1. Joined
    07 Jan '05
    Moves
    20117
    20 Mar '06 13:59
    Something I heard yesterday in our Sunday morning service in the church...

    Apparently, some guy in America is taking the Big Guys in Christianity to COURT to prove that God/Jesus does not exist. Who is gonna be the judge, and if he beliefs or doesnt believe in God, what will the verdict be? Who will the judge favour? Americans, making and watching toooo much movies.

    My personal opinion is that this guy is going to waste alot of time, in very much his own!
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Mar '06 14:03
    Originally posted by Nicolaas
    Something I heard yesterday in our Sunday morning service in the church...

    Apparently, some guy in America is taking the Big Guys in Christianity to COURT to prove that God/Jesus does not exist. Who is gonna be the judge, and if he beliefs or doesnt believe in God, what will the verdict be? Who will the judge favour? Americans, making and watching toooo ...[text shortened]... .

    My personal opinion is that this guy is going to waste alot of time, in very much his own!
    There must be more to it than that. What is he actually suing them for? I doubt it will even make it into court though.
  3. Joined
    07 Jan '05
    Moves
    20117
    20 Mar '06 14:09
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    There must be more to it than that. What is he actually suing them for? I doubt it will even make it into court though.
    I dont know what he is suing them for, would be interresting to know. I Whish I had asked more questions... damn!
  4. Joined
    07 Jan '05
    Moves
    20117
    20 Mar '06 14:17
    I read Kaboooomba's thread "war?" - very interresting.

    That is the way I also feel. No one can prove God's non existance. No one, not even the Americans 😉
  5. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    20 Mar '06 17:22
    Originally posted by Nicolaas
    I read Kaboooomba's thread "war?" - very interresting.

    That is the way I also feel. No one can prove God's non existance. No one, not even the Americans 😉
    no one can prove that a kumquat ain't god either, so what's you point?
  6. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    20 Mar '06 18:161 edit
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    no one can prove that a kumquat ain't god either
    so what's you point?
    Relevance.
  7. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    21 Mar '06 09:46
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b]so what's you point?
    Relevance.[/b]
    This is the second time I've seen you post this one word response. What are you talking about? Are you unable to be cryptic and unclear? Do you think being cryptic makes you seem profound and wise?
  8. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    21 Mar '06 12:371 edit
    Originally posted by Nicolaas
    That is the way I also feel. No one can prove God's non existance. No one, not even the Americans 😉
    http://www.luigicascioli.it/home_eng.php

    It's already before an Italian court, Nic. While you are correct, it may not be possible to prove 'god' doesn't exist, it certainly may be possible to show that Jesus was created from whole cloth. The weakness there is the Christian claim of his actual historic existence.

    That, of course, will burst the Christian bubble quite nicely.

    edit: Looks like his case was tossed.

    http://www.luigicascioli.it/comunicato1_eng.php
  9. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    21 Mar '06 15:12
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Do you think being cryptic makes you seem profound and wise?
    Are you unable to be cryptic and unclear?
    Is you is, or is you ain't?

    The concise post was in response to (another) ridiculous comparison by (another) ridiculous scoffer, this time "asking" why a kumquat shouldn't be given consideration as God.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52614
    21 Mar '06 15:29
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b] Are you unable to be cryptic and unclear?
    Is you is, or is you ain't?

    The concise post was in response to (another) ridiculous comparison by (another) ridiculous scoffer, this time "asking" why a kumquat shouldn't be given consideration as God.[/b]
    Well maybe sometime, somewhere, some society worshipped the comquat. Doesn't make its claim any more invalid than christians, muslims and jews worshipping an, how should I put this?, extremely inactive god. Would be the same thing IMHO.
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78534
    21 Mar '06 15:33
    Originally posted by Nicolaas
    I dont know what he is suing them for, it would be interesting to know. I wish I had asked more questions... damn!
    Breach of promise regarding an afterlife presumably, unless there is some more specific grievance against a particular church. As it's a civil case it would go on balance of probability, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, which from an agnostic point of view is quite an entertaining proposition. Sadly I doubt he'll get very far as he'll have to establish a material loss in order to have anything to sue for, and the only way he could do that would be if God did exist but the church was deliberately telling people to do the wrong things in order to reduce overcrowding in heaven...
  12. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    22 Mar '06 16:25
    Originally posted by Nicolaas
    Something I heard yesterday in our Sunday morning service in the church...

    Apparently, some guy in America is taking the Big Guys in Christianity to COURT to prove that God/Jesus does not exist. Who is gonna be the judge, and if he beliefs or doesnt believe in God, what will the verdict be? Who will the judge favour? Americans, making and watching toooo ...[text shortened]... .

    My personal opinion is that this guy is going to waste alot of time, in very much his own!
    My personal opinion is that this is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. What are you talking about? Got a link to a news story about it? How do you know your "source" didn't just make this up? Is this the way you get informed about the world? No wonder you believe in magic.
  13. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    22 Mar '06 16:27
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b] Are you unable to be cryptic and unclear?
    Is you is, or is you ain't?

    The concise post was in response to (another) ridiculous comparison by (another) ridiculous scoffer, this time "asking" why a kumquat shouldn't be given consideration as God.[/b]
    The kumquat post was no less ridiculous than Christianity in my opinion. I still have no idea what your post was supposed to mean.
  14. Standard memberorfeo
    Missing 285 + 1
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25590
    23 Mar '06 01:33
    The European tradition (Italy) may spend some time looking at this, but I would expect the common law system (USA) to throw this out unless he has something more concrete for the court to determine, and to which the existence of God is relevant.

    Chances are the court will bend over backwards to decide the case on technical or legal interpretation grounds that have absolutely nothing to do with the 'agenda' of the case. And I say, good on them. Where did Americans get this idea that the law is the right tool for every dispute?
  15. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    23 Mar '06 02:26
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Breach of promise regarding an afterlife presumably, unless there is some more specific grievance against a particular church. As it's a civil case it would go on balance of probability, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, which from an agnostic point of view is quite an entertaining proposition. Sadly I doubt he'll get very far as he'll have to ...[text shortened]... liberately telling people to do the wrong things in order to reduce overcrowding in heaven...
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000APL78O/qid=1143080723/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3783495-9308931?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130

    Been there, done that. Yawn.
Back to Top