I am an atheist thread 3

[phooney]

@c659smith

“Newtons law…”

Unfortunately for your case, it isn’t the 1700s anymore. Newtons findings were corrected and incorporated as a part of General Relativity, which in turn is being refined and incorporated into quantum physics.

"In other words the big bang had one force (action) why are the planets so far away from eachother and why do the planets and suns spin in different directions even without gravitational pulls

can definitely with out a doubt state that the planets different rotation and distances from eachother disproves the big bang, That is science."

Well, I must have missed that news conference, which is strange because you would think that it would be all the TVs would show for a while at least.

Natural Enquirer has already tried to correct you in your poor understanding of the theory, the big bang wasn’t just all the matter squashed into one place exploding out. It was a rapid expansion of spacetime itself, with ridiculously small differences in the temperature that resulted in the early clumping of matter. Be glad that it wasn’t perfectly distributed.

“If you want to use well maybe a planet banged into a burning sun theory and survived well you stick with that.”

Everything ‘survives’ in some form, so the first law of thermodynamics says.

“dark energy, lol”

Haha! I’m using teh intarweb!

“Now what I mean by a conscience( Mis-spelled) is knowing without being taught right and wrong no other animal has that ability.”

Incorrect. I’ve given examples of reciprocal altruism, what is probably the basis of the golden rule, in the previous threads, here’s just one more example of primate ethics:

“In A laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so-87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow.” (Carl Sagan “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors” page 117, referring to Jules H. Masserman, S. Wechkin and W. Terris, “‘Altruistic’ Behavior in Rhesus Monkeys,” American Journal of Psychiatry 121 (964), pp. 584, 585. Also “Shock to a Conspecific as an Aversive Stimulus,” Psychonomic Science 1 (1964), pp. 47, 48)

“We may choose to do wrong but we know why. morals now where do you suppose that comes from?”

I’ve already outlined my model for evolutionary morality.

 

[phooney]

continued @c659smith

“Soon after the time of death, a body becomes rigid. This stiffening is the result of a biochemical process called Rigor Mortis, Latin for “stiffness of death”. (1) This condition is common to all deceased humans, but is only a temporary state. The slang term “stiff”, used to refer to a dead person, originates from rigor mortis. Within hours of the time of death, every muscle in the body contracts and remains contracted for a period of time. Before I am able to explain the biological cause of this condition, I must first describe the structure of muscles and the process of muscle contraction.”

“Rigor mortis usually sets in within four hours, first in the face and generally smaller muscles. The body reaches maximum stiffness within twelve to forty-eight hours. However, this time may vary due to environmental conditions – cooler conditions inhibit rigor mortis.”

When I said you should reread my posts to you and respond, I didn’t think you would just copy and paste them, that’s not reading. The amount of time it took you between posts, 12 minutes, indicates to me that it is extremely unlikely you bothered to do so. I see you saved further time by simply copying and pasting the vast majority of your response as well. It is generally considered poor form to not show your sources in these circumstances. For the benefit of anybody else reading, here is where c659smith got this information, so you can see how much more there is to it than the paragraphs above:

serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f02/web2/wcarroll.html

“rigor mortis is a temporary state also Jesus was buried in a cool cave immediatrely after death”

Irrelevant. The question was how does one survive it, not what is it. Also, as can be verified by my entire post that you copied and pasted here, there is much more in there that you ignored, again only responding to one sentence regarding rigor mortis, and even that answer was clearly off on a tangent.

"So as I see you get to ask questions about proof or facts and how they are achieved.

Yet when one trys to reason with you on the basis of evidence and that the evidence is sound and you deny it as being sound, Iask you to prove anything that occurred without you witnessing it and that bothers you."

Perhaps you should take this to a revolutionary war forum if you want to find out about it so much.

“The Revolutionary war question everyone gets but you. The evidence to prove or disprove is the same I am giving you in order for you to prove the revolutionary war accurred.”

