Author Topic: A Christian Refutation of The End of Christianity, ed. Loftus Chapter 2 Part 1  (Read 717 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1607
  • Darwins +64/-0
  • I'll bleed for my own 'sins' thank you very much
Ack, all I hear is "blah blah blah"... dude, this is a forum, not a bloody YouTube channel.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1993
  • Darwins +194/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Are those my sandals on the stairs in the background?  I bought a pair just like that last summer and now I can't find them.  Did you steal my sandals?  Damn, I'm gonna' be pissed if those are my sandals. 

I will be honest and say that I listened to your video for a few minutes before turning it off.  You were trying to make the point that the Jesus myth didn't borrow from earlier, pagan myths.  I'm sorry, but a God inseminating a virgin woman who then gives birth to some sort of divine figure IS borrowing from earlier myths.  That's what we call 'borrowing'; taking a piece of the myth and incorporating it into another.  If it were exactly the same, it would be called 'copying.  It's not exactly the same, but pieces of it are the same. 

You then went on to define Jesus' nature as 100% God and 100% man as if that is totally obvious and everyone always just believed that.  You lost me there.  You have no evidence at all that God exists, so listening to you make claims about Jesus divinity is just you forming words that have no basis in truth or reality.  It's hard to argue the nature of something when its very existence is in doubt.   
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Jeffpt,

Quote
  I'm sorry, but a God inseminating a virgin woman who then gives birth to some sort of divine figure IS borrowing from earlier myths.

That is for you to prove. It also for you to prove that the similarities prove it didn't happen.

Quote
You then went on to define Jesus' nature as 100% God and 100% man as if that is totally obvious and everyone always just believed that.

Were or were the ancient pagan gods not created persons?

Quote
You have no evidence at all that God exists

I went to great pains to give very good evidence that many of your own people have admitted to me is very strong. http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,50398.0.html

Quote
so listening to you make claims about Jesus divinity is just you forming words that have no basis in truth or reality.

Oh really, please teach me then: What is reality?


Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢

I went to great pains to give very good evidence that many of your own people have admitted to me is very strong. http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,50398.0.html


You went to great pains to present a biased case, and the best endorsement you got is from Mooston, who says [sarcastically] that your claims are definitely interesting.

I don't think this discussion can go any further without you admitting that the 'prophecies' can be applied to any conflict; and that 10 horned monsters can mean anything. My SDA brother-in-law claimed that the 10 horns are the Euro union.

Do you honestly think that you get to apply this prophecy to various things for the last 2000 years and still get to be taken seriously? A prophecy is not a prophecy unless it predicts something.



Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5663
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female

Quote
  I'm sorry, but a God inseminating a virgin woman who then gives birth to some sort of divine figure IS borrowing from earlier myths.

That is for you to prove. It also for you to prove that the similarities prove it didn't happen.

Well for one thing Krishna was born to a virgin mother. Taken from wikipedia:

According to Bhagavata Purana, Krishna was born without a sexual union, but by divine "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki. Based on scriptural details and astrological calculations the date of Krishna's birth, known as Janmashtami,[45] is 18 July 3228 BCE and departed on 3102 BCE. Krishna belonged to the Vrishni clan of Yadavas from Mathura,[46] and was the eighth son born to the princess Devaki, and her husband Vasudeva.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krishna#Birth

Myths have a very rich history of borrowing from others myths. For example all religious myths have a creation story, and it seems that all myths have a flood myth story about a deity, or group of deities sending a great flood to cover the earth and destroy civilizations. It's just a common theme for a story to borrow from an already existing story, change a few words around in a pathetic attempt to make it look unique, and pass it off as original. As much as you don't want to admit it when you think about other religious myths you (hopefully) can see how there are similarities to your religious myth.

And no, it's not for us to prove that the similarities prove it didn't happen. It's up to you to prove it did happen. As much as you don't want to admit it, the burden of prove is completely on you. So go ahead, prove it did without using your myth's 'sacred' text'.

-M
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Online jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7275
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Olivianus,

This is a disucssion forum.  You are expected to summarize your assertions, and provide facts and evidence to support them.  You can link to your videos as a matter of record, but you should also include a summary position statement.

Also, demanding that the members prove you wrong is backwards.  When you make an assertion and claim it to be factual, the burden of proof is on you. 

Jetson

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1993
  • Darwins +194/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
That is for you to prove.

See Emily's post.

Are you really going to say that God making Mary pregnant and giving birth to a deity-like figure isn't borrowed?  Come on now. 

