Iconoclastic Atheist Turns To Belief In God

[haney]

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
Do you see what you just quoted: “Christians believe…” “According to the account in the Gospels…” That is what’s called self-referential.
[/quote]

You stated that.
1.) the gospels came from a sayings gospel. (You have offered no proof.)
2.) That Peter, John, and Matthew did not write the gospels. You offered no proof. (I showed that there were many things that give internal clues to who wrote them.)
3.) you said that most scholars refute the eye witness testimony, and that it was most likely written 70 years after His death. ( showed that most Historians believe they were written in living memory of his life.)
4. You calimed we have no proof that the apostles ever lived. (I showed we have proof they were martyred.)

While I might of quoted something that was not biased towards either side. That does not mean the gospels are wrong. It means that the quote didn’t pick a side. The whole point was what evidence do I have to believe. I have shown that there is plenty of evidence for the gospels to be considered eye witness accounts, and that many Historians believe they were (they may not believe(It doesn’t say) the miracles, but they believe they are true accounts). I have also shown that what most skeptical scholars claim is seriously unfounded. The idea of a Q document that does not exist is plausible in their mind, but the gospels being written by Matt, Mark, Luke, and John is just no probably to them. In other words the gospels are not true even though we have them, but that Q document it is true even though we don’t have any proof it existed. Sounds very Scholarly!

What I’ve stressed again and again is that you need to present verifiable, peer-reviewed historical accounts of Jesus’ existant. All of your references are either apologetic Christians or since-disputed “historians.”

The encyclopedia is disputed as a historian? You named no sources, no historians, and offered no proof. You gave a page with about 40 articles with a wide range of topics, that had phrases from liberal theologians.

And, since we’re getting a bit off track here, let me point out another fundamental problem you have in “proving” anything about Jesus. Even if I grant you that the accounts of his life are accurate, you’ve still got to overcome a tremendous hurdle in convincing those without “faith” that he was anything more than a teacher and philosopher. Let’s not forget that his claims regarding the “Son of God” are extraordinary, and thus require extraordinary proof. And don’t forget that claims regarding messiah-hood and miracles (as well as “eyewitness” corroboration amongst deluded followers) have occurred throughout time and throughout cultures…we certainly aren’t to take such things at face value, are we (unless you wish to accept that there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of “messiahs” across the millenia)"?

Well last time I checked those messiahs didn’t have an empty tomb! If the Jewish leaders wanted to squash this thing why not just show the body?

Look, unfortunately I have a job and a family and a workout schedule, and unfortunately am going to have to recuse myself from this discussion for the time being. What I would seriously suggest–with no hint of malice or sarcasm–is that if you are TRULY interested in what the debate currently looks like regarding this subject, head over to Internet Infidels. Yes, it’s set up by atheists, but the forums represent some of the best, most informative–and CIVIL–debates regarding this and other subjects you’re likely to encounter. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about much of this stuff, but these forums are populated by the real experts from both camps…guys who do this stuff (historical research, philosophy, etc.) for a living. And no, I have no affiliation there; I’m just a fan.

I have been there I was not impressed. I have seen many of their stuff over at the theologyweb.com site. Usually it is refuted pretty quickly. There are many knowledgable people over there too. If you are truly looking then I would go to theologyweb.com They have plenty of atheist over there, some of them even offer some great ideas. They also have other religions too so it is not just a Christian site.

Hell, if you’re feeling particularly froggy, go over there and posit your beliefs regarding the historical accuracy of the gospels. Making this suggestion feels like covering a cat with bacon bits and sending it into a wolf den, but if you’re confident of your knowledge and sources then I’m sure you’ll get a good discussion brewing (and, unlike me, many of the posters over there seem to have unending amounts of time to devote to such debates).

I only got into this discussion to begin with because many of the atheist were trying to beat down those with a faith. I have yet to tell you, or imply that you are foolish to not believe.

[quote]
Oh, and by the way, clear to clarify where I made an ad hominum attack on you? I’ve critique your philosophy, research, and knowledge as it relates to the theist/atheist debate, but never you personally.[/quote]

Well critiques like "you need to go talk to your pastor certainly seem like an attack. "

I asked you a question about if you live up to your standard? which was pertinant to the discussion at the time. I showed that you didn’t answer, and seemed to not want to. To establish my point I needed an answer. You did seem to jump from place to place when you ran into trouble on certain topics. I don’t care if you live up to your standard my point was you have not got as much figured out as you think.