Oh, I get it. I just think it’s a pointless wild goose chase you are attempting to send me on. I think the existence or non-existence of god is more important and more interesting to me, and I already have a full schedule without trying to become an expert on the revolutionary war just for your amusement. The difference is that you claim to have some knowledge about God, I do not claim to have any knowledge of the revolutionary war. This is merely a red herring, and I don’t like eating that kind of fish.

“I do not know why you are in this forum other than to act like a fool which does not help other Atheists proving their case or understanding how Christianity is based upon evidence strong enough to be factual as any history book.”

Other atheists are not my concern. The James Cameron movie “Titanic” has some historically accurate points as well, but I’ve never seen it cited as a source by any modern historian. The bible is not a history book.

"The Shroud of tourin is an unexplained artifact that cannot be re-created even today. I do not have enough space on this forum to give you all the facts relating to the shroud but you can as a good Atheist on this site for information I would imagine google it. "

Eh? No offence, but I only speak english. I really do mean no offence by this, I’m sure you speak english much better than I would speak your first language. Also, you appear to have ignored my question of who has tried to re-create it?

“Fact are it was retested and scientists agree the original tests were flawed.”

Clearly there is no consensus on this.

“Tell me why would the Catholic Church give the Tourin to be tested by scientists outside of the church.”

“In 1977, a team of scientists selected by the Holy Shroud Guild developed a program of tests to conduct on the Shroud, designated the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). Anastasio Cardinal Ballestrero, the archbishop of Turin, granted permission,** despite disagreement within the Church.**”

“Walter McCrone …]concluded in 1979 that the image is actually made up of billions of submicron pigment particles…]STURP, upon learning of his findings, confiscated McCrone’s samples, and brought in other scientists to replace him…]As of 2004, no other scientists have been able to confirm or refute McCrone’s results with independent experiments, simply because** the Vatican refuses to cooperate.**”

Above quotes taken from the wikipedia page again (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin) so take them with a grain of salt. And yes, I know other tests have contradicted McCrone’s findings.

 

[phooney]

continued @ c659smith

“Is it because they have nothing to hide? They are searching the truth? They want that truth shared throughout the world.”

Actually, the Roman Catholic church has taken no official position on the shroud. Could this be because most of the time when they take a stance on anything unproven that they could in their wildest dreams see being testable, they end up looking like morons? The earth being the center of the universe, the sky being a firmament are only a couple of examples. They are playing it much smarter these days and keeping their cards closer to their chest. Why would an organisation that has a direct line to god have any difficulty in searching for the truth? In fact, why would that organisation need to search at all?

“here is a site for you to get info updated past the ninties http://www.shroudstory.com/”

Thanks for showing me where you copied and pasted your ENTIRE post #214 in regards to the shroud of turin, adding only “as far as the shroud:”. Also in that post was your argument for the historical jesus, which I questioned in regards to the timing of the solar eclipse, and you have ignored. Here is where you copied and pasted this entire argument from:

timothyministries.org/theologicaldictionary/references.aspx?theword=historical%20Jesus

Confirming my point that such conclusions are only drawn by those that presuppose the bible is a history book. I am seeing very little independent thought from you.

Regardless, the shroudstory website you’ve linked to, doesn’t try to argue the case for this being Jesus’ burial shroud, it is directed purely at pointing out any flaws with the previous samples. It also doesn’t mention my contention regarding the restoration of 2002 and how that affects the validity of tests done after that year. Did you read the whole page or did you stop where you copied and pasted that paragraph?

“What I am Trying to get Phooey or A to do is to base their case on evidence or to know what evidence and proof are based on.Their belief is that God does not exist so state their case on fact or evidence whatever you want to call it. If not then it makes no sense for them to be in this forum as their responses are not based on evidence or fact but an unintelligent.” because I say so "

Here’s your false dichotomy again.

“Maybe you are right infants are atheist and atheists are infants. boo hoo”

Aw, diddums!

“The big fact here is that the big bang (theory) has less facts and is more a fairy tale”

This sentence alone shows that you don’t understand what a scientific theory is.

