Originally posted by scottishinnzwe have the writings and drawings of His disciples.
we have the writings and drawings of His disciples. But really, you have to have a personal relationship with Him. Also, of course, we have direct evidence of both pasta and flight.
What evidence do you have of your god?
edit; forgot to capitalise the 'H' of him.
Would you mind sharing the writings and drawings of his disciples?
But really, you have to have a personal relationship with Him
Do you really have a personal relationship with him?
If you do I suppose there must be something that he has done for you personally, no?
Also, of course, we have direct evidence of both pasta and flight.
Is that it?
Surely that alone cannot warrant a belief in him? The Wright brothers invented the first airplane. Our pasta factory creates pasta quite easily. We don't need a flying spaggetti monster for that.
Originally posted by royalchickenDoes the fact that nothing seems to have happened to you yet give you the comfort that the Bible does not contain truth?
No, I mean that if the Bible contained literal truth, I'd have to stop doing those things, but since it doesn't, I can shag TLWers and piss on churches, while having as much to fear from God as I do from Santa Claus, honest politicians and non-delusional fundamentalists.
And how can you prove that the Bible does not have truth?
Have you ever tested any of its promises?
Originally posted by dj2beckerI mean that the Bible cannot be safely interpreted as the literal truth; it only takes the presence of one contradiction to invalidate the claim of innerrant scripture. Besides, for other reasons, I'm convinced that the only possible authors of the Bible were human, so even if it is internally consistent, I still don't have to put God in any ontological category other than the one which contains clever blondes and even primes greater than 2 🙂.
Does the fact that nothing seems to have happened to you yet give you the comfort that the Bible does not contain truth?
And how can you prove that the Bible does not have truth?
Besides, why do I need comfort from a fact when I can get it from TLW members?
Originally posted by royalchickenWhy could internal consistency not be accredited to the Holy Spirit?
I mean that the Bible cannot be safely interpreted as the literal truth; it only takes the presence of one contradiction to invalidate the claim of innerrant scripture. Besides, for other reasons, I'm convinced that the only possible authors of the Bible were human, so even if it is internally consistent, I still don't have to put God in any ontologica ...[text shortened]... r than 2 🙂.
Besides, why do I need comfort from a fact when I can get it from TLW members?
Remember the Bible was written over thousands of years and the authors were all over the world. How do you explain its internal consistency?
What contradictions were you refering to?
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhy could internal consistency not be accredited to the Holy Spirit?
Remember the Bible was written over thousands of years and the authors were all over the world. How do you explain its internal consistency?
What contradictions were you refering to?
I didn't say that; I said that internal consistency is irrelevant because even if it were internally consistent, I don't believe in Jallahgodaweh for other reasons.
Which internal consistency am I meant to explain? I've just told you that internal consistency is irrelevant to my belief in the Bible, because my argument against belif in a deity is non-creed specific and therefore doesn't attack the holy book of one minor cult in particular. It dispenses with the Thorshivara malarkey with stunning generality.
Please try to fillow this; I'm drunk and doing just fine.
Originally posted by royalchickenSober up. We'll talk again tomorrow.😞
[b]Why could internal consistency not be accredited to the Holy Spirit?
I didn't say that; I said that internal consistency is irrelevant because even if it were internally consistent, I don't believe in Jallahgodaweh for other reasons.
Which internal consistency am I meant to explain? I've just told you that internal consistency is irrelev rkey with stunning generality.
Please try to fillow this; I'm drunk and doing just fine.[/b]
Edit: If you are not drunk tomorrow...
Originally posted by royalchickenHead start my foot... Do you know what stuff they put in your beer?
What a cop-out. It's like a sloth racing lightning and refusing because he's been given a generous head start.
It's more like you having a 99 yard head start on a 100 yard sprint. All you need to do is fall on your face. 😀
Originally posted by dj2beckerHops.
Head start my foot... Do you know what stuff they put in your beer?
It's more like you having a 99 yard head start on a 100 yard sprint. All you need to do is fall on your face. 😀
I find it ironic that you're advocating taking the Bible seriously, essentially regardless of its authors, but won't take the author of my posts seriously.
Originally posted by royalchickenI didn't say that; I said that internal consistency is irrelevant because even if it were internally consistent, I don't believe in Jallahgodaweh for other reasons.
[b]Why could internal consistency not be accredited to the Holy Spirit?
I didn't say that; I said that internal consistency is irrelevant because even if it were internally consistent, I don't believe in Jallahgodaweh for other reasons.
Which internal consistency am I meant to explain? I've just told you that internal consistency is irrelev ...[text shortened]... rkey with stunning generality.
Please try to fillow this; I'm drunk and doing just fine.[/b]
Namely?
It dispenses with the Thorshivara malarkey with stunning generality.
Do share.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe best argument I have for atheism can be found in the original religious thread, in August 2003. I will find a link to the page now, and if you like we can discuss that argument at a time of your choosing. I may revise it slightly, however.
[b]I didn't say that; I said that internal consistency is irrelevant because even if it were internally consistent, I don't believe in Jallahgodaweh for other reasons.
Namely?
It dispenses with the Thorshivara malarkey with stunning generality.
Do share.[/b]
Originally posted by royalchickenJust interested, are your beliefs swayed by arguments? If a theist were to come up with a better argument would you suddenly become a believer in God?
The best argument I have for atheism can be found in the original religious thread, in August 2003. I will find a link to the page now, and if you like we can discuss that argument at a time of your choosing. I may revise it slightly, however.
And also, do you not think that your "theology" is influenced by your morality?
Does your life-style not determine your atheism? Or is it really just the argument for atheism that has you for the time being?
Originally posted by dj2beckerI don't really shag TLW members or piss on churches, dj2.
Just interested, are your beliefs swayed by arguments? If a theist were to come up with a better argument would you suddenly become a believer in God?
And also, do you not think that your "theology" is influenced by your morality?
Does your life-style not determine your atheism? Or is it really just the argument for atheism that has you for the time being?
As to the first question, it's addressed by what I am about to post.