It also for you to prove that the similarities prove it didn't happen.

That wasn't your argument.  I didn't want to argue against something you weren't arguing in the first place. 

Again, see Emily's post.  The burden of proof is not on me, Olivianus.   It's on you.  If I told you I could turn invisible on every other Wednesday, would the burden of proof be on you to prove I can't, or for me to prove I can?   If I can't prove that I can turn invisible, you are under no obligation to accept it.  In fact, you might be considered a fool if you did.  Just like with the Jesus and God thing. 

Quote
You then went on to define Jesus' nature as 100% God and 100% man as if that is totally obvious and everyone always just believed that.

Were or were the ancient pagan gods not created persons?

I don't know every single pagan god that was ever invented by man.  Most local villages and tribes had their own gods that they prayed to.  Some of them were known far and wide, others were not.  And all during those times, people tolerated the beliefs of others, right up to the point where Judaism and Christianity came along saying that their God was the one TRUE God and everyone else was wrong.  This is one of the main reasons that they were persecuted so much.  Because giving homage to the local gods was believed to stave off the bad things that normally happened, and since the Christians didn't do that, the locals would blame them for all the things that went wrong on a daily basis. 

My point was teetering on the notion that Jesus nature was up for debate for 300 years or so up until the council of Nicea, but I didn't feel like diving into the different beliefs about Jesus nature, such as the adoptionist and docetic positions.   

Quote
You have no evidence at all that God exists

I went to great pains to give very good evidence that many of your own people have admitted to me is very strong. http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,50398.0.html

I read that post.  Let's just say it was unimpressive and leave it at that, shall we?  An interpretation of a dream about a multi-level, multi-metal statue is not much of anything and I think you know that.  Setting aside the dating contention, the multiple levels and multiple metals could mean whatever you want them to mean, including nothing at all.  It obviously would have been far more believable if the dreams weren't of serpents and beasts and statues, but really of specific empires, with specific dates and specific names.  You want us to believe this was a DIVINE prophecy here, Olivianus.  That's a very extraordinary claim.  What you gave us in Daniel (the atheist nightmare lol) is just ridiculous.  Can you imagine how accurate a divine prophecy would actually be?  Daniel is a far cry from that.  Far cry.   

This is why they call it faith, Olivianus.  Because there is no good evidence.  If there were, they would call it knowledge. 

Oh really, please teach me then: What is reality?

I'm not going to be dragged into a philosophical debate about reality, because it goes nowhere.  For the purposes of this discussion, however, I would say that it is the realm in which I could provide sufficient proof to you that I can turn invisible every other Wednesday.   
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline lotanddaughters

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
  • Darwins +48/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • Artist: Simon Vouet (1633)
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
I just finished reading that book last night. The sections written by Robert M. Price are my favorite of the book.
Enough with your bullshit.
. . . Mr. Friday . . . that post really is golden.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
I'm not going to be dragged into a philosophical debate about reality, because it goes nowhere.  For the purposes of this discussion, however, I would say that it is the realm in which I could provide sufficient proof to you that I can turn invisible every other Wednesday.

If you can embed an YouTube video I will buy it JeffPT. I will believe that you can turn invisible on Wednesdays and may be the early hours of Thursdays too.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Emily,

Quote
And no, it's not for us to prove that the similarities prove it didn't happen. It's up to you to prove it did happen.


You are changing the subject. My demand was not for you to prove it didn't happen. My demand was that you show how similarities between the stories proves it didn't happen.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Jetson,

Quote
Also, demanding that the members prove you wrong is backwards.

You read my statement as lazy as Emily did. You are changing the subject. My demand was not for you to prove it didn't happen. My demand was that you show how similarities between the stories proves it didn't happen.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
JeffPT

You didn't answer the question. If you are making the accusation that the Christian gospel is taken from pagan myths you need to present a single demigod that is an UNCREATED PERSON. Good luck!

Quote
I read that post. Let's just say it was unimpressive and leave it at that, shall we?

Kingdoms have been converted over this. Your fear and hypocrisy are too much to breath. Don'ty expect me to reply to another post you write until you refute that thread.

Quote
I'm not going to be dragged into a philosophical debate about reality, because it goes nowhere.

Another tap out huh. Man this is just easy.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +218/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
You are changing the subject. My demand was not for you to prove it didn't happen. My demand was that you show how similarities between the stories proves it didn't happen.

