http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-256.html
http://factonista.org/2008/09/15/dogmatic-atheism/
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/...pic=3691.0
Hardly Christian apologetics. I'm not the usual narrow-viewed theist you get on here, I will read any old shite. Even atheist.
You said it yourself...It's a teevee phone in SHOW. Show being the operative word. Did the guy not himself say tenet? Didn't he? I heard him.
2. (Philosophy) a belief, principle, or doctrine or a code of beliefs, principles, < What is that? BELIEF.
Think you should all insist on being called a-theists, or maybe dis-theists. It would be accurate. Atheism is just another ism.

Following maybe accusations of 'flash in the pan-ness', I thought it only right and proper to offer you this. I hope it helps you understand where I'm coming from.
I'm not trying to get head-to-head with a bunch of non-believers. I apologise if any of you feel I am, it's just the nature of the beast. So to speak. You're all so different, it makes the ground almost impossible to walk.
The argument goes something like this...
''I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'' Says god.
''What about the Babel Fish?'' etc.

Atheists require of theists(or whoever) the 'Babel Fish'...With me so far? (Sorry, don't want to sound patronising, some may not have a clue what I'm talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA <<)
Although some just don't care, really.
I have faith. << Good for you, you cry. Well, I don't know do I? I have no experience of not having faith. Maybe I'd be better without it.
I hope etc. etc. etc., meaning all the things that would make the world better when I leave, than when I came. Sentimentalist, soppy tosh, romantic horseshit, no? Is it?
My God is Love. If you've never experienced it for yourself, you won't know.

Now what I've just put comes straight out of the NT. I'm not supposed to quote the Book, but I hope you understand why I used a few words.. Yes, I'll acknowledge that I am merely repeating what some bible thumper has drilled into my head, and therefore should question before dismissing, but it holds true for me, and doesn't need The Rest to make it valid. It condems none, has no political bias and elevates no-one. It's how I try to live. I'm a biker. At ***mph you need your perspectives kept simple. And some sort of god in your back pocket. Now who here Loves? Those of you who do, you know my God. Tell me Love ain't real. Tell me you don't believe in Love. It's my Babel Fish. And it works.

Thankyou also to Darwinian for tidying my post up. Was rushing. @Dotard...Yes I know I oughtta, was trying not to be so fkn polite!!

(March 24, 2010 at 9:58 pm)RedFish Wrote: I'm English. Not going to apologise for that.

Yaoughtta. (<--Redneck for 'you ought to')


---------------------------

(In before the numbnuts

It's a JOKE!

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: I will read any old shite. Even atheist.

Me too dude, me too ..

ZenBadger,tavarish and chatpilot the Four Gospels were written by men that were living at the same time that Jesus walked this earth. The Q is a dead issue it holds no water. The time line of the writing of the gospels does not mean they are invalid if anything it points to them being valid because they were written so close to Jesus life. There wasn't enough time for fable or myth to creep into His story. The underlined is used in both secular and religious investigation. You didn't refer to Luke at all Lukes gospel is extremely accurate about the people and places that he mentions in his gospel. Now you tell me why Luke would lie about Jesus when he took the time and energy to make sure his writing was so accurate about the rest of his book. You also have no proof that the Four Gospels were not written by Matthew,Mark,Luke and John. If there had never been anything written about Jesus that is not proof He did not live. I'm sure there have been many good things done by many people thats never been recorded and that alone does not determine they never lived. Yes there have been some small additions to the gospels and if you read the footnotes in your Bible they will tell you where and what they are. All the additions put together do not change the content of the NT.

Thor if you like we'll argue the salvation of that particular Pope but like I stated I do not know for a fact he was.

Quote:ZenBadger,tavarish and chatpilot the Four Gospels were written by men that were living at the same time that Jesus walked this earth.

A patently absurd suggestion but about what one can expect from people like you.

(March 25, 2010 at 11:00 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:ZenBadger,tavarish and chatpilot the Four Gospels were written by men that were living at the same time that Jesus walked this earth.

