Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by BAEOZ


951. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50913 by BAEOZ on June 20, 2007 at 12:08 pm

All of the Catholic schools will teach the genesis account of creation as a story and will teach evolution in science as the accepted and best explanation for mankind's development.

So, back to Adam, if he didn't commit the original sin, and you can't say it's mankind, else you're just saying god created us bad, said we had to be better. Which I think Dawkin's beautifully lampooned when he asked who was god trying to impress when he came to Earth pretending to be human, but didn't die, as gods are wont to do then said look daddy, I did it to save the creatures I created.
You still haven't said whether you believe the contradiction of the trinity to be true. If you do, and it's the catholic definition that is a contradition, not something I made up. You ought to drop the ratio part of you nickname.

952. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50818 by BAEOZ on June 20, 2007 at 4:48 am

But more or less back to the point about teaching science in a catholic school. Do you teach the virgin birth as pathenogenesis? I remember driving my teacher to distraction with that one when I went to the local catholic school.

953. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50816 by BAEOZ on June 20, 2007 at 4:45 am


Seeing as you will insist on creating distractions, is H2O exempt from the above conclusion?

Seeing as you are deliberately equivocating....
A water molecule is not identical to H2 and O in isolation (it would be O2, but for the purposes of discussion). Whereas the trinity states that the unity (1) is still definitely 3 separate persons. So, if that is how you explain the trinity to yourself, you have to be honest and admit it doesn't work.

954. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50780 by BAEOZ on June 20, 2007 at 12:55 am

In sum:
My personal experience for me: good evidence.
Your personal experience for me: not so good.

Ahh, we must tell schizophrenics this. They experience many things and yet are presecuted for it. And anyone who's been told since birth that god exists, and can talk to you, will put together images and voices that were generated in their brain, but not caught by their reality filtering in the personal experience class.....

955. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50767 by BAEOZ on June 19, 2007 at 11:10 pm

From the catholic encyclopedia:

Trinity, The Blessed - The term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion, the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these three persons being truly distinct one from another


So, 3 = 1, but 3 = 3 at the same time. 3 is never 1, so trinity is bunk!

Bugger, fides_et_ratio has probably gone.

956. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50766 by BAEOZ on June 19, 2007 at 11:02 pm

On the point you made about transubstantiation and atomic theory, I would have to say, good question.

Fides_et_ratio, if you don't know, then you have no evidence holding the belief in transubstantion. You have 3 choices as I see it, investigate further, accepting that you can't believe in transubstantion until you have evidence, reject the doctrine (and probably stop being a catholic), or play the hypocritical game most religious people do and say that: I don't know/the lord works in mysterious ways/I'll know when I meet my maker.
By the way, Have you realised that the catholic definition of the trinity is a logical contradiction. And if you're honest, you'll reject it? :P Peace.

957. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50693 by BAEOZ on June 19, 2007 at 1:25 pm

I know you probably think I am superstitious too but believe me I would never allow myself to knowingly hurt anyone because to do so would definitely be a major violation of what I believe in.



superstitious: of or pertaining to superstition.
superstition: 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

I guess if you see you beliefs as based on reason or knowledge then you aren't superstitious. I don't see any knowledge or reason for you to hold those beliefs, so I suppose I'd class it as superstitious. Semantics.

Anyway, I'm glad you're not coming after me. I extend the same promise to you. There'll be no atheist jihads on my part. I'm too lazy.

958. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50557 by BAEOZ on June 18, 2007 at 6:26 pm

And we have a tiny, ineffectual god who doesn't even care what we're doing

I nominate the Flying Spaghetti Monster! By far the tastier option. Now, if we can only wipe out the reformed tagliatelli sect and subdue the durum schism we could have one true Pastafarian church....

959. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50512 by BAEOZ on June 18, 2007 at 2:00 pm

All I can tell you is that I genuinely believe to be true what I have stated and I live my life accordingly and I shall die accordingly.

Fair enough. You have faith. I don't like faith, but it's a bbq stopper. It excludes reason. I'll leave that there.

Subjectively you believe order in no way implies a creator or god. Subjectively I believe order implies a creator or god

Erm, no. Even god (if he existed) would agree that 2 + 2 = 4. It's objective. Order exists by itself.

