Excellent review! Thanks for referencing me. I was too nice on Sapient in my review. Dude, I hope I'm not going soft.
"...but the end result is that one either chooses to serve God or one ends up being a tool for God."
Or in your case, one ends up being a tool. High five! And who are you to know the ultimate biddings of said supposed god? Who made you the soothsayer of the supernatural?
"In that day, they will know they had enough evidence, it was always there, but they chose to reject it for reasons insufficient and glorified themselves in self-adulation for doing so."
Please, please, PLEASE! show us the evidence which is right in front of us. Pleeeeeease, I beg you. And you can't say bible - that would be strike one - that isn't evidence of the supernatural. Believing that would be intellectually dishonest now, wouldn't it.
And for someone who supposedly wants to partake in "robust discussion" you like to stoop to levels of name calling and childish playground chatter...The Sap? That's r-tarded mate.
Man, that sounded gay. Are you sure you didn't touch yourself while watching Sapient?
www.maggotpunks.com
Or in your case, one ends up being a tool. High five!
*yawn*
And who are you to know the ultimate biddings of said supposed god? Who made you the soothsayer of the supernatural?
Perhaps you might consider Christian doctrine as developed over several thousand years from experience and the Bible? Online "contradictions" lists don't count.
Please, please, PLEASE! show us the evidence which is right in front of us. Pleeeeeease, I beg you.
Go fish. It's not like the information is difficult to find in this day and age. Your attitude shows that you've already determined none exists, which is typical of the (ir)rationals and their groupies. I see no reason to waste my time providing the fish myself, so to speak.
And you can't say bible - that would be strike one - that isn't evidence of the supernatural. Believing that would be intellectually dishonest now, wouldn't it.
You assume, and foolishly so, that I would argue in circular fashion. Your immediate jump to such also demonstrates your deep-seated bias. Properly used, I see no reason to automatically dismiss the data within the Bible.
And for someone who supposedly wants to partake in "robust discussion" you like to stoop to levels of name calling and childish playground chatter...The Sap? That's r-tarded mate.
Well mate, if I accept your criteria, then I must conclude the same for you, considering your play on Frank Walton's name and blog. However, I've had previous experience with The Sap, and because of this I know he is not interested in reasonable discussion. As such, I see no reason to bother with avoiding sarcasm. Also, would you prefer that I called him a viper, serpent, say his father is the devil? You might want to think about that before you say it wouldnt be "Christ like".
Finally, I've had plenty of dicussions with people ranging from muslim, pagan, atheist, agnostic and deist. While I'll debate agressively, I can be reasonable with those who are also reasonable.
Sorry Yomamma, I have no desire to fulfill your little fantasies
*double yawn*
Perhaps you might consider Christian doctrine as developed over several thousand years from experience and the Bible? Online "contradictions" lists don't count.
I actually would NOT consider an ancient piece of literature, written by a hundred odd folk (no pun intended) over a couple centuries about events that took place in the PAST as evidence to believe in the supernatural. There are so many internal contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible (yes, I have read it) that for people to claim it as the word of god (even as the "inspired" word) is intellectual dishonesty. If there really was a god - an omnicient, omnipresent, all powerful deity - the world would truely be a different place indeed.
Go fish. It's not like the information is difficult to find in this day and age. Your attitude shows that you've already determined none exists, which is typical of the (ir)rationals and their groupies. I see no reason to waste my time providing the fish myself, so to speak.
That is such a cop out. Such a simple, dodgeful, easy out, for someone who believes in something for which there is no evidence. "The evidence is right in front of you, if you can't see it, that's your problem!" That's debating etiquette taboo number one: no supporting evidence for your arguments.
Properly used, I see no reason to automatically dismiss the data within the Bible.
Egad! Have you even read the bible? And what do you mean "properly used"? Cherry picking the good parts and throwing out the rest? But wait, that WOULD make it the perfect word of god then, wouldn't it.
And I like how you mention "The Sap" is not interested in a reasonable discussion - the problem is, it's practically impossible to have a reasonable discussion with a theist as soon as faith enters the picture. Because any potential argument for belief in a god always seems to come down to it - faith. And by definition, religious faith is believing in something for which there is no evidence. It's such a trump card - another easy theist out to avoid having to provide any supporting evidence for the existence of a god.
How can one debate that rationally? When you can leave faith at the door, then a rational discussion would probably ensue.
If YOU can't provide a sliver of evidence in response to a simple blog post (as in mine above), I can't imagine you being a mass debater when you don't provide supporting evidence for your arguments.
In the end, the god of the Bible, or any other monotheistic supreme being for that matter, is so highly improbable, that it's irrational to think otherwise. When evidence is provided to support the contrary, I'll be one of the first to believe.
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
Atheists for Jesus!
Little Pirate,
Unfortunately for you, simply because I don't care to bother with those entrenched in their bias and misinformation i.e. the Bible is full of contradictions, your use of the ad novitatem fallacy, your dismissal of historical data, your misconception of faith, etc. doesn't change the fact that I have offered evidence on this blog at other times and elsewhere in discussions.
Despite my not caring to engage your ilk, at this time, there really is nothing preventing you, except your arrogant bias, from finding this information easily yourself.
Hey Mark! This is Nick from aiki-jutsu/Goju-ryu! I love your blog man. I just wanted to post and let you I definitely have not forgotten about you and wondered how you were doing. Pretty sweet that one can just check google and boom. Anyway, man, drop me a line at gaiwan12@myway.com if you have the time. It's been awhile, but I still remember the joy of training and hanging out. Best Always.--Nick
...your use of the ad novitatem fallacy, your dismissal of historical data, your misconception of faith, etc. doesn't change the fact that I have offered evidence on this blog at other times and elsewhere in discussions.
So you want to talk fallacies...fine. Although you make the ad novitatem fallacy sound like a bad thing...but the vary antithesis applies to your arguments in the form the ad antiquitatem fallacy. Touche.
Just because something is old, or has historical references (i.e. the Bible) doesn't make everything in it true. I have yet to see any plausible evidence for the miracles and major supernatural events that are described in the Bible. Have you?
I could write a book with a group of friends on a subject, fill it with accurate, identifiable locations and references, and then fill it will all sorts of supernatural events and floating faieries and gods that wield fantastic weapons made out of bark, and a levitating soothsayer - then bury it in the ground, hoping someone a thousand years from now finds it.
Just because those future folks can identify and corroborate actual locations and references to tangible "things", should they believe all of the fantasy content too, which they can't corroborate?
Despite my not caring to engage your ilk, at this time, there really is nothing preventing you, except your arrogant bias, from finding this information easily yourself.
Once again, a splendid copout. Instead of reiterating a great article, please read this article by John Loftus on his blog: http://
debunkingchristianity.blo...ristianity.html
It is logically and rationally written, and just makes more sense to me. How one can look at a book like the Bible and apply what we understand in today's society is just pure intellectual dishonesty.
PF
Write the book, then, (ir)RRS groupie, I look forward to ripping it apart.
There are many men with PHDs who are discovering the wonders of God's world; the order in it that is backed by scientific evidence of the great flood and other miraculous things.
What a one-dimensional world you must live in.
Hello. On you page is the following comment:
"For one, as part of the devastating criticism of the DVD their pimping..."
That should be "they're" rather than "their." :o)
Ha! Good catch 
Commenting by HaloScan