“Evolutionary and Molecular Biology
This collection of twenty-two research papers is the result of the third of five international research conferences co-sponsored by the Vatican Observatory in Rome and the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. The papers explore the creative interaction between evolutionary and molecular biology, philosophy, and theology. The topics addressed in the papers include an extensive introduction to the scientific background; evolution and divine action particularly in terms of teleology; religious interpretations of biological themes especially as related to evolution; and the problem of evil from a biological and ethical perspective”

You’ve copied and pasted this from counterbalance.net/ctns-vo/ctns-vo-print.html and I agree that some of these essays look very interesting. Literal interpretations of the bible are not capable of standing up to scientific evidence, more and more of it has to be classed as metaphor or allegory.

“Evolution --why do we still have apes?
why has evolution put the brakes on for the last
several thousand years.”

You can’t be serious???

“Vatican observatory…”

Here’s where you copied and pasted this bit from space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/vatican_observe_000716.html

I never said that theists couldn’t be scientists. I’m happy to listen to the scientific evidence gathered by anybody.

“Catholic schools and evolution”

Copied and pasted from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

But what is your point? For most of human history God was the best explanation for the existence and nature of the physical universe. Unfortunately for God and religion, in recent times there have been other theories postulated that have several things going for them, like being more logical, consistent and backed by evidence. (bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/beliefs/reasons_6.shtml)

“You see Catholics teach both theories for a well rounded education and belive science and Religon are compatible and have confidence that as man grows wiser the bible and science will gel into one.”

As long as it is kept out of the science classroom, unless it will conform to the same careful quality controls. I think teaching comparative religion is great, and religion is an undeniable part of our history that we shouldn’t have a need to cover up.

“The main challenge the church may have is when science does not respect the dignity of human life from conception to death,
We are turning into a culture of death for science and not a culture for life.”

Do even YOU understand your posts?

 

[phooney]

@holdencaulfield

“It’s true you don’t have to be here unless you are hoping you will accidentally find faith and be converted.”

Or maybe we’re here for the mutual benefit of increased understanding.

“Charles Darwin - By using bad science he tried to convince the people of the world that they are worthless.”

In what way did he use ‘bad science’ and why would his conclusions convince people that they are worthless?

“Joesph Stalin - Killed over 8 million people.”

He had a moustache too, you can’t trust a person with a moustache.

“Adolph Hitler - Killed around 7 million people.”

Stated he was christian and never said otherwise. I’m sure we could throw his quotes back and forth at each other for a long time, but I think the truth of this matter is irrelevant to the point you were trying to make anyway.

“Voltaire - Was extremely annoying and wrote bad books”

That’s an argument?

“A typical atheist response to any hard situation. I will merely drink it away. How do you feel after that a little bit tipsy?”

hahaha! The prophecy I wrote on a piece of paper last night came true! I knew some silly person would try to say that atheists are a bunch of drunkards! Nice ad hom, champ.

“When you wake up in the morning and realize that your entire life has been a joke and that you have lived for false senses of pleasure and indulgence that really have nothing behind them.”

My life is great, thanks for another ad hominem attack.

“Then you continue to live your life with nothing, just mediocrity. You waste away trying to have a good time.”

Should we be trying to have a bad time?

“Years pass you are looking towards the end and what have you accomplished? Nothing.”

Depends on what purpose you created for your life I suppose.

“As the light begins to fade and the gates of hell open up you realize that you should have made better use of your time on earth.”

About as effective an argument on an atheist as “the boogeyman will get you if you don’t finish your vegetables” is on an adult.

“Sorry, I’m tired and somewhat short tempered this evening.”

Fair enough, we all go through that sometimes and you’ve already apologised, but let’s try to stay a bit calmer, shall we?

 

[phooney]

@Natural Enquirer

“Well, I didn’t bring up Mary’s virginity as evidence. I thought you brought it up! Don’t put me on the hook for it now.”

You are right, I did bring it up first. However, I used it as an example of how biology backs up my statement that “the virgin birth didn’t happen” is a more reasonable conclusion. You called it a ‘quip’ and so I took that to mean you were defending the virgin birth claim, my apologies if I misunderstood and you weren’t.