Anyway, you strongly hold to your beliefs without evidence. That to me is the definition of faith. Peace and don't listen to your god when he gets all medieval and appears in a vision telling you to waste me. OK? :P

960. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50433 by BAEOZ on June 18, 2007 at 6:07 am

I wonder how the cardinals can believe the nonsense they foist upon the masses

Well, apart from the fact that humans are great at self deception. I'd say, they really don't believe the crap as such. They probably abstract it all, then live the largesse. The masses of course need to be fed rubbish to keep them inline.

But some atheists DO mean that they want to forcibly remove religion from society, and this is what I dislike.

Do you really know any atheists who'd forcibly remove religion from society? I don't, but then maybe I just hang around pleasant atheists.

961. Diary of a Deserter

Comment #50418 by BAEOZ on June 18, 2007 at 2:42 am

Hey Brian, keep at it mate. It must be hard, the whole indoctrination and knowing that you'll probably loose most of your support mechanisms and be outcast has gotta suck. I'm not sounding supportive or helpful.
I think for me, the most important thing is to be true to yourself and not ignore the doubt. In the end being involved in something you don't want or believe in will suck more. And once you're free, then you open up some really cool possibilities....

962. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50417 by BAEOZ on June 18, 2007 at 2:37 am

Well, the problem with my view is that you are right. After some research, I realise now that I was not using 'fundamentalist' correctly, and it is a much more precisely defined term than I thought.

Bugger! Another internecine atheist slap fest averted! Why must we atheists resort to reason when we could resort to dogma and pissing contests? Sigh!

963. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50399 by BAEOZ on June 17, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Hey Russell, Did you read _J_'s post on Wee Flea's site. I thought it was a great post and the link to Clifford's "Ethics of belief" lead me to read what I thought was a cogent piece on ethics. Have you read this and what's your take on it? I read that William James, tried to rebut it with his "Will to believe" but that seemed to me to be hollow in that anything that we might find useful, we can believe in, and then it's true. Sort of relativism run wild.
Anyway, just hoping for your insight. It's not something I'm well versed in, and the books your recommended haven't yet arrived from amazon.

964. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50398 by BAEOZ on June 17, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Behind theoretical and practical experiments in chemistry is order and without order chemists could not perform any experiments. Behind order is design and behind design is God.

The existence of order only demonstrates that order exists. It in no way implies a creator or god. And that in no way implies a heaven or any other of your beliefs. You cannot infer a god, much less your god from order, no more than you can infer god because a banana fits your hand.

965. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50388 by BAEOZ on June 17, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Our deaths will give us the correct answer. I will see you on the other side and then we can discuss the correct answer.

You are begging the question. The question is is there life after death, or something supernatural. But you assume this in your answer. Logically incorrect, it doesn't mean anything.
Even if by amazing coincidence it turns out your beliefs match post death reality. You'll have been wrong for holding them without sufficient evidence. The honest person acknowledges he doesn't have the evidence to suppose what you suppose.

966. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50326 by BAEOZ on June 16, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Of human life (humanae vitae) is scary.

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

In short, the church owns your balls and ovaries. Every sperm is sacred, unless god, the abortionists deems you worth of miscarriage.
No wonder my devout mum and dad had ten of us failed abortions.....scary.

967. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #50309 by BAEOZ on June 16, 2007 at 4:02 pm

darwin2, your beliefs are complex and illogical. If you have no evidence based reason for them, it is wrong to hold onto them in favor of simpler, empirically supported hypotheses. Be a good nuff nuff and accept you have to let go of superstition.

968. Rushdie knighted in honours list

Comment #50306 by BAEOZ on June 16, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Corylus, I'm glad I didn't have my coffee near me when I read your comments. Very funny.

969. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50267 by BAEOZ on June 16, 2007 at 6:32 am

It also drives me mad when atheists say that they want to stamp out all religion

Why? Atheists just make the claim that to believe anything without evidence is wrong. Faith is wrong. You have no evidence for belief in a god, let alone the christian god. Why is asking you to provide evidence for the respect that you demand maddening?

970. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #50264 by BAEOZ on June 16, 2007 at 5:53 am

Downunder, great interesting post.

but I feel that life comes from nature

Feel it or not, it's the only explanation that doesn't require a skyhook. In my limited understanding, you seem to be largely deist. Almost Einstienian at some points, then at others almost back to catholic dogma.
Your live and let live idea both appeals to me and bothers me. Not that in itself it's bad, just that you need to force people to do this. And anyone who has the ONE TRUE RELIGION won't be persuaded, indeed will take joy in dying for said religion. Even if there are several claimants to the throne....
So, what part of OZ are you from? Or are you more regionally downunder?

