the bible is immoral

Originally posted by Doward
it's obvious from your childish ad hominem attack, and lack of any real content or argument here that you concede that I am correct.

you use the ad hominem as an excuse to not address his other, very valid point.

Originally posted by Doward
it's obvious from your childish ad hominem attack, and lack of any real content or argument here that you concede that I am correct.

The two points raised were both equally valid. Rather than being an ad hominem attack, my suggestion regarding grammar was an idea that you could adopt to make your own posts seem less... well, childish, really. If you interpret it as an attack I can only conclude that you are embarrassed by your error, and in which case please accept my apologies.

The second point - the one you declined to address - was simply a request. I have not been frequenting the forums for a while due to hardware issues, and assumed that I must have missed the thread to which you refer since I recall no discussion on this subject which one could consider to have been 'won' by theists as you assert.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
The two points raised were both equally valid. Rather than being an ad hominem attack, my suggestion regarding grammar was an idea that you could adopt to make your own posts seem less... well, childish, really. If you interpret it as an attack I can only conclude that you are embarrassed by your error, and in which case please accept my apologies. ...[text shortened]... scussion on this subject which one could consider to have been 'won' by theists as you assert.

Somehow you come across less than credible on both points.

I care less about grammer than I do about what you think.

Originally posted by Doward
Somehow you come across less than credible on both points.

I care less about grammer than I do about what you think.

i don't agree with this claim of yours, unbacked by arguments. i believe that so far avalanche is the smarter, more considerate poster.


will you prove me wrong by arguing the points he made? or will you continue to dodge ?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't agree with this claim of yours, unbacked by arguments. i believe that so far avalanche is the smarter, more considerate poster.


will you prove me wrong by arguing the points he made? or will you continue to dodge ?

he made a point?

oh yeah I remember...I don't know how to use apostrophe's. Hmmmm I guess if you consider being a trolling pedant more considerate than you win Z.

Originally posted by Doward
he made a point?

oh yeah I remember...I don't know how to use apostrophe's. Hmmmm I guess if you consider being a trolling pedant more considerate than you win Z.

Secondly, please be so kind as to point out a thread in which 'theists' won this argument.

Originally posted by theblackprawn
Our morailty evolves from human understanding of the universe , ie ...slavery is endorsed in the bible and perfectly acceptable 2000 yrs ago .It is only through education and knowledge that we know now just how wicked it really is.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a pet ...[text shortened]... ilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
— Richard Dawkins

Have I not been saying all along that Christianity is a substitute religion, fabricated from the mind of man, and has many errors.

Only honest persons will recognize this and search out true religion.

Any religion that is fabricated from the minds of unenlightened men will always have much error.

Its sad to see the great man Jesus, having his words changed to support materialistic propensities of dishonest persons.

The fact that the Bible supports animal slaughter, is enough to know the Bible is unauthorized, and is the scripture of the flesh eaters.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Have I not been saying all along that Christianity is a substitute religion, fabricated from the mind of man, and has many errors.

Only honest persons will recognize this and search out true religion.

Any religion that is fabricated from the minds of unenlightened men will always have much error.

Its sad to see the great man Jesus, having his wor ...[text shortened]... laughter, is enough to know the Bible is unauthorized, and is the scripture of the flesh eaters.

I dont think its completely fabricated. I think the bible contains truths within it, otherwise it wouldn't have such a large, persistent following.
The bible is disinformation/misinformation but if it was completely made up then it would go the way of other silly movements , ie. it would be forgotten as a dot in the history books, at best!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Secondly, please be so kind as to point out a thread in which 'theists' won this argument.

here for one: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=136237&page=1

also google deepak chopra's refutation of Dawkins on beliefnet. he makes a fool of Dawkins arguments.

