Alex Jones, talk radio host

Originally posted by sonship
[b] 1. God is a fabrication of the human mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------

The human mind can certainly fabricate things about someone who really lived.
That does not mean that person never existed.

Hollywood fabricates things about Wyatt Earp, Cleopatra, Alexander the Great, etc.
The fabrications are add ...[text shortened]... they taught and myths. Why should I believe you that they did not know facts from fabrications?[/b]

Hollywood also fabricated King Kong and Godzilla. What's your point?

Sometimes a fabrication is just that. Not an exaggeration or an embellishment, but a fabrication born of mortal fear and suffering. - And the Apostles were victims of their time, when the existence of God was taken for granted.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
God does not exist. It is you who choose to deviate from this natural position of rational thinking.

Would you be rational to believe a spaceship created itself? One cell in the human body seems a lot more complex than a space ship, a space ship cannot even repair itself.

Any rational mind would be open at least to there being something out there that is the cause of our existence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you be rational to believe a spaceship created itself? One cell in the human body seems a lot more complex than a space ship, a space ship cannot even repair itself.

Any rational mind would be open at least to there being something out there that is the cause of our existence.

Why do you think a space ship couldn't create itself? Why do you think a space ship couldn't repair itself? Do you have a lot of experience with space ships? Why do you think a human cell is more complex than a space ship? Are you a biologist? What are you credentials to discuss the comparison between human cells and these 'space ships' you speak of?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Why do you think a space ship couldn't create itself? Why do you think a space ship couldn't repair itself? Do you have a lot of experience with space ships? Why do you think a human cell is more complex than a space ship? Are you a biologist? What are you credentials to discuss the comparison between human cells and these 'space ships' you speak of?

Because it can't. If you disagree show me one that created itself and that can repair itself and that will be the end of the discussion. Do you think the Mona Lisa painting could paint itself? I have studied Biology, have you? Any functionality that a spaceship has is due to the design and programming of an engineer. Yet you simply assume the functionality of a cell exists on its own accord? Open your eyes catboy.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Because it can't. If you disagree show me one that created itself and that can repair itself and that will be the end of the discussion. Do you think the Mona Lisa painting could paint itself? I have studied Biology, have you? Any functionality that a spaceship has is due to the design and programming of an engineer. Yet you simply assume the functionality of a cell exists on its own accord? Open your eyes catboy.

Why are all you arguments covered in cobwebs? Don't you have anything original to contribute?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Why are all you arguments covered in cobwebs? Don't you have anything original to contribute?

Your feeble and sickly responses are maggot infested.

Originally posted by dj2becker

Any functionality that a spaceship has is due to the design and programming of an engineer. Yet you simply assume the functionality of a cell exists on its own accord?

Other than an argument by yawn, I don't see Ghost of Duke to be able to give us too useful a comment on this.

I'll try. It seems to me that however down you slice and splice physical reality, reducing it to more and more minute sub-components or sections, the functionality of that reduced component must be come from outside of it.

However much we reduce either the biological world or the material world the purposeful "engineering" (for lack of any better word) must have been applied to it not from within it but outside of it. It does not have the reason for its existence in itself.

Intelligent input from above all these functioning parts is undeniable.

Originally posted by sonship

Any functionality that a spaceship has is due to the design and programming of an engineer. Yet you simply assume the functionality of a cell exists on its own accord?

Other than an argument by yawn, I don't see Ghost of Duke to be able to give us too useful a comment on this.

I'll try. It seems to me that however down you slice and ...[text shortened]... but outside of it.

Intelligent input from above all these functioning parts is undeniable.

If you are so inclined, trawl through the tedious posting history of his previous account (FetchMyJunk) and you will see that I have already responded to him (fully) on this very question.

As a believer in human mortality, how much of my Earthly and finite existence do you require me to spend repeating myself to him?

Originally posted by sonship
Your feeble and sickly responses are maggot infested.

And your reply is profoundly unchristian. (And somewhat churlish).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
And your reply is profoundly unchristian. (And somewhat churlish).

I'll trawl through some of your wit to see if there is something of substance then in.

God does not exist. It is you who choose to deviate from this natural position of rational thinking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just an assertion. Basically wishful thinking.