971. In the know

Comment #50262 by BAEOZ on June 16, 2007 at 5:37 am

how science works and somehow show the immense amount of knowledge we've gained about the world through the scientific discourse

Totally in agreement. I've had discussions with people who think that science is some sort of conspiracy or control method. When I've told them there are not scientific facts, they seem to have this huge AHA! moment, like they have just been handed the keys to the prison and now can lock up science as another relativist concept that only has validity if it makes them feel warm and cuddly. The media has a lot of culpability here. They report a medical study done on 2 lab rats as having the same empirical value as a 30 year study of people for example. Or the call the latest empirical support of a theory as fact. When it's revealed that science doesn't prove anything, only disproves, it seems to the ignorati that science is somehow weakened.
The scientific method is the only method that has practically advanced humanity. No amount of inventing of theological sophistication, with its certainty has emancipated anyone.
Now, I'll be cut down by upset faithful and philosophers who object to my perceived disrespect for their chosen thought experiment.....

972. In the know

Comment #50226 by BAEOZ on June 15, 2007 at 9:51 pm

well if im unlucky enough to get a malignant tumour in my life i should feel quite confident if i ignore the physicians dogmatic suggestions of various treatments, no, instead i'll pray a bit, put a toad under my pillow and repeat the words 'unconditional love' all day long, yes that'll work, maybe.

I did that last week, and my gammy hip is still playing up. I must've used the wrong species of toad or prayed to the wrong god.....

973. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50111 by BAEOZ on June 15, 2007 at 5:33 am

i just wonder who the hell those rancid decaying old men think they are.

Sunt princepes ecclesiae. Sunt viri stulti.

974. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50107 by BAEOZ on June 15, 2007 at 5:21 am

well, god wanted that pregnancy to abort itself because he had a Secret Purpose behind it",
I can only think of J's post recently on Wee Flea's site. About playing the Christian football team. God is omnibenevolent, but when something bad happens, we can't question faith in him, we just say that isn't an own goal as we the lord works in mysterious ways. Oh, getting all Spanish Inquisition here, I can think of 2 responses! First J's and RD's comment in the GD about god being the biggest abortionist out. Oh wait, I can think of 3. 3 comments! Monty Python raised me, what can I say?

975. Vatican cardinal calls on Catholics to stop funding Amnesty

Comment #50081 by BAEOZ on June 14, 2007 at 11:00 pm

Let's play the bait and switch kiddies!
First, I'll sound all-caring by saying killing a child is bad. No one could disagree with me now could they? Those sweet little cherubs must be protected. A nice bait.
Then, I'll switch and say that a ball of cells called a zygote, later an embryo is the same as a child. An almost undeveloped lump of cells is a viable, squawking cherub.
If I'm quick and sound pious, people will agree with me, and not know why they feel a little confused by me deception......
It's good to be the Emperor. Sorry, cardinal. Now where are my clothes?

976. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49664 by BAEOZ on June 12, 2007 at 8:27 pm

What a load of unspeakable shite.

Oh well, I liked it. Sobre gustos no hay nada escrito dicen. ;)

977. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #49077 by BAEOZ on June 10, 2007 at 8:04 am

Chomsky was pointing out shortly after 9-11 that there have been loads of atrocities around the world which saw even more deaths than on that fateful day in New York, though these didn't warrant similar reactions from so-called libertarians or humanists in the West. One example Chomsky cited was the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan which was the only such plant in the country and manufactured most of their cheap drugs.

Totally with you man. If we could drop the west drops a bomb-good, dirty dark person drops a bomb-bad we'd be half way there. Unfortunetally, some of the "dirty dark" people play the role.
My mother always taught me to compare myself to the best and not the worst and that is somewhat of a guiding principle, for better or worse.
I like your mum.
I'm drunk and can't really continue with any comprehension. Chomsky did a lot for language structure, but I'll have to get back to your very extensive post to continue and find out if he has something to say apart from linguistics. My posting will seem like a slight. so, ignore it please. :)

978. In U.S., faith is never far from politics

Comment #49074 by BAEOZ on June 10, 2007 at 7:47 am

to which he had responded with a very eloquent speech about that religion has no role in determining governmental policy

Amen brother!

