I found this article...

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=278&tx_ttnews[backPID]=7

It is a VERY LONG article, but please read it entirely.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=278&tx_ttnews[backPID]=7

It is a VERY LONG article, but please read it entirely.

Great article! I have attempted to share many of those points on these boards although perhaps not as eloquently presented as in the article.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=278&tx_ttnews[backPID]=7

It is a VERY LONG article, but please read it entirely.

EVSOA!!!

Originally posted by SharpeMother
It is a VERY LONG article, but please read it entirely.

Indeed it is very long.... I think amounts to a book in itself! But I must admit, it is a very interesting piece of work. I am reading it intently; been spending almost an hour on it now, and will continue till the end. Who knows I may just think differently at the end; I doubt it, but we'll see...

Originally posted by SharpeMother
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=278&tx_ttnews[backPID]=7

It is a VERY LONG article, but please read it entirely.

What utter rubbish.
The arguments are made without any substance.
He concludes without ever explaining why that an atheist must have a philosophical viewpoint of the meaninglessness of nature and that this somehow renders us morally bankrupt.
I, and many others, have consistently repudiated this claim.
His attempts to demonstrate the divine nature of the Bible are ludicrous in the extreme.
Does anyone really take such drivel seriously?

Originally posted by SharpeMother
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=278&tx_ttnews[backPID]=7

It is a VERY LONG article, but please read it entirely.

I think Mr. Pearl would receive a severe ass whooping if he ever came here to debate. His arguments are riddled with logical fallacies, false assumptions, and factual errors.

It would bring me no greater joy than to see bbarr rip this guy an epistemological new one.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=278&tx_ttnews[backPID]=7

It is a VERY LONG article, but please read it entirely.

Idiocy. If any theist out there would like to defend the position of the author, I would be happy to debate.

Originally posted by SharpeMother
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=278&tx_ttnews[backPID]=7

It is a VERY LONG article, but please read it entirely.

Mr. Pearl trots out the same old atheist stereotypes and bland arguments that theists are forever regurgitating. While this article may agree with your cherished preconceptions, I can assure you that it is neither accurate nor persuasive. I second Bbarr in that I would be willing to debate any particular point that Mr. Pearl raises.

Originally posted by rwingett
Mr. Pearl trots out the same old atheist stereotypes and bland arguments that theists are forever regurgitating. While this article may agree with your cherished preconceptions, I can assure you that it is neither accurate nor persuasive. I second Bbarr in that I would be willing to debate any particular point that Mr. Pearl raises.

why cant you read the article and enjoy it, and for once acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that maybe God does exist and be open to new ideas; without criticizing theists because at the same time many atheists tell theists to acknowledge the fact that they may be wrong but atheists cant do it themselves

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
why cant you read the article and enjoy it, and for once acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that maybe God does exist and be open to new ideas; without criticizing theists because at the same time many atheists tell theists to acknowledge the fact that they may be wrong but atheists cant do it themselves

But even if God does exist, the claims made about the nature of atheism in general, and the relation between religious belief and ethics in particular, are deeply confused.

Originally posted by bbarr
But even if God does exist, the claims made about the nature of atheism in general, and the relation between religious belief and ethics in particular, are deeply confused.

of course; there is bias.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
of course; there is bias.

Do you understand why your criticism of Rwingett is misguided?

Originally posted by SharpeMother
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=84&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=278&tx_ttnews[backPID]=7

It is a VERY LONG article, but please read it entirely.

On top of the objections mounted by bbarr and rwingett, the assertions
about the state of Scripture study -- the continuity of translation, the
age of manuscripts, and the like -- is so perversely wrong and manipulative
that it actually angers me.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I think Mr. Pearl would receive a severe ass whooping if he ever came here to debate. His arguments are riddled with logical fallacies, false assumptions, and factual errors.

It would bring me no greater joy than to see bbarr rip this guy an epistemological new one.

I'm thinking Michael is to religion what Richard is to national defense.

I just can't understand it. I mean, I thought all the atheists on this site would just love the article. 😛