I think we can do this doctrinally. The current version of the bible states that :

[1] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[2] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;
[3] And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;
[4] And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;
[5] And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;
[6] And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
[7] And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;
[8] And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;
[9] And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;
[10] And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;
[11] And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
[12] And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
[13] And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
[14] And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
[15] And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
[16] And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

"And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord" (Isaiah 11:1-2).

[13] And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
[14] Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin (young unmarried woman) shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


Christians have attempted to unite 'prophecy', well after the death of Jesus, and these were the only ones they could mutilate into their dishonesty. For some reason they needed the king to descend from David, but obviously failed, since Mary did all the work. FAIL 1

Jesus called himself "Yehosuah," "Iesous," "Yeshua," "Joshua" and "Jesus", but never Immanuel. FAIL 2. Christians were not even organized enough to fake his name being Immanuel.

The Immanuel passage from Isaiah does not mention that this "sign" will be a messiah, king, or descendant of David. FAIL 3

The Immanuel passage also does not mention anything about God inseminating a virgin, or that she would have a husband who never had sex with her. FAIL 4.

Joseph was her husband, but didn't have sex with her. FAIL 5

No evidence is provided that Mary was not a hooker. FAIL 6.

Somehow in the days after he married Mary, and Joseph hadn't consummated anything, she was found pregnant, without an ultrasound. SUCCESS 1. Jews had ultrasound, or FAIL 7, Joseph married a woman with a bulging belly.

ED: Oh, I just noticed: Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

So, even the angel specified that he was not Immanuel, so the Isaiah passage should be ignored, even if it's a circular argument.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2012, 01:46:17 AM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
You read my statement as lazy as Emily did. You are changing the subject. My demand was not for you to prove it didn't happen. My demand was that you show how similarities between the stories proves it didn't happen.

Prove what  didn't happen?

I am a bit confused here, in this world people try to prove what happened. It will be quite difficult to prove that something didnt happen.

In this case any of the folks claiming that the virgin birth as mentioned in the bible happened will have to prove that Mary's hymen was intact after she became pregnant. That requires access to the plumbing. Enlighten us!!!

For us the bible remains a story book and Emily rightly pointed out that the virgin birth is was already told before by several other faiths and stories. What this plagiarism proves is that in those days the writers of the bible were at loss to conjure a more spectacular arrival for god the son. Lack of imagination[1] is shown with evidence.
 1. I will retract this statement if you can do the enlightening I mentioned in the paragraph above 

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Kingdoms have been converted over this. Your fear and hypocrisy are too much to breath. Don'ty expect me to reply to another post you write until you refute that thread.
wow, that means Islam is just as real as your religion.  So, when is the conversion, Oliv? 

Multiple myths have used the same stories as your myths.  There is nothing special or new about Christianity.  Since there is no evidence that your myths are any more real than the flood myths of the Babylonians or Romans, since there is no evidence that Theseus or Jesus or Heracles or Asclepius existed, there is no reason to give any validity to your special pleading.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5663
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female

You are changing the subject. My demand was not for you to prove it didn't happen. My demand was that you show how similarities between the stories proves it didn't happen.

I'm not changing the subject at all. I showed you how the account that describes Mary's conception of Jesus is near identical to the account of a god-like figure in another religion's scripture. Why while a near identical account in an opposition religion's scripture doesn't necessarily disprove your scriptures account for Jesus' conception it certainly doesn't help the credibility of your account.

As I pointed out Krishna was "born without a sexual union" to his mother Devaki. In scripture Jesus was born to Mary, and Mary being a virgin and not "knowing Joseph until she had brought forth their firstborn son"[1]

There, similarities. Which is one thing you wanted someone to prove, remember:


Quote
  I'm sorry, but a God inseminating a virgin woman who then gives birth to some sort of divine figure IS borrowing from earlier myths.

That is for you to prove. It also for you to prove that the similarities prove it didn't happen.

 1. Matt 1:25

Now this doesn't disprove Mary's virgin birth. Not at all. But what it does it show that the account in your holy book was stolen, or at least shares similarities, from another account in another religion's holy book, which is something religions are very good at.

All religious myths have stories that are similar. All religious myths, including yours, have stories similar to eachother when those similarities greatly discredit the text's scripture. What makes the account found in your holy book more 'real' than the account the Hindu's believe in? Or when it comes to creation, what makes the account in your holy book more 'real' than what the Myan's believe in, or the Muslims, or every other religion that describes their god as creating the universe and earth?

