"Sharia law makes a lot of sense" - Linda Sarsour

[Amarok]

They're, or as one of your friends here would no doubt say, "their" not apologists.  They're noted scholars.

I know that makes you very angry, but then again, anger is one of your chief metiers.

Nope apologists who's nonsense has already been criticized to death . Try doing research rather then taking convient sound bites that reinforce your beliefs . 

Your the only one here friend that seems angry .

[GrandizerII]

Is Starman the same person as Starhunter/Banned? Just wondering ...

[Amarok]

Antifa, godless Leftists, Linda Sarsour, all are anti-Trump.
That is the point.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

You have yet to have point .Your whole MO so far is a shotgun tactic

---

Is Starman the same person as Starhunter/Banned? Just wondering ...

Would not doubt it fundamentalists are like boomerang

[Fireball]

Is Starman the same person as Starhunter/Banned? Just wondering ...

I doubt it. Its post count is too low. I DO suspect a sock, but I'm gonna let it marinate a bit, first.

[Amarok]

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (November 5, 1851 – February 16, 1921) was professor of theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921. He served as the last principal of the Princeton Theological Seminary from 1886 to 1902.

Apologist  and out of date

Thomas Arnold (13 June 1795 – 12 June 1842) was an English educator and historian. Arnold was an early supporter of the Broad Church 

[/url]
Apologist  and out of date

Brooke Foss Westcott (12 January 1825 – 27 July 1901) was a British bishop, biblical scholar and theologian, serving as [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Durham]Bishop of Durham from 1890 until his death

Apologist  and out of date

And Darling is an argument from authority and again out of date

---

Oh ans the Op has taken her out of context 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lin...e766b51180

---

If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?

Circular reasoning

---

The insuperable statistics of precisely designated physical constants are quite obviously the product of an Intelligent Designer.

Assertion 

The absurd alternative, posited with supposedly straight faces by atheists, is the Multiverse.

Their is more evidence of a multiverse then of a magic sky wizard . Or we can simply admit we don't know . But that does support intelligent design . 

This from people who decades ago claimed that the universe was too large for God to have made it just for mankind.

Yup there's still no reason a god needed to make such a unecessarly massive empty universe full of shit that can kill us  . But this is just what we would expect if their was no such being .

Now the universe is far too little, and everything made everything in infinite proportion just to skirt what is so

Yup it's still to big for a god too have wasted so much time and space for one group of semi evolved primates on a speck of dust   . But just right if your an atheist. 

blatantly obvious 
that you refuse to acknowledge it.

Assertion

---

Oh and the Op does not get what's meant by nothing . But even if we went with his misunderstanding on could still make a logical case 

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/468

Oh and six arguments that a multiverse is more likely then a god 
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives.../cosmology

[Minimalist]

They jointly murdered over a hundred million of their own people because they were atheists.

Actually it was because they were communists pushing an ideology...surely you know the type.
They killed people for resisting communism not for praying to the god who isn't there.  BTW, any who did pray were truly fucked by their god, weren't they?

[Amarok]

They jointly murdered over a hundred million of their own people because they were atheists.

Actually it was because they were communists pushing an ideology...surely you know the type.
They killed people for resisting communism not for praying to the god who isn't there.  BTW, any who did pray were truly fucked by their god, weren't they?

Actually it was because they were power hungry sociopaths . And those can be anyone.

[brewer]

How much do those questions move you to converting to Hinduism or Islam? You have to be logical... otherwise you say nothing.

And your atheist pretense of everything from nothing is "logical"?

 Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. - Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) regius professor at Cambridge - The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, page 218

… I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead. - Thomas Arnold, author of the famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford - page 217


… the Resurrection of Christ is a fact… - Benjamin Warfield of Princeton

P 219:  We, as Christians, are asked to take a very great deal on trust;  the teachings, for example, and the miracles of Jesus.  If we had to take all on trust, I, for one, should be skeptical.  The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, must surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection.  On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith.  In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.” - Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England

I knew it wouldn't be long before the mindless programming babble began. Good for you.

[The Valkyrie]

How much do those questions move you to converting to Hinduism or Islam? You have to be logical... otherwise you say nothing.

And your atheist pretense of everything from nothing is "logical"?

 Indeed, taking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. - Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 - 1901) regius professor at Cambridge - The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell, page 218

… I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead. - Thomas Arnold, author of the famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford - page 217


… the Resurrection of Christ is a fact… - Benjamin Warfield of Princeton

P 219: We, as Christians, are asked to take a very great deal on trust; the teachings, for example, and the miracles of Jesus. If we had to take all on trust, I, for one, should be skeptical. The crux of the problem of whether Jesus was, or was not, what He proclaimed Himself to be, must surely depend upon the truth or otherwise of the resurrection. On that greatest point we are not merely asked to have faith. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.” - Lord Darling, former Chief Justice of England

"You shall not pass" -Gandalf, Lord of the Rings.

[Starman]

They're, or as one of your friends here would no doubt say, "their" not apologists.  They're noted scholars.

I know that makes you very angry, but then again, anger is one of your chief metiers.

Nope apologists who's (sic) nonsense has already been criticized to death . Try doing research rather then taking convient (sic) sound bites that reinforce your beliefs . 

Your (sic) the only one here friend (sic) that seems angry .

Brilliant.  No, really.  You atheists are special.

Don't call me "friend" when all you and your pals do is attack and criticize me, and in the present case, with extremely ignorant grammar.

tsk, tsk

---

Apologist  and out of date

And Darling is an argument from authority and again out of date

---

Oh ans the Op has taken her out of context 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lin...e766b51180

---

If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He?

Circular reasoning

---

Yup it's still to big for a god too have wasted so much time and space for one group of semi evolved primates on a speck of dust   . But just right if your (sic) an atheist. 

blatantly obvious 
that you refuse to acknowledge it.

Assertion

---

Oh and the Op does not get what's meant by nothing . But even if we went with his misunderstanding on could still make a logical case 

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/468

Oh and six arguments that a multiverse is more likely then (sic) a god 
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives.../cosmology

"...your (sic) an atheist"

"more likely then (sic) a god"

You can't even write simple English.