“But you’ve got it exactly backwards. God didn’t beam down a book and then say, “Whoops, I blew it, now I need a church.” He established the church first, to help us towards salvation. The point of scripture was never to be a universal manual. Each book in the Bible has to be considered separately, taking into account what the author was trying to do. (Or what the Holy Spirit was trying to do through that author, if you want to be kind of pedantic about it). The best way to do that is with the guidance of the organization that put the Bible together.”

My statement didn’t imply precedence of either the bible or the church that is supposedly required to decipher it, just pointing out that it would be disappointing if a god-inspired book was written incoherently enough to require that organisation.

“I’m not getting your point. I’m gonna stick with the point of their death, but I’m afraid I’m missing something.”

Well, being out treading water for any number of days watching your family members die one by one, the weakest and youngest first, as you slowly get more and more tired, occassionally shocked by the cold water and salty taste before you eventually die, I imagine would interfere with one’s free will. i.e. “I want to tend my crops” which you would have been able to do, but for God’s interference.

“The big bang is the creation and subsequent expansion of space itself.”

I don’t think the big bang encompasses the creation of space, does it? Just the rapid expansion.

“Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more. Again: deliberate, willful separation from God.”

For it to be deliberate and willful, one must be aware of the choice, which has not been adequately established.

 

[phooney]

@Socrates4Jesus

"Since there are no scientific grounds to explain the creation of genetic code, that leaves you and i with only a few possible grounds to explain its beginning:

God
Aliens
Mystery

That is, either a God created the first DNA that eventually evolved into the genetic code of the plethora of living organisms we have today, or aliens from another time or dimension introduced this DNA to our planet, or some great unknown is the cause.

Which of these three do you think is the best explanation for the creation of genetic code?"

Well, as I said, there’s no need to assert any of the hypotheses as being true until they are experimentally confirmed. You still haven’t shown how you would test for your hypothesis though, S4J, and that being the case, it is going to struggle to ever graduate to a theory.

Every morning I wake up when my alarm clock goes off. The timing on it is controlled by radio waves of some kind that tells the alarm clock what time it is, based on the atomic clock in greenwich. It goes off precisely on the hour every weekday, which means the first thing I do each morning is listen to some news headlines. I was interested to hear of some "Synthetic life ‘advance’ reported " news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7203186.stm so it seems my support of testable hypotheses is well founded and I will be following this breakthrough as more reports and peer-reviews come in, and trying to understand it as much as possible.

 

[phooney]

@whatevergirl

Hi there! Just wondering if you were planning on responding to my posts directed at you from the other day?

 

[phooney]

@psyche23

Hi again, how are you feeling today? I haven’t touched sake in a couple years now, and I don’t miss it!

“It’s not that the bad stuff is inconsequential. It’s just that I know God takes care of me no matter what bad stuff may happen. I’ve experienced it and no amount of logic o science can persuade me from believing. Not knowing what’s in my heart and what I’ve been through. It makes life easier and a lot less of a downer. Plus I know that even when I die, and those around me ar gone, that that’s not the end.”

I am not denying that many people find the thought of God comforting, I just hope you realise that nothing you’ve posted in this particular quote about how good it feels gives us any indication of the truth of the matter.

“I just find atheism interesting and completely hard to understand. I cant’ even imagine what my life would be like if I was an atheist (actually, I’d probably be suicidal- not joking there). So to hear the logic (or lack of at times) makes me curious.”

I’m sure we’ll do our best to help you understand, but you might have to read some of the long posts

“Take it for what you want, but nothing you can say will ever lead me to believe otherwise.”

For those people that absolutely need their god-belief as a sort of emotional crutch as you seem to have indicated here, I wouldn’t want to take it away from them only to see them go suicidal. On the bright side, I think that those people who really need that emotional crutch are incapable of being separated from it, so I can be as logical and detailed in my responses as I like without fear of putting somebody in that situation. If you fall into that category, I am sorry to hear that your life might be otherwise so bad that you’d rather die rather than think that your life is only what you make of it and there’s no divinely dictated purpose to it. I can, however, assure you that it is perfectly possible to be an atheist, and be very happy.

