how they felt though, would it?! Empirical evidence does not always depend on human opinion, and probably only a tiny fraction of the research done in the world does anyway.Quote The Atheism Disease is not a state of disbelief it is a state of disbelief in any evidence of God.
In that case it is the disease of the theist, because it is you who thinks he has provided adequate evidence, when in fact you have not. You are essentially calling me a liar without evidence to back it up, because you are suggesting that I would not accept any evidence of your god. Actually I still have not seen any evidence of your god. Do you have any, or is it ALL just evidence for any old supernatural fantasy that anyone might like to make up?By the way, everytime I have suggested you are a liar I have supported my view with evidence.
Quote An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe, they can examine honestly the argument for God and decide for themselves.
What argument? You have not made one yet that is not an assertion or a logical fallacy. Don’t expect people to accept your accusations as a substitute for having an argument. That would be ad hominem!Quote Those with the disease however cannot honestly examine it is a really miserable state to be in.
I have honestly examined everything you have given me, and shown you why it is not evidence. So, is this more of the theist disease, not accepting other’s valid criticisms?Don’t forget that in our everyday lives we do not see, hear, smell, feel or taste your god. Yet you claim there is something supernatural there. The burden of proof is on you: it is you defending your sanity against the accusation that all you perceive is the emperor’s new clothes.
Stuart
History is pieced together from evidence and yet you don't believe that the history of the Jews are pieced together from evidence, how antisemitic!So are you stating emphatically that all the Jewish authors were liars and delusional without evidence to back it up?
You have a severe sickness STU you have never supported your view with evidence and in-fact you are so sick that you yourself said that a negative cannot be proved and yet you are telling me tha you gave me evidence to prove a negative. YOU ARE SICK WITH THE ATHEISTS DISEASE.
BD
Quote History is pieced together from evidence and yet you don't believe that the history of the Jews are pieced together from evidence, how antisemitic!
A muslim calling ME an antisemite! Could that be the ultimate in hypocrisy! What exactly are you claiming to be the ‘history of the Jews’? The new testament? That is what I wrote about.Quote [So are you stating emphatically that all the Jewish authors were liars and delusional without evidence to back it up?
Where did I write that? I did give you an example of one writer who was Jewish whose writing I have given some esteem to. Did you forget about that? I bet you can’t even name him…Quote You have a severe sickness STU you have never supported your view with evidence and in-fact you are so sick that you yourself said that a negative cannot be proved and yet you are telling me tha you gave me evidence to prove a negative. YOU ARE SICK WITH THE ATHEISTS DISEASE.
Are you planning on making sense anytime soon?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,15:27) BD Quote History is pieced together from evidence and yet you don't believe that the history of the Jews are pieced together from evidence, how antisemitic!
A muslim calling ME an antisemite! Could that be the ultimate in hypocrisy! What exactly are you claiming to be the ‘history of the Jews’? The new testament? That is what I wrote about.Quote [So are you stating emphatically that all the Jewish authors were liars and delusional without evidence to back it up?
Where did I write that? I did give you an example of one writer who was Jewish whose writing I have given some esteem to. Did you forget about that? I bet you can’t even name him…Quote You have a severe sickness STU you have never supported your view with evidence and in-fact you are so sick that you yourself said that a negative cannot be proved and yet you are telling me tha you gave me evidence to prove a negative. YOU ARE SICK WITH THE ATHEISTS DISEASE.
Are you planning on making sense anytime soon?Stuart
So are you stating emphatically that all the Jewish authors of the Torah, were liars and delusional without evidence to back it up?Quote So are you stating emphatically that all the Jewish authors of the Torah, were liars and delusional without evidence to back it up?
I don't remember mentioning the Torah at all. I did discuss the new testament. Have you got the two confused?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,07:39) Ed Quote Yes Stuart, you should drop the man made writings of a false evolution!
Your God-given mind should realize the garbage it really is! (Jer.2:27)
If my mind is ‘garbage’ how is it going to have self-awareness of that fact? You have not disproved evolution by natural selection, you have just ranted about it.
StuartQuote (Stu @ Jan. 22 2010,16:45) they trust the writings of men over it. Stuart
Hi Stuart,
I was pointing you should drop the false evolution garbage writings.
Your mind was God-given.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 22 2010,16:45) Do they not really trust their god-given brain?? Stuart
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,20:19) Quote So are you stating emphatically that all the Jewish authors of the Torah, were liars and delusional without evidence to back it up?
I don't remember mentioning the Torah at all. I did discuss the new testament. Have you got the two confused?Stuart
STU,You are being very incinsere because you have mentioned you don't believe Moses existed. However, being an Atheist would have to include the belief that the Jews created the Torah for some reason other than the truth.
