† Billy Graham, 'America's Pastor' And Noted Televangelist, Dead At 99 †

[The Scott]

*SNICKER*

[Agnostic007]

I don’t think you have. If you did you would know that I the first chapter, as a non-believer and a journalist with a legal background he broke the evidence down by Examining the record first, eyewitness evidence, documentary evidence, corroborated evidence, scientific and rebuttal evidence. That’s the first chapter

Ok, here is the deal, as a person with a legal background of sorts myself, I could easily identify the flawed arguments from a false premise. For example, if I start off saying, "We all know we had to have come from some creator: then set out to state something else, I've already broken a couple rules. When I read Case for Christ (At least twice) I was seeing the set up very clearly. Thing is, I read the book years before, and because I was predisposed to agree with the author, I never noticed. 

[Agnostic007]

The truth is most people are just that.  People.  The problem is leadership.  Most pastors, priests and the like fleece the flock rather than feed it.  As for non belief being a "religion"?  It's nothing more than a belief (sounds like "faith" to me) that there is nothing awaiting us.  No God.  No Jesus.  No fucktard allah and hoMohammed.  No Buddha.  No turtles all the way down. Nothing.

We Atheists can be even bigger assholes than others because, as the joke goes, how do you know who the Atheist is in a crowd?  Don't worry, they'll tell you.  Many of us whine like pussies when mention is made of the fact that many of our laws are based on Judeo-Christian guidelines.  Get over it, kids.  You'd think some of us were vampires because we can't go past a cross without getting "offended".  Those same atheists will not say a fucking word against a crescent moon or a fat Buddah.  Go figger.  Pussies, I  tell ya.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I suggest you throw them straight up so that they can fall back on top of your dumb ass.  In like fashion, let he who is without faith, STFU.  Let he who has faith remain silent in word but in living verify that faith.   Did not the Nazarene implore that anything you do in his name, do so in silence.  Your reward is from the father and not in the form of the adulation of men.   Hollyweirdos are all for the latter.  They even have awards shows to kiss each others ass.

In closing, keep this in mind.  None of us truly knows what is waiting for us, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  If not, the consider this. Some folk believe in Karma.  I rarely hear atheists make fun of that belief.  That's because most of us are assholists that only get their hackles up where a deity is concerned.   If I were  to believe in anything it would be in the goodness of the Nazarene.  In truth, one can recognize that without believing he was He.

Most atheists refuse to do so.  I am not them.  I am an Atheist. 

I don't believe in karma. Too many examples of it not coming around to believe there is any consistency to it.

[The Scott]

Ok, here is the deal, as a person with a legal background of sorts myself, I could easily identify the flawed arguments from a false premise. For example, if I start off saying, "We all know we had to have come from some creator: then set out to state something else, I've already broken a couple rules. When I read Case for Christ (At least twice) I was seeing the set up very clearly. Thing is, I read the book years before, and because I was predisposed to agree with the author, I never noticed. 

One can lose their faith without losing who they are.  

[Agnostic007]

I don’t think you have. If you did you would know that I the first chapter, as a non-believer and a journalist with a legal background he broke the evidence down by Examining the record first, eyewitness evidence, documentary evidence, corroborated evidence, scientific and rebuttal evidence. That’s the first chapter

I am curious, why do you think I would lie about reading Lee Strobel? I am an avid reader and have read many apologist books. I'm interested in what the truth is.. Just because I didn't find it a stunning revelation like you apparently did doesn't mean I didn't read it. Here is a book I recommend for you.. Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker. About an evangelist who ended up being an atheist. Interesting read even if you don't agree.   

[Agnostic007]

One can lose their faith without losing who they are.  

No argument here

[Zillotch]

this thread is turning into a real tardathon.

[The Scott]

I am curious, why do you think I would lie about reading Lee Strobel? I am an avid reader and have read many apologist books. I'm interested in what the truth is.. Just because I didn't find it a stunning revelation like you apparently did doesn't mean I didn't read it. Here is a book I recommend for you.. Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker. About an evangelist who ended up being an atheist. Interesting read even if you don't agree.   

I would say that it is because this is the interwebs.  As such, it can be difficult to take people at face value.  Especially when they often have two or more of them.

Enough for tonight, my friends.  

[Coach is Back!]

Ok, here is the deal, as a person with a legal background of sorts myself, I could easily identify the flawed arguments from a false premise. For example, if I start off saying, "We all know we had to have come from some creator: then set out to state something else, I've already broken a couple rules. When I read Case for Christ (At least twice) I was seeing the set up very clearly. Thing is, I read the book years before, and because I was predisposed to agree with the author, I never noticed.  