How the hell am I to disprove the virgin birth by Mary? How am I to disprove something that has left behind no evidence of happening outside of scripture? I can't. If you want to put me in that position then go ahead, but it's not honest. I will admit that I cannot do it.

What needs to be done is for you to prove that it did happen. Can you do that without using scripture? Probably not, since your account of the virgin birth has left behind no evidence. If you can prove with evidence that your savior was born to a virgin mother it will help along the credibility of your holy book. But sadly your text's account for certain events (virgin birth, creation, flood, heaven and hell, praying to a personal god, etc) are no different than other texts' accounts that you don't believe in. You don't believe in the Koran, right? Or the Bhagavata Purana, or any other text that isn't supporting your god but have similar stories, do you? Why and how is your text, your god and your savior any different than the millions of religions that came before it?

-M
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1243
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Were or were the ancient pagan gods not created persons?

WTF does that mean?

On another note, was God/Jesus not aware of the other religions that had such similarities?  Why would god follow their path even if he were real and independent? Why did jesus not comment specifically on Horus, Isis, and Krishna?
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1993
  • Darwins +194/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
You didn't answer the question. If you are making the accusation that the Christian gospel is taken from pagan myths you need to present a single demigod that is an UNCREATED PERSON. Good luck!

I didn't answer your question because you changed the question in midstream.  What started with 'did the Christian gospel borrow from older myths?' (which is the question I responded to) has now changed to 'were or were the ancient pagan gods not created persons?'  Those are not the same questions.  One is broad and vague, whilst the other is narrow and specific.  I was still answering the first one, and you went and changed the question in order to save face.  You know perfectly well that Christianity borrowed a lot from older myths, but instead of just simply agreeing with that (oh my, I can't believe I agree with an atheist on the internet!!!) you make an intentional jump to a very different question and hope that nobody will recognize it for what it was.  Classic Christian.  It's called 'moving the goalposts'.   

A divine being impregnating a human woman whose offspring was some form of divine being itself is consistent with the Christian myth and several of the pagan myths.  Is that TRUE or NOT TRUE?  Just answer it.  Why can't you agree with that?  Remove your emotion from it and just answer the question. Is that so hard for you to do here?  If you'd like, you may say that all pagan mythological gods were 'created' and the Christian mythological version differs in some way from that, but  I never said they were EXACT COPIES, and this is where your reasoning fails.  It's not an exact copy.  But a good portion of it IS borrowed. 

Kingdoms have been converted over this.

Kingdoms have been converted over lots of stuff, including lots of other religions.  If you would like to use kingdom conversion as proof that a specific religion is true, then you must allow for every other instance of this to be proof that other religions are true as well.  Are you willing to do that?

Your fear and hypocrisy are too much to breath.

You'd sure like to think so.  Can you show me what evidence you have that I am afraid of something you say, or that I am being hypocritical?  Because I don't believe that I am.  Point me to my posts that show beyond any reasonable doubt that I am afraid or being hypocritical. 

Don'ty expect me to reply to another post you write until you refute that thread.

I already gave you my refutation.  I guess you ignored it.  But since you did, I will rehash it again in a bit more detail. 

An interpretation of a dream about a multi-level statue and beasts from off the coast is not evidence of the divine.  You can assert that it is all you want, but it's not.  And that's all we're doing here.  Asserting shit. When you have that sort of impasse, YOU don't automatically get to call yourself the winner.  You have to back it up with something else, otherwise you're just being stupid,  because in the grand scheme of things, no one in their right mind would ever, ever say that an interpretation of a specific dream about a metal statue is evidence of the divine, unless it was absolutely rock solid and irrefutable... which, by the way, it really could be!  If Nebuchadnezzar's dream was of the same statue, and Daniel gave specific dates, times, names etc, for future events, without any question at all as to the authenticity of the predictions, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because I would probably agree with you.  But that's not what this is.  Not by a long shot.  Why don't you get that?  Don't answer that; I already know. 

What if someone told you they had a dream about 15 people riding on a bus on Christmas eve 1991, and the bus crashed into a wall.  Would you think this was divine intervention?  No, of course not.  Why should you?  You probably wouldn't think much of it, would you?  But did you know that the former USSR broke apart on the very next day into 15 sovereign states?   This is the type of thing you're talking about here.  Dreams about beasts from off the coast and statues made of different metals can be made to contextually fit with just about anything. 

