Automaton

I'm still waiting for a response Gemma. If you were not willing to back up your original reasoning in the seven arguments you posted, why did you bother posting them in the first place?

Typhon

Gemma appears to be arguing from the position of appalling ignorance.

Compounding this, is the unwillingness or inability to seek knowledge when an area of said ignorance, or fallacy, is fairly pointed out.

Gemma,

These seven points HAVE been previously refuted. I am not seeking to preach to you, or hoodwink you, or anything else. I am not even trying to suggest that these are not valid and serious points. I merely am pointing out the salient fact, that they have been examined, discussed, and disposed of by experts more involved in the fields they touch upon than yourself.

If you think their refutations in turn are flawed, then please post the many successful rebuttals to these seven antiquated points, and demonstrate in what ways if any, they fail.

To merely say you don't believe that there exist any successful rebuttals is meaningless and intellectually dishonest. It doesn't matter what you believe, because in this case, they exist.

Either you have read them and discovered what you think are flaws, or you have not read them, so have no basis to know whether your original seven points still stand let alone comment so flippantly about their current status.

You only make yourself and your faith appear intellectually lazy or worse, dishonest, by engaging in such tactics.

In disappointment,

.T.

Gemma Therese

So, your ignoring my arguments constitutes refutation? Here I thought it was because you couldn't answer, and had simply accepted the failure of your arguments...

They're not my arguments, they are St. Thomas Aquinas's.

Gee, I thought you atheists knew everything.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Gemma Therese ]</p>

Ion

Gemma, it's not St. Thomas Aquinas, is Saint Thomas d'Aquinas.

Saint Thomas d'Aquinas had had no clue about science, so for the purpose of this thread you might as well quote Conan the Barbarian.

Samhain

Perhaps a modern reference of Benny Hinn might be more effective Gemma?

Automaton

I have ignored your arguments? This is a lie and you know it. About halfway down the page here is my point-by-point rebuttal: <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000336&p=3" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000336&p=3</a>

You are the one that is refusing to respond.

Imhotehp

LOL. why don't you try reading this book. It's called the bible. It's basically a historagram of the brutality and inequity the isrealites brought to their part of the world all under the "guidance" and at times COMMAND of your gods "supreme morality".

Gemma Therese

I never said you were ignoring my arguments. Someone else said that, I just included it in my post and forgot to "isolate" it.

Sorry about the mix up.

Samhain

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

daemon

So what? You're the one who advanced them! I could care less if they were Flippy the Wonder Squirrel's; I expect you to defend any argument you present. If you can't, then don't use them.

Otherwise, your entire argument boils down to a simple argument from authority at best, and as such is about as convincing as telling us about the state of your socks.