Originally posted by Doward
here for one: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=136237&page=1

also google deepak chopra's refutation of Dawkins on beliefnet. he makes a fool of Dawkins arguments.

you consider dawkins as the main figurehead for rational thought? i don't say atheism, i say rational thought, something which can be used by both theist and atheists.


yes, he is spiteful and arrogant. yet even him said that while he can't picture a god, he admits that the possibility for one existing is not 0%. the god delusion could probably be more objective but certainly isn't the atheist rant some believers think it is.

moreover, you call a 331 post ongoing thread as being "won"? by what basis? by the fact that your opponents gave up?


last but not least, we are discussing here about the bible is immoral. "winning" an argument about dawkins is not even remotely relevant to the subject. god supposedly ordered the obliteration of jericho(among others) save for the traitorous cowardly whore. do you find that moral or not by todays standards? you cannot say that it was moral for those days standards because even then, there were some civilizations who conquered in a "civilized" manner(not genocide in any case) and also that the bible claims that god himself ordered the killings. do you find that the bible is moral or immoral? do you think the good from the old and new testaments outweighs the bad? or justifies it?

Originally posted by Doward
here for one: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=136237&page=1

also google deepak chopra's refutation of Dawkins on beliefnet. he makes a fool of Dawkins arguments.

Deepak Chopra!!!?

Lemme, guess...your next Dawkins killer will be Ray Comfort or the YouTube's VenomFangX 😵

Originally posted by Agerg
Deepak Chopra!!!?

Lemme, guess...your next Dawkins killer will be Ray Comfort or Kent Hovind 😵

deepak chopra doesn't kill evolution or dawkins the scientist, deepak chopra kills dawkins the arrogant, dawkins the ahole. i read the link he submitted about the awesome battle between deepak and richard, and deepak seems like a nice guy (and as far as i read, doesn't deny evolution)

Originally posted by Doward
here for one: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=136237&page=1

also google deepak chopra's refutation of Dawkins on beliefnet. he makes a fool of Dawkins arguments.

Your having a laugh. Deepak Chopra's arguments were completely ripped apart in that very thread!

Here is where Deepak Chopra also makes a fool of himself:

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/

The site doesn't allow to link directly but you will need to look at the debate under "Nightline Face-Off: Does God Have a Future?".

Originally posted by Doward
Somehow you come across less than credible on both points.

I care less about grammer than I do about what you think.

I can only suggest again that you reread my original post. I was not trying to bait you, I was merely suggesting that if you are unsure of where to use an apostrophe, you could simply refrain from using them. This was some advice that I received many years ago from a teacher I respected, and I passed it on. You are of course entitled to infer other intentions, but I can assure you I was not 'trolling', pedantically or otherwise, and I was not making an ad-hominem attack.

Should you reread it, you will also notice that I made no attempt whatsoever to disagree with your position. One thing I have learned from this forum is that arguing with people whose position is faith-based is largely unproductive and usually not terribly entertaining, and consequently I generally avoid this practice.

I did, however, follow the thread you cited as support for your initial position. Personally I did not find the arguments forwarded from the theists therein to be particularly convincing, although I must admit I find some of those posters to be exceptionally tedious so may conceivably have missed what you consider to be the salient points. I certainly don't see any obvious win for either side.

Now, whether or not you find this credible, I have taken the time to spell out my position as explicitly as I possibly can. I don't know why you have responded to me in such a graceless and bellicose manner, but frankly it comes as no surprise to me, as it seems to be the default attitude of many avowed christians who frequent this forum.

Incidentally, the word is 'grammar'. I don't think there's such a word as 'grammer'. (That was pedantic.)

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I can only suggest again that you reread my original post. I was not trying to bait you, I was merely suggesting that if you are unsure of where to use an apostrophe, you could simply refrain from using them. This was some advice that I received many years ago from a teacher I respected, and I passed it on. You are of course entitled to infer othe rammar'. I don't think there's such a word as 'grammer'. (That was pedantic.)

i went to school during the seventies and eighties where the focus was on creativity rather than a strict adherence to grammar, to this day both my spelling and grammar are practically useless! In fact i learned more grammar from studying a foreign language after school than i did while attending school. I am now proficient in all types of participles, although i dont think anyone learns language that way.