979. 60 SECONDS: Richard Dawkins

Comment #49073 by BAEOZ on June 10, 2007 at 7:44 am

. I loved it when some muppet called top cat wrote in saying that evolution defied the second law of thermodynamics

I hated London the first time there (few months). The second I thought it was cool but expensive (more money, less time). Now that Melbourne has a rip off version of the Metro I should be a satisfied antipodean. But no Dawkins' feature, I want to return. Damn English. So Polite and boring, yet so copiable and learned. By the way, Viv was my favourite "Young one."

980. Teaching assistant quit in protest at Harry Potter

Comment #49069 by BAEOZ on June 10, 2007 at 7:30 am

with a little more objectivity and a little less

Ok, you used G'day, so I'm presuming here, but would you say she's a few sandwiches short of the picknick? or a few VB's short of a slab. Just localizing here...

981. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49068 by BAEOZ on June 10, 2007 at 7:26 am

Danielos, you embarrass yourself.

My point here is that one arrives to Christianity via theism and not vice-versa, in other words you can only find Christianity reasonable if you first find theism reasonable,

If I believe the invisible pink Unicorn exists, and there is a unicornspel that unicornlizes and others accept this spel(l) then it's reasonable to accept the worship of the Ivory invisible unicorn. And I'm begging the question (and a fool).
Now even though one can see there is good reason for that pain

I, for one do not see a reason (as in a purpose or good) for pain. It's a consequence, not a reason.
So by incarnating as fully human

He came back to life according to a contradictory set of texts, which if you believe them proves he wasn't fully human. Because no human revives 3 days after death. Fact, not fiction. Further, any "suffering" by a god being was not suffering, however well acted because he wasn't human in reality and wouldn't die. Any "father must I pass this suffering" was posturing, because as you say the father and son and freaky ghost were all the god of the old testament. All lies, from start to end.

982. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #49064 by BAEOZ on June 10, 2007 at 7:09 am

Most Americans can't even say the Pledge of Allegiance or sing America the Beautiful, yet they are very patriotic.

As the Roman guy said, give the masses food and circus and they will do what you will.....

And as for atheist theology. Lack of belief in the study of a god? I'm not blaming anyone here, but we perhaps when someone arrives we may point out that we (in this case I'm speaking for myself and guessing I'm not alone) don't believe that god (or Thor) doesn't exist, simply we have no evidence to the existence of the god of Abraham, or said tooth fairy. I'm not a philosopher, so I may be contradicted, but as I see it, lack of belief isn't positive belief in anything.... Sorry, the lure of Boags Premium, I may be talking rubbish.

983. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #49062 by BAEOZ on June 10, 2007 at 6:56 am

Oh and ignore the dasyurid if you can when giving your answer....

984. Don't Know Much Biology

Comment #49061 by BAEOZ on June 10, 2007 at 6:54 am

pewkatchoo where do I come from? I'm stralian?

985. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #49059 by BAEOZ on June 10, 2007 at 6:46 am

But if by "revelation" one understands any act where God directly affects one's experiential life then my answer is an obvious "Yes". You see, according to my worldview we live in an environment of continuous revelation: Every single thing we experience, including our experience of physical phenomena, is caused by God. Maybe I was not clear enough on this point in post 333


A gap! A gap! My god for a gap! (W. Sheakespeare)

Danielos when you reject reason in your explanation, why do you ask us to accept you as reasonable?

986. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48984 by BAEOZ on June 9, 2007 at 9:16 pm

. The universe is infinitely more complicated that the Space Shuttle and must have had a Designer and Creator. So you atheists out there give me a break. Let's get scientific here and conclude that the probability that God exists is very high.

Please, tell me it's parody
How do we disprove your hypothesis that there is a designer of the universe and a creator? You want to be scientific, you need a falsifiable claim.
If your claim is the universe appears designed, the shuttle is designed, both are complex therefore the universe is designed then I think you should learn about the logical fallacy of false analogy. And your begging the question by assuming god is the creator, as you haven't shown gods exists.

987. We of little faith

Comment #48973 by BAEOZ on June 9, 2007 at 7:37 pm

"two grapefruits with yellow skin are one orange in training"

Champagne parody that! I'm not an expert on the history and pros and cons of zen and am not supporting any side, but that did strike me as funny.

988. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48920 by BAEOZ on June 9, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Oh Crap, I didn't post the link. It was fear of the epeé I tell you
http://arbitrarymarks.com/wordpress/about-me/

989. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48919 by BAEOZ on June 9, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Epeeist, can I just say I've always had a deep respect for you, and that video scares me. I'm a lazy programmer of slow reflexs. If I didn't have a shotgun and fair warning, you could fillet me with ease. I therefore bow to the argument from force. I agree you logic is more equal than others'.

I saw this site via PZ Myers Pharyngula site. Very interesting. Bit of philosophy and biology. If you read the 7 sections, even Danielos might get something out of it.

990. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48725 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 8:24 pm

Take electricity as an example.

Electricity has been shown to exist. No one doubts this. Trying to equate something that exists and is routinely used with something that has no evidence doesn't confer existence on faith, god, soul, whatever. It's a terrible analogy.

991. The 'Is God...Great?' Debate

Comment #48722 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 8:14 pm

Darwin2:

It is not a contradiction to be all knowing and all powerful. We know how to make nuclear energy and we have the power to use it.

We don't claim to be all knowing nor all powerful. Knowing how to make an atomic bomb is one complex but extremely small part of all that can be known. And it certainly doesn't make us all powerful. We can't undo the damage of using the bomb. Something an all powerful being could. You are equivocating seriously here my friend.
Again, please refute my point that an all knowing , all powerful being cannot exist. If God knows all, god knows everything that has and will happened. Therefore nothing can be altered because god already knows this. Therefore he cannot be all powerful because he can't alter what he knows.


God is loving and merciful because God leaves no one behind. We are all destined for heaven. We can not escape our destiny.

That's a new interpretation of the christian myth. He guys, lets be super happy atheists, we're going to heaven whatever happens, it's our destiny. The lord truly is benevolent! Think before you type my friend.

992. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48709 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 7:15 pm

not confirm their fears all atheists are amoral idealogues

I reserve the right to be an amoral idealogue. If it's good enough for the pope, why not me?

993. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48700 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 6:22 pm

This sums up the fallacy of interpretation well I reckon

Perfection's Imperfect Revelation
The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.

No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

I found it here:
http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

994. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48689 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Folks, it is my humble opinion that there is a troll in our presence, and it ain't sweet Zwingli.

Alright, I 'fess up! You found me out.

995. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48687 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 5:37 pm

The assumptions are, of course, that God did and does exist, that God did inspire the writers, and that God has the right to tell us how to live.

Begging the question par excellence! So many assumptions, and this is called reason? Reason requires evidence first. You need evidence that god exists, that god did inspire the writers, that god has the right to tell us how to live before you can take any of the bible as being more meaningful than Brothers Grim or such tales.

996. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48685 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 5:35 pm

More evidence of Jesus pacifism and tenderness


Mathew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. "


Jesus loves families.
Mathew 19:29 "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold,* and will inherit eternal life."


Jesus hates slavery and beatings
Luke 12:47 "That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating."


There's plenty more where that came from....

997. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48679 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 5:24 pm

I'm an Atheist and I haven't read Marx or Mao. I think Marx got a bad reputation because of how his economic ideas were twisted into communism, which most definetly was a state sanctioned religion. As for Mao, I don't have any interest. Just as I don't interest in reading Mein Kampf.

998. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48672 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Christianity, on the other hand, doesn't sanction killing anyone - punishment for sin is for the state in this life and God in the next. You may remember that Jesus and several of his followers were killed - they killed no-one!

You are wrong.
Mathew 15 4. For God said,* "Honour your father and your mother," and, "Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die."
He was telling the Pharisees that the Old Testament laws were still in vigour as far as he was concerned.

999. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48665 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Zwingli can you please interpret those acts attributed to Jesus in the bibles for me? Did Jesus really curse a fig-tree? give some pigs demonic possession? say it's ok to own and beat slaves? Have different adotedd grandfathers, but the same adopted dad?

1000. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #48653 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Hey USA_Limey, was it Dawkins who said that organizing atheists is like herding cats? You're spot on though. We are not a bunch of people deluded by group think or dogma. The only commonality is atheism.

More Pages: Previous | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 | Next