The writings and message of the Torah is about interacting with GOD, therefore an Atheist would have to conclude that Jews were lying or delusional. If there was no Judaism there would be no Christianity or Islam.
So are you stating emphatically that the Jewish authors of The Torah i.e. Old Testament are lying or delusional?
I promise you that I was being sincere about Moses. To judge by 'his' writing style he was at least five people, one Moses of which described the circumstances of his own death.
Regarding what I must believe the Torah was for, thank you for telling me what I must believe. I will treat that with the contempt it deserves.
Other than that, I choose to say nothing about the Torah at all, for the time being!
Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 23 2010,21:36) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,07:39) Ed Quote Yes Stuart, you should drop the man made writings of a false evolution!
Your God-given mind should realize the garbage it really is! (Jer.2:27)
If my mind is ‘garbage’ how is it going to have self-awareness of that fact? You have not disproved evolution by natural selection, you have just ranted about it.
StuartQuote (Stu @ Jan. 22 2010,16:45) they trust the writings of men over it. Stuart
Hi Stuart,
I was pointing you should drop the false evolution garbage writings.
Your mind was God-given.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 22 2010,16:45) Do they not really trust their god-given brain?? Stuart
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Hi Ed.What do you think was behind my use of the word “they”, the third person plural (and not the first person singular)??
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,08:11) I promise you that I was being sincere about Moses. To judge by 'his' writing style he was at least five people, one Moses of which described the circumstances of his own death. Regarding what I must believe the Torah was for, thank you for telling me what I must believe. I will treat that with the contempt it deserves.
Other than that, I choose to say nothing about the Torah at all, for the time being!
Stuart
The fact is STU if you deny that God exists you deny the entire Jewish heritage and relegate The Jews as deceivers, liars and delusional.It was Judaism that was entrusted with the message of God. If you can tell me that the Jews have lied to the world about their experience with God and provide evidence I would also have to become an Atheist because the entire root of Monotheism relies on Jewish testimony even bearing the mark in their skin(circumcision) and also keeping the Sabbath until this very day.
An Atheist must believe that every religious “brutality”(your words) is in fact based upon Jews deceiving mankind. So tell me STU were the Jews lying about their witnessing a REAL GOD or were they delusional?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 24 2010,09:39) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,08:11) I promise you that I was being sincere about Moses. To judge by 'his' writing style he was at least five people, one Moses of which described the circumstances of his own death. Regarding what I must believe the Torah was for, thank you for telling me what I must believe. I will treat that with the contempt it deserves.
Other than that, I choose to say nothing about the Torah at all, for the time being!
Stuart
The fact is STU if you deny that God exists you deny the entire Jewish heritage and relegate The Jews as deceivers, liars and delusional.It was Judaism that was entrusted with the message of God. If you can tell me that the Jews have lied to the world about their experience with God and provide evidence I would also have to become an Atheist because the entire root of Monotheism relies on Jewish testimony even bearing the mark in their skin(circumcision) and also keeping the Sabbath until this very day.
An Atheist must believe that every religious “brutality”(your words) is in fact based upon Jews deceiving mankind. So tell me STU were the Jews lying about their witnessing a REAL GOD or were they delusional?
Do you think you might make a good atheist BD?If would mean you would have to give up believing in Imaginary Sky Friends.
Not that difficult when they are only imaginary.
Not that I am prostyletising to you, you understand! You can believe what nonsense you want as far as I am concerned!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,12:51) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 24 2010,09:39) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,08:11) I promise you that I was being sincere about Moses. To judge by 'his' writing style he was at least five people, one Moses of which described the circumstances of his own death. Regarding what I must believe the Torah was for, thank you for telling me what I must believe. I will treat that with the contempt it deserves.
Other than that, I choose to say nothing about the Torah at all, for the time being!
Stuart
The fact is STU if you deny that God exists you deny the entire Jewish heritage and relegate The Jews as deceivers, liars and delusional.It was Judaism that was entrusted with the message of God. If you can tell me that the Jews have lied to the world about their experience with God and provide evidence I would also have to become an Atheist because the entire root of Monotheism relies on Jewish testimony even bearing the mark in their skin(circumcision) and also keeping the Sabbath until this very day.
An Atheist must believe that every religious “brutality”(your words) is in fact based upon Jews deceiving mankind. So tell me STU were the Jews lying about their witnessing a REAL GOD or were they delusional?
Do you think you might make a good atheist BD?If would mean you would have to give up believing in Imaginary Sky Friends.
Not that difficult when they are only imaginary.
Not that I am prostyletising to you, you understand! You can believe what nonsense you want as far as I am concerned!
Stuart
The fact is STU if you deny that God exists you deny the entire Jewish heritage and relegate The Jews as deceivers, liars and delusional. Do you believe this? If you do just say it
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