 

[phooney]

@Armor of God

“You’re making me laugh here! All that hard work gone in one fell swoop! I would really like to meet Mr. Smith. He seems like a really colorful character. (And I do mean that, c659smith! In a good way.)”

Well, it’s not really ‘gone’ it’s still there, just ignored lol

“Hmmmm, depending on how many beers you end up having, do you think you will even be up to it tomorrow?..”

Yep, I’m fine. The key is to drink lots of water before you go to sleep.

 

[phooney]

@Pax

“And for purposes of this discussion every account that might be presented of amputees that were healed would also be discounted by you as “just another story.””

If it were a modern example, we could reasonably request photographs and video footage of the limb growing back, listen to the testimony of verifiable scienific witnesses that were actually there when it happened, give the photographs and video footage to many independent experts to see if they were faked, submit it all for peer-review and see if it could be confirmed or falsified, etc. Then we would need a way to show the causual link to a god, and then we’d need a way to show the causual link to a specific god. I don’t know exactly how we would do that off the top of my head, but perhaps you could describe a reliable method or two?

 

[phooney]

@A

“We don’t. There are no apes left.”

I assume your sweetheart’s flask was empty by the time you posted this?

That moose photo is awesome!!!

 

[_A]

God promotes life. Miracles promote life. Unexplained deaths obviously do not. Death is because of our origional sin and not something God created. This has been stated before.

I still say that god is only getting credit for half his work this way. If he is the creator of the whole universe, you should give credit where it is due.
Your god gets credit for things, even if you think they are unsavoury.

 

[_A]

Why sure when Moses was asking pharoh to release the jews and he did not Moses instructed the Jews to marked the doors with the blood of a sacraficial lamb.

The messenger of God an Angel then came upon Egypt in the night killing the first born male child of every household that did not have the blood of the lamb on the door of their households.

It’s called Passover

The Angel delivering the message of death passed over their homes sparing them from God’s wrath for not letting his people go.

See, that’s more like it! Dead babies and each a miracle.

 

[_A]

Hello A,

Been lurking on your threads on and off as time permits.

Must say, I love your photography. May I ask if you’re a member over at the Flickr website?

Are you here at Catholic Answers both for the intellectual debate / banter on the subject of the existence of God as well as to just socialize?

The debate part interests me, especially as I read a few years back a book specifically titled “The Nature of Belief,” a profoundly philosophical work by M. C. D’Arcy, S.J published in 1945 by Sheed and Ward, but unfortunately time constraints would likely mean I wouldn’t be able to keep up with you as you deserve.

The social part interests me too … though we have enormous areas where our beliefs differ, you sound like a cool guy to know. IMHO, you are bringing up some challenging points, and hey, that’s what this forum is here for.

And partly because having grown up near the border of Canada in Western New York State, and thus having an appreciation for:

1. The Canadian side of Niagara Falls
2. The beauty of Canadian wilderness in general
3. Canadian radio and tv
4. Tim Horton’s coffee shops, which are fortunately available in Western New York where my parents live and have just recently started coming into Ohio (but sadly not close to me yet)
5. Bubbly AERO bars
6. Red Rose tea
7. Toronto
8. Phantom of the Opera
9. The Science Centre
10. More than one person has accused me of having a Canadian accent
11. Crystal Beach, especially in the good old days when it was a full amusement park … “Laff in the Dark” was a real trip!

Well, that should hopefully suffice for an introduction. Nice to meet you, A,

~~ the phoenix

Nice to meet you, too. To be fair, and give credit where it is due, the pictures with me in them were taken by my sweetheart. She is a photographer, crocheter, tiler, painter, chem-tech, primatologist, cook and I feel like I am selling her short. She is simply wonderful. I thought it was that which made me think the photos were so good.

I hope you will join in as often as you can. I look forward to seeing you around the boards.

