XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.abortion, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
   From: randolf@canadianatheists.ca   
      
   On Sun, 3 Mar 2024 11:05:16 +1100   
   Michael Christ  wrote:   
   > On 3/03/2024 7:35 am, Randolf Richardson 張文道 wrote:   
   > > On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 19:17:18 +0000   
   > > Mitchell Holman  wrote:   
   > >> "Brother Desmond (Desi) Edward Coughlan"  wrote in   
   > >> news:2fm6uih6utc95jtg6fbv2fch96fnl9jana@4ax.com:   
   > >>   
   > >>> And this hope will not lead to disappointment. For we know how dearly   
   > >>> God loves us, because He has given us the Holy Spirit to fill our   
   > >>> hearts with His love.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Repent now and accept Jesus Christ into your heart   
   > >>   
   > >> "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should   
   > >> reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."   
   > >> Luke 19:27   
   > >   
   > > In other words:  Don't trigger god's insecurity,   
   > > by not believing in him, or else he'll kill you,   
   > > or get someone else to kill you in front of him.   
   > >   
   > > Hmm, such a loving god...  :(   
   >   
   > Once again we see this...   
   >   
   > "The thing that never fails to make me shake my head is the fact that   
   > the atheist uses the Bible—what is written in the Bible—as a means to   
   > try to debunk it!   
      
   If you were trying to prove that Gandalf was real   
   based on the 6 books of The Lord of the Rings, I   
   would also refer to those books when debunking   
   such a claim.   
      
   To most atheists, the Holy Bible is a story book,   
   and it's used as a reference so that Christians   
   can more easily understand the debunking.   
      
   > That seems logical, right? Wrong!   
      
   What's logical is using the same source of data   
   when debating the integrity of the claims being   
   made based on said source.   
      
   > Think about it. He has to believe that the ===>>> testimony <<<=== of   
   > the talking donkey is true in the bible in order to refute it. Get it?   
   > They use what they refute (the bible) as their ===>>> basis of truth   
   > <<<=== for refuting.   
      
   You fail to build a straw man/woman argument   
   there because belief in the testimony presented   
   in a book isn't required when referencing it.   
      
   > Why do they do that?   
      
   We do it for your convenience.  I suppose it   
   could be argued without the Holy Bible, but   
   theists typically claim that the Holy Bible is   
   the word of their god and insist that it's   
   evidence of his existence.  So, the problem   
   isn't that atheists are referencing your holy   
   scripture, but rather that you hide behind it   
   as if it's a shield when you can't support   
   your claims.   
      
   > They don't have any foundation of their own and don't have a clue.   
      
   Reality is my foundation, and I'm pretty sure   
   that most atheists would agree with me on this.   
      
   > They have nothing to prove there is no God, nothing, so they play stupid   
   > juvenile straw man games."   
      
   You're correct that atheism has nothing to   
   prove.  Have you ever been able to actually   
   prove that your god is real?   
      
   --   
   Randolf Richardson 張文道 - randolf@canadianatheists.ca   
   Canadian atheists - True, Northern, Strong, and Free   
   Beautiful British Columbia, Canada   
   https://www.canadianatheists.ca/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)