Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-09-2004, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

. . . . This is done because of your worldview and its goal to urinate on the Bible and its God.

. . .

Please refrain from attributing motives to others. Please keep your language polite. Thank you

Toto
mod, BCH

Jack the Bodiless · 12-09-2004, 03:08 PM

WILLOWTREE, your ranting is becoming tiresome.

You have no evidence, and you know it.

The Bible is a book of myths, one of many such. SOME of those myths MAY have been based on real events: others certainly were not, they have been disproved.

We make our conclusions, on a case-by-case basis, based on the EVIDENCE for the specific claim being made. If there is EVIDENCE that the Bible is correct on a specific issue, then there's no reason why we shouldn't accept that.

Given the lack of EVIDENCE that David had an empire as described: he probably didn't, as this is something that should have been noticed. I will revise this opinion if EVIDENCE, that is NOT just a story in a book of myths, is ever found. I have no reason not to. I'm not going to suddenly stop being an atheist just because David had an empire: there would be nothing miraculous about that.

Why is your own faith so weak? Why must you rant to cover your own insecurities? Why do you frequent an atheist forum if you can't handle what you find there?

Celsus · 12-09-2004, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

Me thinks you are on a mad scavenger hunt trying to find ONE piece of evidence refuting my claim.

Actually no I'm not.

Let me ask you for some evidence: Please cite destruction layers during David's reign that have been corroborated with being caused by an Israelite empire. David was a great warrior, right?

Joel

johntheapostate · 12-09-2004, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

The Bible says there was.

This evidence is completely ignored because of worldview hatred/bias.

This confirms my allegation above.

By saying, "real evidence" you are capriciously declaring the Bible is not evidence. This is done because of your worldview and its goal to urinate on the Bible and its God.

IOW, your defintion of evidence qualifies only that which supports your assumptions.

The rejection of Bible as evidence is necessary by atheists.

Show me any evidence that allegedly disproves a Biblical claim and I will show you that the evidence is based on atheistic assumptions = conclusions pre-determined.

This is why atheists call themselves christians now (Jesus Seminar) in order to silence the invulnerable criticism that their worldview is concluding.

It fools no one in reality, except society must suffer this vocal minority via their philosophic friends in the media who promote pseudo atheist scholarship as settled fact. All polls indicate the Bible is unscathed by this fraud in that 90 plus percent of ordinary Americans beliveve in the Biblical God and the veracity of the Bible.

WT

Here is a Biblical claim that I can disprove. The KJV claims in 2 Kings 8:26 " Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem." Now I can prove that Ahaziah was not 22 years old when he began to reign. I can prove this using the only document you accept as valid. I only have to go to 2 Chronicles 22:2 " Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem." Now where's my prize.

ScMay · 12-13-2004, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

The Bible says there was.

Really

, well thats the end of that argument. Guess we'll have to admit defeat, Willows logic and evidence is just unbeatable........ :Cheeky:

Jeremy Pallant · 12-13-2004, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWTREE

All polls indicate the Bible is unscathed by this fraud in that 90 plus percent of ordinary Americans beliveve in the Biblical God and the veracity of the Bible.

So who are the "atheist masses" you were referring to earlier?

funinspace · 12-13-2004, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremy Pallant

So who are the "atheist masses" you were referring to earlier?

Can't you see it? It's 90% of the ordinary. However, only 25% of the people are considered ordinary. And 90% of statistics are made up on the fly.

Actually I would be curious to see Ahaziah double life explained...the bible seams fairly self-evident as flawed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2004, 03:08 PM	#12
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	WILLOWTREE, your ranting is becoming tiresome. You have no evidence, and you know it. The Bible is a book of myths, one of many such. SOME of those myths MAY have been based on real events: others certainly were not, they have been disproved. We make our conclusions, on a case-by-case basis, based on the EVIDENCE for the specific claim being made. If there is EVIDENCE that the Bible is correct on a specific issue, then there's no reason why we shouldn't accept that. Given the lack of EVIDENCE that David had an empire as described: he probably didn't, as this is something that should have been noticed. I will revise this opinion if EVIDENCE, that is NOT just a story in a book of myths, is ever found. I have no reason not to. I'm not going to suddenly stop being an atheist just because David had an empire: there would be nothing miraculous about that. Why is your own faith so weak? Why must you rant to cover your own insecurities? Why do you frequent an atheist forum if you can't handle what you find there?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.