Douglas J. Bender

"Kind" Bud,


No.


In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

Mageth,

No you haven't. Thinking (or wishing) you have doesn't make it so.

I've read supposed refutations of those things, which turned out to not actually refute anything.

Ahem..."You might disagree with the fact that those refutations do not refute anything, but saying that they do refute those things doesn't make it so."

In Christ,

Douglas

madmax2976

You guys really should take this debate elsewhere. This thread is devoted to talking about David Matthews and his positions, not about Douglas' position and evidences he uses to support it.

Many of these so-called evidences that Douglas is promoting have been thoroughly debunked before by others anyway. I'd be happy to chime in, but as I said, it would be best done in a new thread.

Just FYI, If Douglas is gullible enough to accept "Go for it" in a newspaper to be some kind of supernatural message from Yahweh, I doubt any amount of discussion will dissaude him anyhow.

His affirmations that they haven't been debunked doesn't make it so.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

madmax,

Well, you didn't think I could just leave this lying out there for all to see without clearing it up, now did you? Do you know how many times I've had burned-out pieces of newspaper land right in the spot where my feet "first touch the Earth"? Do you know how many times I've had pieces of newspaper (burned-out or not) clearly and directly relate to something I had the night before seriously considered? How many times have you, oh non-gullible one, had anything like this happen to you? And what if the newspaper had instead had the headline, "Breaking News: Orphans in Romania Need the Gospel"? Would that have been just "coincidence", or would you concede that that, at least, would be "proof" of a Creator?

In Christ,

Douglas

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Autonemesis

Liar. Jesus is gonna git you, sucka.

HRG

On the contrary. It is theist moral systems which are totally subjective. They single out one specific being and let morality be defined by the opinions of this being. How more subjective can you get ?
An objective moral system is one which is "permutation invariant" - like Kant's Categorical Imperative or the Golden Rule
It does - in theist moral systems.
And what if the actual god turned out to be Huitzilopchtli ? Would human sacrifices be moral ?

Would that mean that because God X believes that it is "moral" to kill all firstborn because of an action which was not under their control, that it was therefore moral to do so ?

Regards,
HRG.

Mageth

I agree with madmax.

Just FYI, If Douglas is gullible enough to accept "Go for it" in a newspaper to be some kind of supernatural message from Yahweh, I doubt any amount of discussion will dissaude him anyhow.

Wiser words have never been spoken. His incoherent babbling about it in response to you is further evidence of his "incredible" credulity, if you will.

BTW, I just finished reading Sagan's Demon Haunted World. Coincidence? I think not!

His affirmations that they haven't been debunked doesn't make it so.

Exactly.

Zippy

Sorry for jumping in here, but seriously Douglas, you can't attribute much to such an event. If you think about it, events like this must happen all the time. It's statistical probability. I'd be amazed if they didn't happen.

I'll bet if you asked people around you what the strangest coincidence they'd witnessed was, you'd be surprised at the results.

Or maybe it was God, I don't know. But I'd assume that any God would have better things to do than burn newspapers and could probably just pop down and tell you himself, or at least do something a little more conclusive.

Cheers,

Paul

Douglas J. Bender

"Kinda" Bud,

Now, that's not very nice, calling me a liar. And, I was no more lying than you were when you said that you did not think I was merely "mirroring" many of the atheists here. When I said that I had no "choice" in the matter of "mirroring", I meant what I said, and for the following reasons: Given that
1) I wanted (felt it my "duty") to continue to defend the truth about God and Jesus here at Infidels
2) Most of the atheists here insisted upon continuing to act in an arrogant, insulting, mocking and juvenile manner towards me and defenses regarding God and Jesus
3) I could not "get the message" through with all that "noise" muffling what I said
4) No other tactic (politeness, ignoring, humor) caused the "noise" to cease
5) I had not tried "mirroring"
6) "Mirroring" resulted in complaints about my "attitude"
7) Even mockers and juveniles do not like to be shown to be hypocrites

I essentially HAD to "mirror" the behavior of the atheists here, in order to confront them with their behavior, and either get them to cease or, if they complained, show them to be hypocrites (thus nullifying their "attacks", and allowing the "message" to be heard more clearly). Thus, my answer of "No", which was no lie.


In Christ,

Douglas

Autonemesis

I gave you every chance to come clean, and you refused. Therefore: LIAR.

(you do realize that I am not reading anything of yours past the first sentence, right?)