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
Did you know that the Spanish Inquisition was established by King Ferdinand II.
This meant he was the first catholitic converter…boom boom…
A nod to Steve Coogan for that joke… 
1 Like
One contemporary account from a reliable independent source might be interesting, hell one contemporary account at all would raise the bar from the woefully poor anonymous hearsay you have. Otherwise how is the second hand (at best) hearsay of the gospels any more compelling than the Legends of Hercules, or the Koran, or the Vedas, or Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita, the Brahmana or any other myths religious or otherwise?
What you have is the most extraordinary of claims, and the poorest of “evidence” to support them. What we should expect, that did make smile fair play, as if the opinion of it’s value as evidence would be anything else to someone who already holds the religious belief. If you’d been born in Iran or Iraq you’d be as devout a Muslim now as you are a Christian. a mere accident of the geography of your birth is the only difference.
Gospels are not evidence. You have no authors. You have no consistency between the stories. You have demonstrable myths, magic, and unevidence claims. The Gospels are evidence of what? They most certainly are not evidence that a magic man named Jesus went around the first century healing lepers, curing the blind, walking on water, talking to multitudes from mounts, or feeding masses with loaves and fishes. On the other hand, someone probably did change water into wine as the Dionmuysis cult had been doing that for decades. What in the hell do you imagine the Bible is actual evidence for? It most certainly is not evidence that a fellow named Jesus died on a cross. Please share. What do you imagine the Bible is evidence for. Pick just one specific thing that needs no external corroboration. One thing that we can look to the Bible and say “Yep, that is evidence.”
The exodus from Egypt? (A made up story.)
The life of Moses (A made up story.)
The tower of Babel. (A made up story)
Noah’s Ark (A made up story.)
Adam and Eve (A made up story - or 3 made up stories if you like.)
The Creation account in Genesis (Myth)
Zombies walking the streets and darkness falling over the earth (Myth)
All the Birth narratives (Myth)
Job, (Myth.
Jesus and the burning bush (Myth)
Woman caught in adultery (Myth)
Healing a blind my by spitting in his eye with mud (bullshit)
Come on… What spark of truth are you going to pull from this pile of dung? One piece of ‘evidence’ that we can look to the bible and only the Bible and say 'Yep, that is evidence for… ’ And evidence for WHAT? What minutia can you possibly point to, that the bible is evidence for?
The Bible is evidence that people in the first century told stories about a person named Jesus in a way not dissimilar to the stories we tell about Santa Claus, Spider-Man, or flying monkeys.,
The human propensity for superstition?
2 Likes
Well the universe like had a beginning, and in the bible like, in Genesis, like right at the start, it like literally says “in the beginning”, that’s proof, only an atheist could deny that evidence like.
Unless it was merely a transformation from one state of being to another. The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. But, is the universe an isolated system? Is the cosmos? Hmmm… We know the real answer is… “I don’t know.”
1 Like