I think it has been shown that your sources are extremely lacking when casting doubt on the gospels. The great attorney Simon Greenleaf was an atheist too. Then he examined the testimony of the gospels and found it to be more than enough evidence to be true.

[lothario1132]

[quote]haney wrote:
Well last time I checked those messiahs didn’t have an empty tomb! If the Jewish leaders wanted to squash this thing why not just show the body?
[/quote]
All right haney, you’ve referred to this a couple of times now, and it’s getting to where I’m gonna jump in now. An empty tomb PROVES nothing. If it was empty, it could have been vandalized by teenagers pulling a prank or some other even more nefarious thing. Like the apostles doing it themselves and then saying that they saw Jesus alive again. There are any number of normal – not supernatural – reasons or explanations for an empty tomb. And before you say how outlandish this is to imagine, I would invite you to wonder at how outlandish it is to think that some dead hippie magically resurrected himself after three days. Honestly.

[haney]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
haney wrote:
Well last time I checked those messiahs didn’t have an empty tomb! If the Jewish leaders wanted to squash this thing why not just show the body?

All right haney, you’ve referred to this a couple of times now, and it’s getting to where I’m gonna jump in now. An empty tomb PROVES nothing. If it was empty, it could have been vandalized by teenagers pulling a prank or some other even more nefarious thing. Like the apostles doing it themselves and then saying that they saw Jesus alive again. There are any number of normal – not supernatural – reasons or explanations for an empty tomb. And before you say how outlandish this is to imagine, I would invite you to wonder at how outlandish it is to think that some dead hippie magically resurrected himself after three days. Honestly.[/quote]

I think it is crazy to think that the apostles or teenagers beat up the Roman soliders, and then opened the tomb!

[lothario1132]

Okay then, the Romans did it to fuck with the Jews or something. Do you see what I’m getting at?

[haney]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Okay then, the Romans did it to fuck with the Jews or something. Do you see what I’m getting at?[/quote]

I understood to begin with. The problem is I just can’t see the guys creating the story and then dying for it. Maybe someone after them would die for it, but not a first hand witness. They apostles were kind of afraid for their lives, until they saw Jesus.

There are alot of things to explain away if you don’t take it for its word. That is the problem I have had with it, and that is part of the reason why I believe.

I also would doubt the Romans would want to do that since they had such a hard time keeping the peace with the Jews to begin with.

[Boscobarbell]

[quote]haney wrote:

Well critiques like "you need to go talk to your pastor certainly seem like an attack. "[/quote]

Then you misunderstand “ad hominum.” My criticism was entirely to the point, i.e. that you appear to have misinterpreted your own gospels and needed a refresher course. Ad hominum would have been, “yeah, well you’re ugly.”

[quote]haney wrote:
I asked you a question about if you live up to your standard? which was pertinant to the discussion at the time. I showed that you didn’t answer, and seemed to not want to. To establish my point I needed an answer. [/quote]

Did you even bother to read my responses above? I WAS SICK WITH THE FLU, AND THUS UNABLE TO RESPOND FOR SOME TIME!!! Sorry to inconvenience you with my illness.

And, to reiterate my later response, I DO live up to my standards regarding right and wrong. You wished to claim that living up to these standards would require one to act like Mother Theresa; I replied that my acts of kindness are directed toward my friends and family.

For what it’s worth–not that I have any need to get your “approval” on my way of life–I’ve also lived a life of public service: three years as a military officer, eight years as a counter-terrorism and protective security agent for the Dept. of State, eight years as a Fugitive Investigator with the Depts. of Justice and Homeland Security. I’ve missed holidays, lived in the worst shitholes in the world, been shot at, been assaulted, been hospitalized for all manner of tropical diseases, etc.

To this day I still spend half my work week in flophouses and crack dens, looking to get dirtbags off the streets. For what it’s worth, I do this despite having an Ivy League education. Why? A sense of duty and service to my community and my country.

Happy now??

And, by the way, just what does my personal conduct have to do with our argument about the foundations of good and evil. As I pointed out, more than half the guys I see in penitentiaries claim to be Christian. Your point??

[quote]haney wrote:
You did seem to jump from place to place when you ran into trouble on certain topics. I don’t care if you live up to your standard my point was you have not got as much figured out as you think. "[/quote]

I did no such thing, and I still fail to see where I “ran into trouble.” Perhaps you’ve overestimated your abilities in this debate?