A patently absurd suggestion but about what one can expect from people like you.

Indeed; estimates for writing of the Gospels vary ,from 80 CE at the earliest to 120 CE. IE FROM about 50 years after the death of Jesus (born sometime between 7 and 4 BCE,dying at age 33)

@ Redfish :The question of the source material, called 'the Q document' is far from resolved,remaining in dispute amongst biblical scholars.

Quote:The Q document or Q (from the German Quelle, "source") is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. It is a theoretical collection of Jesus' sayings, written in Koine Greek. Although many scholars believe that "Q" was a real document, no actual document or fragment has been found.

Quote:If the two-source hypothesis is correct, then the second source, Q, would almost certainly have to be a written document. If Q were merely a shared oral tradition, it could not account for the nearly identical word-for-word similarities between Matthew and Luke when quoting Q material.

Similarly, it is possible to deduce that the Q document, in the form that Matthew and Luke had access to, was written in Greek. If Matthew and Luke were referring to a document that had been written in some other language (for example Aramaic), it is highly unlikely that two independent translations would have exactly the same wording.

The Q document must have been composed prior to the Gospels of both Matthew and Luke. Some scholars even suggest Q may have predated Mark. A date for the final Q document is often placed in the 40s or 50s of the first century, with some arguing the sapiential layer (1Q) being written as early as the 30s [5].

The Q document, if it did exist, has since been lost, but scholars believe it can be partially reconstructed by examining elements common to Matthew and Luke (but absent from Mark). This reconstructed Q is notable in that it generally does not describe the events of the life of Jesus: Q does not mention Jesus' birth, his selection of the 12 disciples, his crucifixion, or the resurrection. Instead, it appears to be a collection of Jesus' sayings and teachings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_document

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-256.html
http://factonista.org/2008/09/15/dogmatic-atheism/
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/...pic=3691.0

Do you check your sources? I'm guessing not. This is the last post in which I'm addressing this shit.

1st link:
Some people do get WAY to attached to their opinions and begin to treat them like dogma. In that case, some atheists treat atheism like a religion.

Do you understand that just because some people want to promote their own values onto others, it has nothing to do with atheism, which is a non-belief?

2nd link:
Everyone has a bit of the dogmatic inside of them, but it wasn’t until I opened my perspective that I realized that Atheism is not necessarily Freethought.

He had an epiphany when he realized that Atheism doesn't presuppose anything. It seems like we've heard this somewhere before.

3rd link:
Okay theists, you got me. Atheists do have dogma, and here it is:

We don't have dogma.

There, now everybody's happy.

Self explanatory.

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: Hardly Christian apologetics. I'm not the usual narrow-viewed theist you get on here, I will read any old shite. Even atheist.

I think you missed the point where the articles you posted now are 180 degrees separated from your original claims. If you meant to do this, I apologize.

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: You said it yourself...It's a teevee phone in SHOW. Show being the operative word. Did the guy not himself say tenet? Didn't he? I heard him.

He also said "Atheism does not have tenets". Can you understand the point of the conversation?

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: 2. (Philosophy) a belief, principle, or doctrine or a code of beliefs, principles, < What is that? BELIEF.
Think you should all insist on being called a-theists, or maybe dis-theists. It would be accurate. Atheism is just another ism.

Yes, we should insist on being called a-theists, instead of what we are called now? Do you know this site is called atheistforums?

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: Following maybe accusations of 'flash in the pan-ness', I thought it only right and proper to offer you this. I hope it helps you understand where I'm coming from.
I'm not trying to get head-to-head with a bunch of non-believers. I apologise if any of you feel I am, it's just the nature of the beast. So to speak. You're all so different, it makes the ground almost impossible to walk.

We're not different, your assertions about atheism just aren't correct.

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: ''I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'' Says god.
''What about the Babel Fish?'' etc.