1. God is a fabrication of the human mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

More bare assertion - wishful thinking.
And why would such a need arise to fabricate God in the first place?

Is there any other creature on the planet that has this need?

2. A mind in its natural state is therefore atheistic, 'before' any fabrication of the divine can be formulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't prove much.
The mind in its natural state is not a chess player either.

I 'didn't' decide to become an atheist. I just didn't decide to become a theist. (A person's natural rational state is atheistic).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you want to remain without God.
You sensed you were without God and when the good news of Christ came to you, you wanted to choose to remain without God.

Nothing particularly unusual in this.

what made you decide to remain godless ?

The things you write.
-------------------------------------

Referring to Christian poster

The things you write cause me to thank God I entrusted my life to Christ.

The God 'you' peddle is contradictory, erratic, unsubstantiated and at times downright malevolent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God has been quite constant in many things. And in none of them has it occurred to you to turn around at the end of one year just to say "Thanks God."

You are really unthankful for many consistent, reliable, and constant evidences of God's care in your life.

You never give God thanks for daily provision you have or the happiness He affords you to pursue things you enjoy.

From Genesis through to Revelation God is amazingly faithful. Yet in branching over thousands of obstacles to His will His manifold characteristics are manifested.

But you don't want a living God to exist. You might want a lifeless flowchart.

I have about 215 pages of posts to go through to locate this worthy substance you insist your tired of repeating.

As for me giving an unchristian response?
it is funny how you charge the whole matter of living out Christ to be bogus and so quickly identify what you don't like as unchristian.

Agape love can sometimes be a kick in the seat of the pants.
Maybe you were expecting more someone like Barney the Dinosaur?

And you have a glass jaw. You can dish it out that a poster's post is full of cobwebs. But heaven forbid a little of your own medicine be given to you.

Unchristian!
Unchristian!

Originally posted by sonship
I'll trawl through some of your wit to see if there is something of substance then in.

[b] God does not exist. It is you who choose to deviate from this natural position of rational thinking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just an assertion. Basically wishful thinking.

...[text shortened]... But heaven forbid a little of your own medicine be given to you.

Unchristian!
Unchristian!

I get that you have different beliefs from him and all that, but what makes you say Ghost of a Duke's post is "maggot infested"?

Originally posted by sonship
I'll trawl through some of your wit to see if there is something of substance then in.

[b] God does not exist. It is you who choose to deviate from this natural position of rational thinking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just an assertion. Basically wishful thinking.

...[text shortened]... But heaven forbid a little of your own medicine be given to you.

Unchristian!
Unchristian!

I said you were 'somewhat churlish.' I hereby retract the word 'somewhat.'

You ask, "Why would such a need arise to fabricate God in the first place?" And "Is there any other creature on the planet that has this need?"

In response, I must firstly acknowledge the surprising naivety in the questions, but will answer them nonetheless. - The need arises in some to fabricate God, as belief in such a deity, among other things, provides comfort. (What Marx called 'the opium of the masses.' ). And as for any other creature having the 'need' to fabricate God, pray tell, what other creature has the 'ability?'

Originally posted by sonship
And you have a glass jaw. You can dish it out that a poster's post is full of cobwebs. But heaven forbid a little of your own medicine be given to you.

The "cobwebs" is surely a reference to the hackneyed reappearance - yet again - of the half-inched-from-a-web-site 'who painted the Mona Lisa?' and 'who built the spaceship?' and 'what about the functionality of a cell ? "debating" gambits, right?

How many times do you think dj2becker/Fetchmyjunk has trotted these out and then not engaged - indeed, not even acknowledged ~ the responses they drew, in some kind of trolling parody of discourse?

Do you really think dj2becker/Fetchmyjunk has broken Ghost of a Duke's "glass" jaw with this stuff?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
A mind in its natural state is therefore atheistic, 'before' any fabrication of the divine can be formulated.

Originally posted by sonship
This doesn't prove much. The mind in its natural state is not a chess player either.

How does this analogy of yours work?

Chess is a "fabrication", isn't it?

Are you using "chess" as an analogy for "theism" in the "mind in its natural state"?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Why are all you arguments covered in cobwebs? Don't you have anything original to contribute?

It certainly makes sense from your perspective to label an argument that you cannot seem to refute as 'covered in cobwebs' and 'unoriginal'.