[quote]haney wrote:
I think it has been shown that your sources are extremely lacking when casting doubt on the gospels. The great attorney Simon Greenleaf was an atheist too. Then he examined the testimony of the gospels and found it to be more than enough evidence to be true. "[/quote]

“It has been shown”?? Did I miss something?? You offer a string of sources, all of whom are apologetic christian writers, unpublished in academic scholarly circles, who claim the gospels are accurate historic documents. You are either willfully disregarding the last 100 years of biblical textural research, or are simply happy to accept the drivel offered by these writers. Your choice, and I don’t much care. But to state you’ve “shown” anything is ludicrous…you’ve merely shown your familiarity with the propaganda spouted by the insular Christian community.

And Simon Greenleaf was an expert on the laws of evidence…he knew not a wit about the biblical documents he purported to “examine”, including the Aramaic and Greek source documents. What he believed about gospel accuracy should carry about as much weight as my opinions on shuttle booster rockets.

[Boscobarbell]

[quote]haney wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
The problem is I just can’t see the guys creating the story and then dying for it. Maybe someone after them would die for it, but not a first hand witness. They apostles were kind of afraid for their lives, until they saw Jesus.
[/quote]

You continue to spout this line as if it carries some weight of persuasion. Are you prepared to accept as “messiahs” all the men through millenia who have claimed to be so, whose followers claimed to see miracles, and/or whose followers were willing to accept martyrdom? If so, your prayer calendar is going to be plenty full–BECAUSE THIS STUFF HAS OCCURRED THROUGHOUT THE AGES!!

People are willingly delusional as it relates to matters of magic/religion. Check out these books for exhaustive studies on why/how it happens:
Anomalistic Psychology: A study of Magical Thinking by Zusne and Jones,
The Biology of Belief by Giovannoli, or
Religion Explained by Boyer.

But I have a feeling you won’t examine this further, as it undermines your “logic” regarding marytrdom. Which must mean you plan on opening a church to Jim Jones and his lethal Kool Aid real soon…

[haney]

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
haney wrote:

Well critiques like "you need to go talk to your pastor certainly seem like an attack. "

Then you misunderstand “ad hominum.” My criticism was entirely to the point, i.e. that you appear to have misinterpreted your own gospels and needed a refresher course. Ad hominum would have been, “yeah, well you’re ugly.”
[/quote]
Then where did I Ad Hominum? Everyone on here will tell you I don’t make personal attacks.

haney wrote:
I asked you a question about if you live up to your standard? which was pertinant to the discussion at the time. I showed that you didn’t answer, and seemed to not want to. To establish my point I needed an answer.

Did you even bother to read my responses above? I WAS SICK WITH THE FLU, AND THUS UNABLE TO RESPOND FOR SOME TIME!!! Sorry to inconvenience you with my illness.

I asked that question while before you took a break from your sickness you replied to other post, but did not reply to that one.

And, to reiterate my later response, I DO live up to my standards regarding right and wrong. You wished to claim that living up to these standards would require one to act like Mother Theresa; I replied that my acts of kindness are directed toward my friends and family.

I asked if you taught your kids to not lie, and if you do lie. We were talking about moral foundation at the time. I was stating that if it is so Natural why can we not even accomplish it in the smallest ways.

For what it’s worth–not that I have any need to get your “approval” on my way of life–I’ve also lived a life of public service: three years as a military officer, eight years as a counter-terrorism and protective security agent for the Dept. of State, eight years as a Fugitive Investigator with the Depts. of Justice and Homeland Security. I’ve missed holidays, lived in the worst shitholes in the world, been shot at, been assaulted, been hospitalized for all manner of tropical diseases, etc.

To this day I still spend half my work week in flophouses and crack dens, looking to get dirtbags off the streets. For what it’s worth, I do this despite having an Ivy League education. Why? A sense of duty and service to my community and my country.

Happy now??

It still never answered the question of do you tell your kids is it wrong to lie? Have you lied?

Thank you for your service. I never questioned if you were a good person, in fact I am sure outside of this talk I would probably even think you were a nice guy. That was never the point though.

And, by the way, just what does my personal conduct have to do with our argument about the foundations of good and evil. As I pointed out, more than half the guys I see in penitentiaries claim to be Christian. Your point??

Well if you read the post again I am sure you will see why I asked it.

I did no such thing, and I still fail to see where I “ran into trouble.” Perhaps you’ve overestimated your abilities in this debate?

