archaeologist2 #fundie

archaeologist2 #fundie christianforums.com

non-christian arguments can sound convincing IF youlisten to them. one key is if they bring a different gospel, thatn Jesus and the apostles then yu know you do not have to listen to them.

also, if they contradict the Bible do not listen to them. i do not care which subject it is in but if it disagrees with the Bible, it isn't the Bible that is wrong. most christians do not realize how weak the non-believing arguments are. if you stick with the truth, you will fine, the secular world does not have the truth and it doesn't take much to thwart them.

just ask them for credible physical proof for their arguments and you will usually get the run around or conjecture, or theories and not once can they point to anything real, credible or even authrentic to backup their position.

they do not have any and they will point to people like wm. dever, israel finkelstein, or some other non-believing scholar, who do not have proof for their theories either and who reject large amounts of scripture to make their ideas work.

56 comments

old comment by HoJuSimpson

i do not care which subject it is in but if it disagrees with the Bible, it isn't the Bible that is wrong.

Ok, I have a logical and just...non-disgusting contradiction with the bible: I don't believe that rape victims should have to marry their rapist. Lemme guess, I'm wrong, the bible's still right in this case, correct?

they do not have any and they will point to people like wm. dever, israel finkelstein, or some other non-believing scholar, who do not have proof for their theories either and who reject large amounts of scripture to make their ideas work.

No, pookie, you don't accept the evidence because it contradictions your jeebus-is-cumming-swallowing fantasies. Therefore, you are awarded the shiny mirror award.

old comment by Mister Spak

Christian arguments can sound convincing IF you listen to them. one key is if they bring in a different reality, than the one that really exists then you don't have to listen to them.

also, if they contradict realitydo not listen to them. i do not care which subject it is in but if it disagrees with reality, it isn't reality that is wrong. most non fundies do not realize how weak the non reality arguments are. if you stick with the truth, you will fine, the fundie world does not have the truth and it doesn't take much to thwart them.

just ask them for credible physical proof for their arguments and you will usually get the run around or conjecture, or myths and not once can they point to anything real, credible or even authrentic to backup their position.

they do not have any and they will point to people like Kent Hovind or bananaman or some other non-believing scholar, who do not have proof for their myths either and who reject large amounts of reality to make their ideas work.

Fixed.

old comment by a mind far far away

non-christian arguments can sound convincing IF youlisten to them

Well no fucking shit, moron. That's the problem with you nutfucks, you don't listen. All you care about is yourselves and your psychotic fairy tales.

the secular world does not have the truth and it doesn't take much to thwart them

Then why has it never been done? You fucktards keep shitting from the mouth about all this proof of your sky daddy and his holey book, but have yet to offer even the slightest bit of it. We are still waiting, y'know.

just ask them for credible physical proof for their arguments and you will usually get the run around or conjecture, or theories and not once can they point to anything real, credible or even authrentic to backup their position

You have this backward. This is you guys. Of course, I can see why you're so pissed. It's hard to offer proof of something that doesn't exist, which completely fucks up your cherished world-view. Don't worry, the first step is always the hardest, learn to crawl before you walk, etc.

who reject large amounts of scripture to make their ideas work

Well, no shit, asswipe. Do you think they're also trying to find a cure for cancer, at the same time trying to keep it in step with fucking Grimm's fairy tales? No, turdbrain. Science deals with reality. Religion deals with fantasy. I suggest if you want a job beyond Burger King that you learn the fucking difference, and pretty damn quick.

old comment by Pule Thamex

One thing I do know is that most atheists seem to be decent and caring people. While most fundamentalists seem to not care about anything as long as they dogmatically stick to their interpretation of the bible. Since fundamentalists seem to have a psychological need to be nasty and brutish their interpretation tends to the same view.

Hence most fundamentalists hate people outside their cult who think for themselves. They pay lip service to the pretentious intellectuals of the creationist movement because their pastors tell them to and because they like to think of the bible as being inerrant, when it's not. The same pretentious individuals whose main recourse is to practice the art of deceit and who shirk not at telling blatant lies.

You pays your money, you takes your choice.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"non-christian arguments can sound convincing IF youlisten to them. one key is if they bring a different gospel, thatn Jesus and the apostles then yu know you do not have to listen to them."

"thatn" "yu" "authrentic"

Not taking into account your obvious illiteracy (and thus your intellectual inferiority; you clearly haven't read a science book in your life, therefore you are in no position to formulate a credible thought, never mind an opinion), the operative word here being 'IF.' [/Spartan Laconic Wit]

Along with not reading any books on astronomy/cosmology, biology etc, your argument is a definite case of 'Burden of Proof'. You're doing it wrong.

We're not the ones who claim that an invisible sky fairy poofed into being a universe, world & life on it (yet, he couldn't have done the same with the first humans? So much for his 'omnipotence', then [/Fridge Logic]), as per a book of fairytales. Ergo, Science. Remember:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Compared to, say, that which backs up the Big Bang (three words: Cosmic Background Radiation*), to say nothing of the shitloads of evidence to back up Evolution; and what Darwin theorised then, with said evidence it's no longer a 'theory', but the Facts of Evolution.

*- A down & dirty, no LHC-required experiment: detune your radio/TV, until there's just static/snow from the speaker/on the screen respectively: That audio/visual static you hear/see is remnants of the Big Bang itself.