Atheists require of theists(or whoever) the 'Babel Fish'...With me so far? (Sorry, don't want to sound patronising, some may not have a clue what I'm talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA <<)
Although some just don't care, really.

This is the snippet of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide, where God ultimately disproves himself. It's quite funny, but it's not what anyone is requiring, not by a long shot. The only thing most of use would require is objectively verifiable evidence for the claims made, that can be demonstrated in reality. That's it.

It just happens that an all-encompassing, omnipresent God who should be self-evident, sure has a way of hiding himself from the eye of the skeptical inquirer.

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: I have faith. << Good for you, you cry. Well, I don't know do I? I have no experience of not having faith. Maybe I'd be better without it.

That's for you to decide. It's also irrelevant.

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: I hope etc. etc. etc., meaning all the things that would make the world better when I leave, than when I came. Sentimentalist, soppy tosh, romantic horseshit, no? Is it?

Noble, but I don't understand what it has to do with anything.

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: My God is Love. If you've never experienced it for yourself, you won't know.

This statement has no bearing on whether your God objectively exists or not.

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: Now what I've just put comes straight out of the NT. I'm not supposed to quote the Book, but I hope you understand why I used a few words.. Yes, I'll acknowledge that I am merely repeating what some bible thumper has drilled into my head, and therefore should question before dismissing, but it holds true for me, and doesn't need The Rest to make it valid.

So you're acknowledging that it's someone's interpretation of a holy book, which you haven't personally followed up on, and since it's of some personal value to you, it's makes it a valid argument?

If I told you that my friend read a book, and explained to me that fairies exist all around us, and I structured my life around this, and felt it made me a better person, would this somehow make the claim that fairies exist true?

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: It condems none, has no political bias and elevates no-one.

LOL. Read the rest of the New Testament. You'll get all of those and more.

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: It's how I try to live. I'm a biker. At ***mph you need your perspectives kept simple. And some sort of god in your back pocket.

From a fellow biker to another, you don't need God to reassure you of your mortality at a certain speed. You're still subject to the same physics as all of us, and risk assessment plays a bigger role than faith in a deity.

(March 25, 2010 at 6:56 pm)RedFish Wrote: Now who here Loves? Those of you who do, you know my God. Tell me Love ain't real. Tell me you don't believe in Love. It's my Babel Fish. And it works.

First, you're equating God to an established emotion. You're not giving any more meaning to either term, and we don't come out understanding more about anything. It simply isn't descriptive. Take this example:

Now who here Golfs? Those of you who do, you know my God. Tell me Golf ain't real. Tell me you don't believe in Golf. It's my Babel Fish. And it works.

What did I establish there?

Second, you're comparing an emotion, which is intangible and subjective, to a Babel Fish - something objective, tangible and demonstrable proof of God's existence.

Your assertion that "it works" doesn't work, because it doesn't describe anything. You loosely paraphrase the NT, then somehow tie that in with Douglas Adams jokes, and expect to make your case with that. I know it's not your point to proselytize, but this argument is horridly unconvincing.

---

(March 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: ZenBadger,tavarish and chatpilot the Four Gospels were written by men that were living at the same time that Jesus walked this earth.

1. Who wrote them?
2. When were they written?
3. Where did you get this information?
4. How do you know this information is true?

(March 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: The time line of the writing of the gospels does not mean they are invalid if anything it points to them being valid because they were written so close to Jesus life.

Describe this timeline please.

(March 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: There wasn't enough time for fable or myth to creep into His story. The underlined is used in both secular and religious investigation.

1. How much time did they have?
2. How much time would be needed to create a myth?
3. How do you know this information to be true?

(March 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: You didn't refer to Luke at all Lukes gospel is extremely accurate about the people and places that he mentions in his gospel. Now you tell me why Luke would lie about Jesus when he took the time and energy to make sure his writing was so accurate about the rest of his book.

Example of the accuracy?

