Reply With Quote
Just like the authors of the bible.
Good morning.
Glad to see God has given this thread everlasting life.
Just like the authors of the bible.
Minus the robots.
Some people say Jesus was an alien. I would think he had many robots.
12, if I recall correctly.
except one went haywire and ratted Jesus out, right before destroying it's own hard drive
Ipuwer papyrus.The Story of Moses is another gay ass one.The thing about the Moses BS is that its historically specific to a timeline in Egypt yet no evidence of a adopted prince exist. Also no record of high number of slaves leaving or any evidence of a plague killing the first born child. A disease that kills the first born. Come on now believers. I guess if a man living in a whale for 3 days wont persuade you a disease that kills the first born won't either. The evil doers must have dispose of the evidence. Satan himself made all the records disapear. Yet another test for the cults faith. Believe,Believe,Believe ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
My religion beats your fake religion by a few thousand years.
Osiris-Re > Jesus
My favorite NBA franchise beats your fake franchise by a few thousand years.
Manu > Wade
thousand? at least fix it!
Read The Plagues of Egypt: Archaeology, History, and Science Look at the Bible by a molecular biologist named Siro Igino Trevisanato.
Interesting book.
Why not?
Either they bring up valid points or not. They could be plumbers, or priests, or fish squeezers. Their points would be the same.
Flip a coin, says random guy to neutral guy.
I Love Me Some Me, egyptologists everywhere believe jews were influenced by already existing egyptian happenings and tales. these influences made it into the writings of their texts.
this is the belief of the overwhelming majority of experts.
You really dont know what youre talking about. Asmiov was no athiest, he just despised organized religion. Big difference.
Asimov's Guide to the Bible
In this book, he treats the Bible subject matter without bias or theological perspective. He only points to the historical referencing, the setting and known political climates of the time (as best as we know anyway).
But I am quite sure you'll find a way to "win" here as well.
Youre a typical buffoon, MH. Whether smart or not, doesnt bely or excuse your incongruent dismissal of any perspective running counter to yours. You were right before you ever posted in this thread, you won before an argument was made, youre going to win no matter what anyone says.
You, the talking monkey and his kalidescope eyes, choose to engage the most odd conglomerate of individuals around this forum on a subject that has quite literally been beaten to death....20x over.
So youre running out of other monkeys to play with you, yet you somehow see this as victory.
It isnt victory, bag. Its impatience with the entire argument.
What you passed off on my first post in this thread as "happy go lucky bull " was the reality of where these arguments end when you have willing participants on both sides to reach an end. Great, you found like-minded individuals to prop yourself up and give credence to your argument.
If that is the measure of victory, then your side is vastly outnumbered by "believers".
There is a way to question the histocrity of the Bible and its conclusions, then there is a way to just be a bag.
You know, you surprisingly write/argue like whottt. You win before the argument even starts by way of self-purported intellectual dominance.
LOL @ sourcing Wikipedia. That is amusing to say the least. Did you edit the page just before you linked it, orrrr....
Its funny, I am a pure as day athiest as they come, and even used the exact same reference you used a loooong time ago here. I seen that do entary too, most here did.
It does not change anything. You have not changed anyone's mind. In reality, you never will. Not even one, ever. Just as they cant change yours, yet I dont see the religious even trying in this thread.
Draw whatever conclusions you prefer, I am sure it ends with me being ignorant and you being smart. Really, I dont give a . Youre another name on a computer screen, nothing more. I assign little value to members like yourself....you never had any intention of having a discussion, you only intended to step on a soapbox. It isnt the first time and I am sure it wont be the last.
Read The Plagues of Egypt: Archaeology, History, and Science Look at the Bible by a molecular biologist named Siro Igino Trevisanato.
Just curious. What do you B2B and MH think about Bill Maher's Religulous? Is the "do entary" biased, sensationalist, with a dash of fear-mongering?
IMO, it presents no more than what people like B2B and MH, who are already critical of religion's role in society, already know.
It just tries to do it in a humorous way.
“Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.”
(Deuteronomy 23;7)
Yeah, I read sci-fi, and am thoroughly familiar with Asimov. I agree with your gloss
You don't seem to.Even Asimov knew about the 'findings of thinking minds', some of those findings posted in this thread.
I think it hits both sides. It sprays like a shotgun. Asimov may have aimed it at the religious, but in DR's hands it hits the likes of you.somehow you twist that meaning to 'both sides'
You're the collateral damage bud. You 'are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written.' Even for Asimov, that roster would include more than a few religious people.Disgraceful. The shotgun is aimed directly at christian faces.
You're the biggest zealot in this thread, MH. You beg your own premises. Then you seek to impose them on others, not by argument or suasion, but by brute repe ion. You demand answers from everyone but give none yourself. Any countervailing POV you brazenly dismiss, but you do not even bother to argue for your own, in your own words.
You say your opinion rests on science, but all you've done is cut and paste without regard to the quality of your sources. You say believers are oppressive and intolerant, but you're more intolerant and overbearing than all of them.(In this thread, ok, not in all of Christendom.) You lead and badger all the witnesses, instead of having a discussion with them.
You play the devil's advocate MH. Too bad you lack the learning and charm to do it very well.
I think it'd be interesting to find what conclusion a truly undecided, unbiased person would come to if presented with the best evidence on both sides of the argument.
It's impossible for anyone on either side of the argument to say that they are viewing everything with a truly open mind.
“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time.”
- Isaac Asimov
“If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul.”
- Isaac Asimov
You should read what he wrote about creationism.
Last edited by MiamiHeat; 01-08-2009 at 10:56 AM.
Religious belief requires the absence of 'thinking minds'
And robots.
I have not seen the Bill Maher thing you asked. No idea. I will watch it though. I don't really like Bill Maher, to be honest with you.
ok dude, I think youve made your point. Faith = dumb.
The horse has been beaten so hard that even the flies have given up
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
