Again, ill add to that… evidence how ‘god’ had any influence over scripture.
At the moment all you have is essentially, “well, my friend said so!”
1 Like
Dear oh dear…
Could you explain what you think the difference is between a fact and knowing something to be true? Maybe this will help:
Fact
noun
- a thing that is known or proved to be true.
I’ve not called you a liar, and if you don’t post any lies I will not point them out.
You’re not making it easy with porky pies like that whopper.
Why do you ask me? in time you’ll understand, in time you’ll grasp how you’ve been misled by scientism and materialism and how these acted as your God. Until then I can no more show you evidence than I can show a blind man what flowers look like, suffice to say, you’ll know it when you see it.
Yes you have, why say otherwise is unclear.
Gotcha, so its bollocks, at least we cleared that up.
2 Likes
Says the man in the silly wizard hat, keep waving your wand, I’m sure you’ll get lucky some day.
Haha that literally shows just how pathetic you are.
Luck is bollocks, like your make believe friend.
I was talking specifically about today’s exchange, I usually don’t make generic claims like that unless someone is being so dishonest it is unavoidable.
Yes, you do like to talk about testicles don’t you, is that part of being an atheist?
Sure why not, though its not as funny as grown adult believing in a book that has no evidence to back it.
Keep going kid, you’re doing well!!!
If you find what your write, the words you choose to be unavoidable then perhaps that’s part of your problem, control yourself.
I know I’m doing well, I’ve reduced most of the mouthy atheists here to babbling and name calling, that’s all you have, that’s the vacuity I warned you about. I’ve spoken more profound truths about science that anyone else has since the site was created.
That’s not remotely what I said now is it, and that is precisely the kind of dishonesty that is the problem.
Irony?
I doubt that, but doesn’t evidences a deity either way, that bag is as empty as when you arrived.
Thats total bollocks and you know it.
You claimed “we know the universe had a beginning” - not true.
You said how the bible said the earth hangs on nothing, which it doesn’t.
Claimed science and the scripture arent at odds, yet you cannot demonstrate god had anything to do with the bible.
You say science cannot test the super natural, which is true if the super natural is real, i then asked has god interacted with nature and if so can you evidence that meeting… which you have not.
So again, talking absolute bollocks.
Go back and watch some William Lane Craig.
You forgot the part where scientists aim to dispense with assumptions, either by [1] demonstrating that said “assumptions” are factually correct, or [2] by demonstrating that the desired end result can be achieved without them altogether.
Look, I’m used to the duplicitous apologetics your ilk serve up, I’ve been watching this mischief for 14 years.
If, as you assert, we’re “not discussing science here”, why did you make such a fanfare about “assumptions” in science above?
Of course, an elementary concept yet again escapes you, namely, that when an assertion is presented about observables, then that assertion is manifestly within the remit of science to examine and test.
And, guess what? Several of the assertions contained in your favourite goat herder mythology are assertions about observables. Such as that fatuous garbage about genetics being purportedly controlled by coloured sticks.
What part of “the fatuous and contemptible deserve to be treated accordingly” do you fail to understand?
Trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs are you? Quelle surprise.
And, lo and behold, it’s scientific culture that has broken that particular mould. Another of those elementary concepts you keep forgetting when you try to play your usual duplicitous apologetics with science.
Except for mythology fanboys, of course, who think that their choice of pre-scientific mythology dictates how reality behaves, even when reality pisses on that delusion from a great height …
Oh we’re back to this bullshit again.
Er, no. What part of the words “analysing concepts” did you fail to learn about?
Oh, and evidentially supported postulates aren’t “beliefs” or “assumptions”, another reason your apologetics fails.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Oh wait, Matthew 27:51-53 asserts that dead people rose from the grave and started walking about Jerusalem like zombies, an assertion so patently ridiculous that it’s beneath deserving of a point of view. Not least because, wait for it, the occupying Roman forces made no mention of such an event happening at any time during their occupation of Judea. Given that the Romans were, by the standards of the era, meticulous documentors of even trivial matters such as tax payments, the idea that they would have failed to report an event this spectacular is a non-starter. Yet there exists precisely zero independent corroboration of this fantasy, for reasons that are obvious to those who haven’t inserted their heads into a mythological rectal passage.
Then of course there’s Luke 4: 1-13 … where the Jesus character is supposedly alone in the desert with the devil being subject to temptation, while someone who wasn’t there scribbled down all the details. You do know what the word “alone” means, don’t you? I’ll let you work that one out for yourself, slowly if need be.
Did you set out to make it this easy?
I’m sure I can find other examples of manifest absurdity that don’t even rise to the level of competence required to be worthy of a point of view, if I expend the effort.
Of course, most people with functioning neurons know that mythology is usually only to be bothered with for entertainment purposes, but this mythology isn’t even capable of being used for that purpose, except for the really Pythonesque parts.
3 Likes
I guess this another one he will move quietly and deliberately away from.
My fave has always bee Leviticus 14, 1-7.
That’s OT, not NT. But the OT is practically an exercise in Pythonesque absurdity from start to finish.
Leviticus is a basket case of a book. The first ten chapters thereof, are hilariously devoted to the business of devising ever more rococo ways of setting fire to small furry animals, in order to please a cartoon magic man.
Then we move into the parts that cover the business of pounding people to a bloody pulp with rocks, because they didn’t conform to all manner of arcane and frankly bizarre strictures. Along with the hilarity that is the prohibitions on eating organisms that, if properly cooked, wouldn’t cause any issues.
Oh, and Lev 13 to Lev 16 is begging to be read out in the voices of the actors in The Life of Brian. I scanned the pages of my copy of the NIV some time ago so I could post them at apposite moments. 
1 Like
This is soooooo damn simple! He does not get it! Over and over and over. Just obfuscation and equivocations to stretch out anything you give him so that he can put it on par with theological assumptions.
2 Likes