You’re judging by a SMALL (minuscule if you will) part of it. If you read it (I suggest you download the audio version) what about the archeology that coincides with scripture? You’re only taking excerpts. Your not even taking in the apologetics of it.

[Coach is Back!]

Ok, I’ll also recant. I think you only read portions of it.

[Agnostic007]

Ok, I’ll also recant. I think you only read portions of it.

well that's a start. The fact is, I read it cover to cover. It's been about 20 years ago.  I re read it at my brothers request who I really respect. I just saw the flaws in the arguments and the conclusions from those flawed arguments. Ironically, he refused to read any book that was anti bible but wanted me to read all the pro bible books.   I also read Evidence that Demands a Verdict when it first came out.. Thought it was irrefutable. When I re read it years later I was almost embarrassed by the obvious flaws.   

[Agnostic007]

this thread is turning into a real tardathon.

with your help, every thread becomes less than it could be..

[Coach is Back!]

well that's a start. The fact is, I read it cover to cover. It's been about 20 years ago.  I re read it at my brothers request who I really respect. I just saw the flaws in the arguments and the conclusions from those flawed arguments. Ironically, he refused to read any book that was anti bible but wanted me to read all the pro bible books.   I also read Evidence that Demands a Verdict when it first came out.. Thought it was irrefutable. When I re read it years later I was almost embarrassed by the obvious flaws.   

Such as? (Flaws)

[Agnostic007]

You’re judging by a SMALL (minuscule if you will) part of it. If you read it (I suggest you download the audio version) what about the archeology that coincides with scripture? You’re only taking excerpts. Your not even taking in the apologetics of it.

No, I've read the whole book.. and looked at opposing opinions on every claim strobel had.. to me, the opposing views had more solid evidence to support it than Strobel did

[Coach is Back!]

this thread is turning into a real tardathon.

Jump in anytime. Seriously, I’m not being a dick

[Agnostic007]

Such as? (Flaws)

https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

[Agnostic007]

Jump in anytime. Seriously, I’m not being a dick

You aren't she is..

[Zillotch]

Jump in anytime. Seriously, I’m not being a dick

this is as it always will b
 

all of reality demonstrates a creator, creating 2 types

1 those who comprehend reality

2 the blind

[Agnostic007]

Jump in anytime. Seriously, I’m not being a dick

I'm glad we had an opportunity to discuss it in a civil manner. I appreciate it.

[Coach is Back!]

https://infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html

Fair enough. Now if you still have the book, read pages 270-288. “Reaching your own verdict” (yes, it allows you to draw your own conclusion) to “Citations” to the “notes”. 1998 version

[Coach is Back!]

I'm glad we had an opportunity to discuss it in a civil manner. I appreciate it.

For sure. This is always a better way

[The Scott]

For sure. This is always a better way

This is because you have more in common than you realize.  Celebrate those things instead of any differences and you will be able to learn to disagree in an agreeable manner, my friend.

This does not mean you have to accept what you hold to be wrong and the same goes for the "other" side of any argument or disagreement.  It means that sometimes our minds are like a diaper.  The only one that can stand to change it is the owner.

Or they can continue to live in (sh)it.   

I think you have all had enough of me lately, huh?   

[Agnostic007]

This is because you have more in common than you realize.  Celebrate those things instead of any differences and you will be able to learn to disagree in an agreeable manner, my friend.

This does not mean you have to accept what you hold to be wrong and the same goes for the "other" side of any argument or disagreement.  It means that sometimes our minds are like a diaper.  The only one that can stand to change it is the owner.

Or they can continue to live in (sh)it.   

I think you have all had enough of me lately, huh?   

I discuss the bible and beliefs 99% of the time in a civil rational manner. I tend to let the other person dictate the direction it goes. As long as it's a sharing of opinions and doesn't sink to insults and name calling  I can discuss it for hours. It is intriguing to me on many levels.

[The Scott]

I discuss the bible and beliefs 99% of the time in a civil rational manner. I tend to let the other person dictate the direction it goes. As long as it's a sharing of opinions and doesn't sink to insults and name calling  I can discuss it for hours. It is intriguing to me on many levels.

Yes, you do and that is what is needed.   Well stated and true!

Me?  I despise stuff like LDS and Islime to name but two false faiths and have no problem calling them such.  And I don't really mind a bit of humor.  We are human after all.  With all that entails, both good and bad.

Again, well said and thank you!