Perhaps, perhaps you never really quoted any real sources. The one link you posted was not peer-viewed articles. They were quotes from peer-viewed articles. I used an apologist that did the same thing. So we would be on equal ground. You also said there was a sayings gospel. You never offered any proof. You just made claims like “scholars” say this. I showed most Historians disagree with your articles that site scholars. There are also plenty of scholars who disagree with your scholars. Which you never used one. You only used articles which quoted scholars. Well so did I! I told you before show me where that Q document is, and I will consider your idea. Have you shown one?

haney wrote:
I think it has been shown that your sources are extremely lacking when casting doubt on the gospels. The great attorney Simon Greenleaf was an atheist too. Then he examined the testimony of the gospels and found it to be more than enough evidence to be true. "

“It has been shown”?? Did I miss something?? You offer a string of sources, all of whom are apologetic christian writers, unpublished in academic scholarly circles, who claim the gospels are accurate historic documents. You are either willfully disregarding the last 100 years of biblical textural research, or are simply happy to accept the drivel offered by these writers.

I showed using the encyclopedia that most Historians believe they where eye witness accounts. The encyclopedia is not an apologist. Where is the Q document that your scholars cite?

I know you would like to believe I just accept everything an apologist says, but if you look at another thread I flat out say that Lee Strobel’s case for Christ sucks. I even site a website that has a great critique of it. I site a rebuttel to the critique too. I don’t just jump everytime an apologist says something.

I would give you credit if you were as reasonable Atheist as this guy.

Debunking Lee Strobel And Promoting Atheism

See I am not anti atheist, nor am I closed minded. For me there is enough evidence for me to believe. For you there isn’t. That is fine believe what you want.

Your choice, and I don’t much care. But to state you’ve “shown” anything is ludicrous…you’ve merely shown your familiarity with the propaganda spouted by the insular Christian community.

You have yet to show anything! You were wrong on Peter, John, and Matt living. You have been wrong about many things. Even if you no one believes the gospels I have shown that they can’t trust you to be a reliable source for the truth. You just say whatever comes from infidels.org You just dismiss someones article that cites Scholars just because it is an apologist. Why don’t you just look up the resources then? You have done nothing but spout propoganda w/out any sources from the atheist community.

[quote]
And Simon Greenleaf was an expert on the laws of evidence…he knew not a wit about the biblical documents he purported to “examine”, including the Aramaic and Greek source documents. What he believed about gospel accuracy should carry about as much weight as my opinions on shuttle booster rockets. [/quote]

No but historians do! Guess what they say they are real! So examining evidence that is real is not a problem. Well he did it on the premise that they are correct. Historians say they are. They may or may not believe the miracles, but they certainly seem to think they are reliable accounts of Jesus life.

[haney]

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
haney wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
The problem is I just can’t see the guys creating the story and then dying for it. Maybe someone after them would die for it, but not a first hand witness. They apostles were kind of afraid for their lives, until they saw Jesus.

You continue to spout this line as if it carries some weight of persuasion. Are you prepared to accept as “messiahs” all the men through millenia who have claimed to be so, whose followers claimed to see miracles, and/or whose followers were willing to accept martyrdom? If so, your prayer calendar is going to be plenty full–BECAUSE THIS STUFF HAS OCCURRED THROUGHOUT THE AGES!!

People are willingly delusional as it relates to matters of magic/religion. Check out these books for exhaustive studies on why/how it happens:
Anomalistic Psychology: A study of Magical Thinking by Zusne and Jones,
The Biology of Belief by Giovannoli, or
Religion Explained by Boyer.

But I have a feeling you won’t examine this further, as it undermines your “logic” regarding marytrdom. Which must mean you plan on opening a church to Jim Jones and his lethal Kool Aid real soon…
[/quote]

Give me some examples of these messiahs that rose from the dead. Rather than making blanket statements. Start talking about those things

[Boscobarbell]

[quote]haney wrote:

Then where did I Ad Hominum? Everyone on here will tell you I don’t make personal attacks. [/quote]

You made a claim to the effect that I no doubt did not live up my “standards” for good. Which any reasonable person would take to mean that you’re claiming I knowingly do bad deeds.

[quote]haney wrote:

I asked if you taught your kids to not lie, and if you do lie. We were talking about moral foundation at the time. I was stating that if it is so Natural why can we not even accomplish it in the smallest ways.[/quote]

I teach my son what I believe to be right and wrong (he’s only 20 months old, though, so how much of this he gathers I’m not yet sure). Have I lied? Sure. I claimed to be aware of right and wrong, but never claimed to be perfect. But again, I see no point in your fascination with my personal conduct. You assume your bible teaches right and wrong, and yet Christians sin all the time? Does that invalidate your bible, or merely point to man’s fallibility??

