The origins of atheism

[AV1611VET]

Nope, why do you feel this question is important?

... You don't even know what I meant by that.

You newbies that show up here ranting & raving about God and the Bible and how you used to be an ex this-or-that and have had formal edecayshun in teology are, unfortunately, a rich source of entertainment.

Bockstop University, chief.

As in box top.

As in, send in two box tops of King Vitaman or Cap'n Crunch and a self-addressed, stamped envelope and get your callage degwee in d'vinatee.

 

[Hikarifuru]

... You don't even know what I meant by that.

You newbies that show up here ranting & raving about God and the Bible and how you used to be an ex this-or-that and have had formal edecayshun in teology are, unfortunately, a rich source of entertainment.

Bockstop University, chief.

As in box top.

As in, send in two box tops of King Vitaman or Cap'n Crunch and a self-addressed, stamped envelope and get your callage degwee in d'vinatee.

Like I said that is not where I got my degree from, why do you feel the need to question my reference to a talking donkey? Are you not familiar with Balaam's talking donkey?

 

[AV1611VET]

Parthenogentic reproduction is not what the bible describes ...

Didn't you say this?

Animals can have virgin births... but humans do not ...

Do you know the difference between "do" and "did"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said that is not where I got my degree from, why do you feel the need to question my reference to a talking donkey?

You didn't reference a talking donkey, chief.

Do you know the difference between singular and plural?

 

[Hikarifuru]

Didn't you say this?Do you know the difference between "do" and "did"?

It is not what the bible describes and you should know that... there is no evidence that humans do actually have virgin births or that parthenogenesis actually happens, your story of gods angels and holy virgins who birth gods is not a representation of parthenogenesis. Your stance on miracles also undermines your reference to scientific principles like these. You're just playing both sides as long as it benefits you.

 

[Hikarifuru]

You didn't reference a talking donkey, chief.

Do you know the difference between singular and plural?

This objection provides nothing to the discussion and is not an actual position on the veracity of what I provided.

 

[Davian]

Green fish blue fish.

It is my understanding that the original documentation has it as "One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish", but do go on with your whale of a fish story. How big was it?

 

[ScottA]

"The bible isn't about humanity, history is about humanity, its made up like the bible says"

This is incoherent and provides no meaning to our discussion.

I'll break it down:

The Bible is the story of the Son of God.
The Bible is not the story of humanity.

History is the story of humanity, as humanity fits into the story of the Son of God (or not).

 

[ScottA]

Look, incoherent fantasy babble makes some people feel special, but if you intend to discuss something then you really need to set that aside and be responsible for a moment and actually talk about something in a coherent manner and not just grope your feels. Okay?

The circumstance is just the opposite. It is you and humanity who live in and carry on about the fantasy of what they do not know is make believe. I gotta tell ya...it is like listening to the chipmunk characters debating if a cartoon nut is real or not.

It is an inverted reality, of which you are unaware. But don't even pretend to know diddly about the bigger picture, 'cause you have already show yourself, and you know nothing.

 

[Hikarifuru]

I'll break it down:

The Bible is the story of the Son of God.
The Bible is not the story of humanity.

History is the story of humanity, as humanity fits into the story of the Son of God (or not).

Ok that's a little bit better.

You say the bible is the story of the Son of God.... and this story says he rapes, burns and kills humans.

I object to your claim that history should be measured by the bible rather than the bible being measured by history. We have historians who use evidence to back up their claims, the bible has nothing to back up its illogical claims and it provides that it doesn't even need this evidence and encourages blind faith over the use of evidence.

If you provide that we should measure history according to the bible, then your assertion that we cannot understand the bible is contradictory.

 

[Hikarifuru]

The circumstance is just the opposite. It is you and humanity who live in and carry on about the fantasy of what they do not know is make believe. I gotta tell ya...it is like listening to the chipmunk characters debating if a cartoon nut is real or not.

It is an inverted reality, of which you are unaware. But don't even pretend to know diddly about the bigger picture, 'cause you have already show yourself, and you know nothing.

Actually you can barely communicate with different people and you claim that the truth of things cannot possibly be perceived. You're the one that insists on magic and nonperceivable realities and knowing godly authors. You talk of reality while also asserted that this reality cannot possibly be perceived...

 

[Colter]

It was the Pagan Gods that had virgin births, Jesus never said such a thing about his real moher and Father who conceived him the natural way. However the Son becoming the person of Marrys child was indeed a real miricle.!

 

[Hikarifuru]

ScottA

You live in a beautiful special pleading fallacy with mythical creatures because it makes you feel good... and you insist that no one can possibly perceive the truth of it or the nature of reality... unless they first meet your mythical creatures and are granted access within hahaha... please stop. Okay?

 

[HitchSlap]

I submit you have a problem with miracles, don't you?I'm surprised that not even an Internet scientist has spoken up and handled this one.

(Actually I'm not. I'm sure they were told to keep quiet.)

I submit you have a problem with miracles, too.

 

[Hikarifuru]

It was the Pagan Gods that had virgin births, Jesus never said such a thing about his real moher and Father who conceived him the natural way. However the Son becoming the person of Marrys child was indeed a real miricle.!

Well I am talking about the religion that is based on the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

... your story of gods angels and holy virgins who birth gods is not a representation of parthenogenesis.

No kidding!?

I could have told you that.

It wasn't parthenogenesis -- it was a miracle.

 

[AV1611VET]

This objection provides nothing to the discussion and is not an actual position on the veracity of what I provided.

Yes, it is.

Your attempt to pluralized a singularity shows a misunderstanding of what actually happened.

It would be like I ridiculing someone for believing in "Big Bangs."

 

[Hikarifuru]

No kidding!?

I could have told you that.

It wasn't parthenogenesis -- it was a miracle.

and like I said.... these don't happen, they undermine the very rules you demand that science minded people use against you.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Yes, it is.

Your attempt to pluralized a singularity shows a misunderstanding of what actually happened.

It would be like I ridiculing someone for believing in "Big Bangs."

No it isn't... I provided that the bible says donkeys can talk to humans because it says one did, you aren't agreeing or disagreeing. You're using red herring as filler.

 

[AV1611VET]

and like I said.... these don't happen,

Again ... no kidding!?

It (parthenogenesis) didn't happen to Mary, and it didn't happen to anyone else in the Bible.

Are you making some kind of point with this?