The Gospel of Luke wasn't a firsthand account, and was anonymous, although it is thought by many scholars to have been written by Luke the physician.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=wzRVN2S8...on&f=false

You're using logical fallacy to come to a conclusion. Taking his word for it doesn't mean he was automatically telling the truth. Shit, we don't even know who "he" is.

(March 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: You also have no proof that the Four Gospels were not written by Matthew,Mark,Luke and John.

That's the fallacy of the false positive. We don't know who wrote it, that's the point. Just because someone can't prove that fairies didn't write it, doesn't mean that they did.

(March 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: If there had never been anything written about Jesus that is not proof He did not live.

It also is not proof that he did.

(March 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: I'm sure there have been many good things done by many people thats never been recorded and that alone does not determine they never lived.

Yes, but based on nothing, we cannot determine whether someone DID live or not. I don't think you're understanding this.

(March 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: Yes there have been some small additions to the gospels and if you read the footnotes in your Bible they will tell you where and what they are. All the additions put together do not change the content of the NT.

What does this have to do with you saying the gospels are first hand accounts? Don't switch topics. We're not on content.

(March 25, 2010 at 9:42 pm)Godschild Wrote: Thor if you like we'll argue the salvation of that particular Pope but like I stated I do not know for a fact he was.

No True Scotsman, I presume.

Thanks for the info.. Quite a significant document then, could be a pointer away from 'divinity' and towards maybe real existence as a 'teacher'? Could see how that could prove a 'disappointment' to some. Just shows there's some real intelligence at work trying to sort the truth. I find it hard to understand why so many 'people of faith' still cling to the whole 'Word of God' thing, the OT falls apart round about chapter...1, for me. Gimme sayings and teachings any day. I can make my own mind up about those. Defense of the bible as literal truth just becomes embarrasing to watch.
@ Godschild...Man, there's fable and myth in all our lives, and we're all still here. Why be dismissive of something that could help both sides of the argument? By help I mean also prove either wrong, that's progress. Is not the present pope a shining example of all that is 'truth'? Why should any other be different?

@tavarish...I think you've misunderstood far more of what I was saying than you have understood. And deliberately so. Had a bad day?
Risk assessment???HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! PUSSY.
I think you're predisposed to conflict, and see it where there is none. You're maybe too used to arguing? Get out more.

(March 26, 2010 at 1:07 am)RedFish Wrote: @tavarish...I think you've misunderstood far more of what I was saying than you have understood. And deliberately so. Had a bad day?
Risk assessment???HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! PUSSY.
I think you're predisposed to conflict, and see it where there is none. You're maybe too used to arguing? Get out more.

LOL.

I'm not the one yammering on about the non-existent dogma of a single non-belief.

Yes, I'm the pussy using risk assessment before an accident instead of praying to an imaginary friend that I'll be OK.

What do you ride, by the way?

I think you're right about the conflict thing, my girlfriend calls me an asshole all the time. She's probably right.

At the moment, Gs550 1978. Came as two for £100. Was a mess. A real mess. Very fine now.
My 1987 fzr1000 genesis awaits a swingarm pivot shaft liner. Bout £60 worth. Be done for summer proper. It's a genuine beast, 160+. I've nailed it to the stop many times. Terrifies the kak out of mere mortals. Eats £30g sports cars for breakfast. Also have sr250, a tidy little thing, and very underrated. Have owned/ridden shedloads in past 28 yrs riding, all sizes, most makes. I do all my own work. Prefer Japanese. I don't pray for safety, I rely mostly on instantaneous reaction and anticipation. And competent spannering. I've taken more risks than I could count, have never had a landing I couldn't walk away from, and have accomplished long, fast rides solo that have had more experienced riders picking their jaws up off the floor. No shit. My favourite game is heavy traffic. How risky is that? I've had some small experience of risk-assessment. If I risk assesed I'd never get on one. No one would. Faith is what keeps me riding, not what I rely on. I accept that my fate is out of my hands sometimes, and entrust my life to a greater purpose. Because I Love it.
And anyway, Moses had a Triumph, didn't he?