[quote]haney wrote:
Perhaps. Perhaps you never really quoted any real sources. The one link you posted was not peer-viewed articles. They were quotes from peer-viewed articles.[/quote]

Around and around we go. Start with Steven Carr’s article “The Textual Reliability of the New Testament.”

Or try Metzger, from “The Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism”:

“By way of conclusion, let it be emphasized again that no single manuscript and no one group of manuscripts exists which the the textual critic may follow mechanically. All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors. Although in very many cases the textual critic is able to ascertain without residual doubt which reading must have stood in the original, there are not a few other cases where he can come only to a tentative decision based on equivocal balancing of probabilities. Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. In textual criticism, as in other areas of historical research, one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what, because of conflicting witnesses, cannot be known.”

By the way, Metzger is the recognized “godfather” of textual criticism. P.S. He’s also a Conservative Christian.

Honestly, though, we may both be better letting this die, because we’ll each just continue to refute the other’s “experts.” And, like I said before, I just don’t have the time.

[quote]haney wrote:
No but historians do! Guess what they say they are real! So examining evidence that is real is not a problem. Well he did it on the premise that they are correct. Historians say they are. They may or may not believe the miracles, but they certainly seem to think they are reliable accounts of Jesus life.[/quote]

You’ve again missed my point in your rush to spout your Christian dogma. He never examined the Aramaic and Greek texts, but instead focused merely on the translations; thus, he was unable to make any concrete determinations based upon the sort of textural analysis that is de rigour these days.

And yes, they are “real,” in the sense that they exist in their current state. What is in question, however, is two-fold: A) Just what do the current versions of the gospels represent? Most historians–and this is even Christian historians, haney–would agree that they are multi-source documents many times edited in the many years after Jesus’ death. B) Do these documents accurately reflect actual historic events?

I believe that the gospels–rife with contradictions, outright inaccuracies, timeline problems, etc.–fail to prove themselves “reliable” as anything but motivational writings for established believers.

[Boscobarbell]

[quote]haney wrote:
Give me some examples of these messiahs that rose from the dead. Rather than making blanket statements. Start talking about those things
[/quote]

As I predicted, you’re once again avoiding the central question: where is the proof that ANYONE ever rose from the dead? The very point of my post was that any purported “eyewitness” accounts are suspect, as there exists a pattern of devoted followers attesting to all sorts of miracles throughout the ages. Do you just not get that, or are you deliberately being obtuse??

[Boscobarbell]

By the way, it looks like I’ll be without internet access for a few days. Hopefully, some other atheist can come off the bench and refute haney’s crazy assertions while I’m away!!

Peace…

[Elkhntr1]

Bosco, this post and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee, but I wanted to say I really admire your view and the way you express it.

Peace

[lothario1132]

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
By the way, it looks like I’ll be without internet access for a few days. Hopefully, some other atheist can come off the bench and refute haney’s crazy assertions while I’m away!!

Peace…[/quote]

No problem, Bosco. I like debating haney. He’s kinky with that “bible truth” thing he’s got going.

[neilbudge]

Bosco,

1. Regarding Textual Critism of the New Testament. NO doctrine of Christianity is dependant on any textual variant. So even if there are some textual variants this does not change the fundamentals of key events or doctrine. If you have proof to the contrary, please provide specific references. Also, you say that you ‘believe’ the gospels are rife with contradictions. I noticed you used the word ‘believe’. Is that because you have no conclusive evidence to support position? Which Textual variances cause the gospels to contradict each other, or make it inaccurate, or cause timeline problems? Please provide examples? You can obviously ‘believe’ what you want, but don’t think that your beliefs are based on any stronger or better proof than anyone else’s.

2. How about the Old Testament, is there major Textual Variants there?

I guess my point is that the Christian faith is not totally illogical, unreasonable or based on total blindness. However you seem bent on proving that it is. You like to refer to any evidence or person that supports the Bible or God as Christian propoganda. One could also refer to your proofs as propoganda as well. That is a two way street my friend.
Haney is not attacking you or your beliefs in any way, he is simply attempting to have an intellectual debate with you, but you seem to be taking it personally.