Forget for a moment that it all could have been made up later, and forget for a moment that we have no actual proof that Nebuchadnezzar had any dream at all that Daniel had to read, and forget for a moment that the bible is loaded with forgeries, errors and absurdities, and just examine the notion that an interpretation of a dream about a metal statue is what you are using as proof of the divine.  Please think about that.  It's fucking retarded.  It really is.  A divine interpretation simply requires more than what you've given in order to be believable. 

Let me give this to you as easy as I can.  If I came to you as a believer in a different religion, and I presented to you what you have presented in your IGI post, what would you think of it?  Be serious now.  If I said that I had a really old book and inside that book there was this king that had a dream about a statue, and some other guy interpreted it to mean future kingdoms, would you REALLY buy that as iron clad evidence that their god was real?  I mean... we know kingdoms are going to come and go.  That's a given.  It's not news.   

You're Daniel argument is loaded with holes.  There are so many more.  From the fact that NO kingdom has ever ruled the entire world (and don't give me the entire 'known' world bullshit.  This is a divine interpretation, remember?)  to the debate over the dating, to the multitudes of other possibilities of what the dream really could have meant (including that it meant nothing at all), it's just not worth a damn.  For someone who already thinks Jesus and God are real, I can see why you would think this is good, but in terms of presenting a convincing argument to someone who is actively searching for one, you've presented crap.  Sorry.

Quote
I'm not going to be dragged into a philosophical debate about reality, because it goes nowhere.

Another tap out huh. Man this is just easy.

/sigh.  You are such the pigeon.  Get off my chess board please. 

Did you read any further, because I gave you my definition of reality that is pertinent to this conversation.  I assume you can read English, so I will simply have to assume you are a coward for not responding to what I wrote.   I will quote myself here so you may read it again and give yourself a chance at redemption.

Quote
For the purposes of this discussion, however, I would say that it is the realm in which I could provide sufficient proof to you that I can turn invisible every other Wednesday.

There you go.  Now, when I say that your stance has no basis in reality, this is the reality of which I speak.  The same one in which I could provide to you sufficient evidence that I am capable of turning invisible every other Wednesday.  That is the reality I speak of.  Not the one that exists only inside your deluded mind. 
 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline kin hell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5378
  • Darwins +152/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • - .... . .-. . /.. ... / -. --- / --. --- -.. ...
JeffPT

and others

Olivianus is a troll.

Read the threads and understand that he never acknowledges error, he never acknowledges presented evidence, he reverse engineers, dodges, obfuscates and plays the tangential, like the troll that he indisputably is.

Jeff I loved the

Another tap out huh. Man this is just easy.

/sigh.  You are such the pigeon.  Get off my chess board please. 

Did you read any further, because I gave you my definition of reality that is pertinent to this conversation.  I assume you can read English, so I will simply have to assume you are a coward for not responding to what I wrote.   I will quote myself here so you may read it again and give yourself a chance at redemption.

Unfortunately for Olivianus, his threads/posts betray him.

He is a troll.
"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester."  Bill Bailey

all edits are for spelling or grammar unless specified otherwise

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Jetson,

Quote
Also, demanding that the members prove you wrong is backwards.

You read my statement as lazy as Emily did. You are changing the subject. My demand was not for you to prove it didn't happen. My demand was that you show how similarities between the stories proves it didn't happen.


You've been thoroughly shown now. Stop being so pathetically stubborn. You shouldn't have got in the cage-- you're down and badly beaten--I'd suggest that you're the one that needs to tap out.
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1993
  • Darwins +194/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
JeffPT

and others

Olivianus is a troll.

Maybe you're right.  I should learn not to feed them. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
I think Christians like Oliv do serve a purpose, and it's the main reason I invited him here.  We have Christians who are all sure that their particular version of their religion is the only right one.  Some are very vague about what they want to claim so they aren't as interesting as Christians who do have very definite claims they want to tout as the "truth".  The detail that Oliv tries to go into, as inept as it is, can be directly countered and shown to be just one more "version" that has nothing to it. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Tero

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 707
  • Darwins +17/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
OK, troll, not poe. Not intetesting.

Next candidate!

Offline Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3880
  • Darwins +257/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you

Unfortunately for Olivianus, his threads/posts betray him.

He is a troll.

Moreoverhe's actually a particular brand of troll. One that actually has some education, and will use it to have people "chase their tails" and fight one another for their amusement. Often will have a degree in philosophy. They have clubs to show off and stroke their ego of how they fucked with a forum, and are particularly proud when they kill one.

I've encountered their like before.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.