1. Joined
    08 Oct '06
    Moves
    290
    27 Apr '07 02:27
    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.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    27 Apr '07 03:14
    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.
  3. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    27 Apr '07 03:28
    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!!!
  4. Joined
    11 Jul '06
    Moves
    2753
    27 Apr '07 04:35
    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...
  5. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49973
    27 Apr '07 04:39
    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?
  6. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    27 Apr '07 04:451 edit
    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.
  7. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    27 Apr '07 05:051 edit
    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.
  8. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    27 Apr '07 05:44
    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.
  9. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    27 Apr '07 22:55
    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
  10. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    27 Apr '07 22:59
    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.
  11. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    27 Apr '07 23:16
    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.
  12. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    27 Apr '07 23:22
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    of course; there is bias.
    Do you understand why your criticism of Rwingett is misguided?
  13. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    27 Apr '07 23:45
    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
  14. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    28 Apr '07 00:21
    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.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    28 Apr '07 00:29
    I just can't understand it. I mean, I thought all the atheists on this site would just love the article. 😛
Back to Top