27 Apr 07
Originally posted by SharpeMotherGreat article! I have attempted to share many of those points on these boards although perhaps not as eloquently presented as in the 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.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by SharpeMotherIndeed 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...
It is a VERY LONG article, but please read it entirely.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by SharpeMotherWhat utter rubbish.
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.
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?
27 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SharpeMotherI 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.
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.
It would bring me no greater joy than to see bbarr rip this guy an epistemological new one.
27 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SharpeMotherIdiocy. If any theist out there would like to defend the position of the author, I would be happy to debate.
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.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by SharpeMotherMr. 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.
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.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by rwingettwhy 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
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.
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomBut 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.
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
27 Apr 07
Originally posted by SharpeMotherOn top of the objections mounted by bbarr and rwingett, the assertions
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.
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
28 Apr 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm thinking Michael is to religion what Richard is to national defense.
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.