 

[_A]

@A

I assume your sweetheart’s flask was empty by the time you posted this?

That moose photo is awesome!!!

I was hoping smith would go look at a list of currently living apes and prove me wrong
And while I didn’t empty the flask, it will need filling soon…

 

[psyche23]

@psyche23

Hi again, how are you feeling today? I haven’t touched sake in a couple years now, and I don’t miss it!

I am not denying that many people find the thought of God comforting, I just hope you realise that nothing you’ve posted in this particular quote about how good it feels gives us any indication of the truth of the matter.

I’m sure we’ll do our best to help you understand, but you might have to read some of the long posts

For those people that absolutely need their god-belief as a sort of emotional crutch as you seem to have indicated here, I wouldn’t want to take it away from them only to see them go suicidal. On the bright side, I think that those people who really need that emotional crutch are incapable of being separated from it, so I can be as logical and detailed in my responses as I like without fear of putting somebody in that situation. If you fall into that category, I am sorry to hear that your life might be otherwise so bad that you’d rather die rather than think that your life is only what you make of it and there’s no divinely dictated purpose to it. I can, however, assure you that it is perfectly possible to be an atheist, and be very happy.

I’m feeling fine, thanks for asking.

At this point in my life, no I do not ABSOLUTELY NEED God in order to refrain from being suicidal. At least in speculation, I don’t since I’m not in that situation…

I’m not saying an atheist has to be unhappy because they don’t believe, but I think it’s a different kind of happiness.

As I’ve said before, if you’re looking for scientific proof from me, I can’t give it. I was unaware that only scientists can post their opinions here…

We have two options here, one to believe and one not to believe. I’d rather error on the side of caution when I die believing that it is not the end and I will go to heaven (hopefully). If my beliefs are in error, what harm has it done??? Or I could not believe and die being wrong in my assertions ending up quite possibly in hell. If my belief is based only on a lack of absolute and undeniable proof (proof which can not be given), then I would probably be atheist.

I mean honestly, what harm does it do to believe just so long as you’re not a fanatic or terrorist?!?! Why take the chance???

 

[psyche23]

I still say that god is only getting credit for half his work this way. If he is the creator of the whole universe, you should give credit where it is due.
Your god gets credit for things, even if you think they are unsavoury.

he only allows it to happen because of free will. It’s our fault we die in general, not his.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I am curious as to why this is considered a miracle, while unexplained deaths are seldom called miracles.

Seems like I’ve heard that very often. “He was called home”, etc. Same thing, different words.

 

[lkddav]

Ikdda

The Case For Christ

OK, if I’m a lawyer, and I’m viewing the case for Christ through legal goggles, what am I missing? Anything…? Surely, other analytical legal minds have weighed the evidence in “the case for Christ”…

Again, I was truly stunned to find that great legal minds had already done this…

Check these guys out…

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered "the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."1 Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ’s resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists.

Let [the Gospel’s] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth.2
Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He’s recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the “World’s Most Successful Advocate,” with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II – twice. Luckhoo declared:

I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt.3
Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel’s area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD’s from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism.

Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ…4

As a “lone juror,” I sat quiet in my chair…

As jurors often do in the jury room, I asked to return once again to a provoking piece of evidence…

I qm sure it will take awhile for any comments from the peanut gallery.

Hi 659

These three christian apologetics are not very convincing to me.
This brings me back to my original question to you. If Greenleaf, Luckhoo and Stobel are right and the evidence is as overwhelming as you say, why isn’t the population of this planet not on it’s knee’s worshiping your god. Why isn’t the world convinced it’s true.

By the way, I did smile after the OJ remark.

 

[lkddav]

First hand the evidence is put before you and the evidence is true. It is not I who must prove evidence that has been collected and certified through the thousands of years and taken as fact by the civilized world… For it is you Atheist that must disprove this evidence or you live the lie.

QUOTE]

Hi 659

The people of Hinduism, buddism, sikhism, shinto, jainism etc. do not accept your evidence as fact. They are part of the civilized world.
If the evidence is there why aren’t these people christians?