By the way, as predicted, you still have not answered all of Haney’s questions (not that you will)

Neil

[lothario1132]

[quote]neilbudge wrote:
Bosco,

1. Regarding Textual Critism of the New Testament. NO doctrine of Christianity is dependant on any textual variant. So even if there are some textual variants this does not change the fundamentals of key events or doctrine. If you have proof to the contrary, please provide specific references. Also, you say that you ‘believe’ the gospels are rife with contradictions. I noticed you used the word ‘believe’. Is that because you have no conclusive evidence to support position? Which Textual variances cause the gospels to contradict each other, or make it inaccurate, or cause timeline problems? Please provide examples? You can obviously ‘believe’ what you want, but don’t think that your beliefs are based on any stronger or better proof than anyone else’s.

2. How about the Old Testament, is there major Textual Variants there?

I guess my point is that the Christian faith is not totally illogical, unreasonable or based on total blindness. However you seem bent on proving that it is. You like to refer to any evidence or person that supports the Bible or God as Christian propoganda. One could also refer to your proofs as propoganda as well. That is a two way street my friend.
Haney is not attacking you or your beliefs in any way, he is simply attempting to have an intellectual debate with you, but you seem to be taking it personally.

By the way, as predicted, you still have not answered all of Haney’s questions (not that you will)

Neil[/quote]

Okay. It’s still just a book. Words, like any other. There’s no more capital “T” Truth in it than any other anthology. Books aren’t magical. Just like hippies. When I kill you and you die, you stay that way. Especially after three days. A fella starts to get gamey after three days – I should know.

[Professor_X]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

Okay. It’s still just a book. Words, like any other. There’s no more capital “T” Truth in it than any other anthology. Books aren’t magical. Just like hippies. When I kill you and you die, you stay that way. Especially after three days. A fella starts to get gamey after three days – I should know.

[/quote]

That wasn’t the point. If you can’t answer his questions directly and appropriately, why respond? You are bent on making Christianity seem like an act of religion for fools. Therefore, when you actually get into an intelligent debate about it, the burden is also on you to prove many of the claims being made against it…instead of side stepping every point as if degrading it and making fun of it equals proof. Maybe that is all you can do, however.

[lothario1132]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That wasn’t the point. If you can’t answer his questions directly and appropriately, why respond? You are bent on making Christianity seem like an act of religion for fools. Therefore, when you actually get into an intelligent debate about it, the burden is also on you to prove many of the claims being made against it…instead of side stepping every point as if degrading it and making fun of it equals proof. Maybe that is all you can do, however.
[/quote]

Okay. I see where you’re coming from. But what kind of intelligent debate can we have about a book that claims dominion over our souls, and proclaims itself the key to salvation and God’s law because some guy supposedly walked on water and healed some lepers? And not only that, he rose from the dead. And this book claims that you can be saved in a similar fashion IF you throw away your common sense and believe what it says in its pages.

I don’t know how much exposure you have to psych patients in your practice as a military doctor, ProX, but you should know that you can’t reason with the insane. Not in the same way that you can with a rational person. You must understand that a book which makes these claims is not rational. Regardless of its nature, of its history, of its legitimacy as an authentic and faithful record, it is quite simply crazy. So what is there to debate, really? We are going to split hairs now… over this? What’s the point? I don’t see this as side-stepping anything; merely bringing the debate back to its senses.

And yes, if you are nuts, I will make fun of you. I would expect no different from you. You are a smart-ass, too. If I start to get weird sometime you better heckle the shit out of me.

[rainjack]

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I don’t know how much exposure you have to psych patients in your practice as a military doctor, ProX, but you should know that you can’t reason with the insane. Not in the same way that you can with a rational person. [/quote]

The debate should just end right here - that is the rub in this age-old debate. Both sides think that the other is out of touch.

No amount of sarcastic attacks from the atheist side will convince the theists. No amount of scripture quoting will convince the god forsaken hell bent atheists. It’s a draw.

The horse has been dead for days - but for some reason the need to continue beating it is still alive and well.

[lothario1132]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
I don’t know how much exposure you have to psych patients in your practice as a military doctor, ProX, but you should know that you can’t reason with the insane. Not in the same way that you can with a rational person.

The debate should just end right here - that is the rub in this age-old debate. Both sides think that the other is out of touch.

No amount of sarcastic attacks from the atheist side will convince the theists. No amount of scripture quoting will convince the god forsaken hell bent atheists. It’s a draw.

The horse has been dead for days - but for some reason the need to continue beating it is still alive and well.
[/quote]

Amen! (am I allowed to say that? hehe)