david the claytons a-thiest,[the one who religiously believes a-thiesm can have its own'god-head'[hiom]and its a-thiests too,the one who avoids explaining egsactly how his'own'disbelief is based on science he cant explain[and avoids replying or explaining]

his latest quote extract is a hoot>>Can you name a religious country where most people are religious>>tibet,israel,butan..mate there is heaps,or;are you claiming an athiestic victory in eliminating religion from the world[lol]

<<where you would rather live?There isn’t one so don’t answer.>>ah the clatons non-question that matches the claytons non-response to my questions

<<You somewhat annoy me and I suspect other Atheists,>> mate even at the origonal post i thought who is this'you'you fail to name,that yet'annoys'you[what you feel unconfortable about luvie,the fact you cant reply my questions[or that your disbelief is based on fear/lies,avoidence of responding and delusions?

<<that you reap the benefits..and you would change it and impose your personal religious views given the chance.>.

mate your nuts

i dont have a web site[you do]i dont get 13,000 search results for my name[i dont run a sect based on belief,or rather a belief based on disbelief[or is that a dis-belief based on faulty faith in science over faith in god?]whatever

<<I think I will have to place you in the basket with‘one under god’>> wow its getting that the basket of people you cant reply[thus avoid responding to]is getting pettilly full in here

<<I do not intend to waste time dodging around your prejudices.>>

interesting use of dodging[why cant you use the true word avoiding because you cant explain your own disbelief..[dismissing a thing isnt proving its not there..[i guess we should be honoured your avoiding[sorry'dodging'us like your'dodging'god[lol]

your an artfull dodger,the master at mind-less a-thiesm

<<I have better things to do.>>

wont ask[cause i cant care]

look bro i wish you could prove god dont egsist[i got a lot of vile im pushing back],trying to be nice[my natural inclination is to tear off head's[but god wouldnt like that[cant wait till you prove god dont egsist[get it?]

but he does
so all you get is my words of love

but i can still'hope'you prove it

hi romany,

thanks for the details. i'm not knowledgeable on this stuff and i do really appreciate your input. it appears, however, that webby is otherwise engaged.

one point. you suggest that the problem is one of semantics. i disagree. it seems clear what webby is claiming. i suggest the problem is actually that webby writes prima facie nonsense and, when someone politely asks for some authoritative reference, webby simply ignores the request.

feel free to continue your attempts at diplomacy, but i'm getting kinda bored.

dear OUG,

this may sound strange coming from a guy who seldom uses the shift key, but for your own sake would you *please* format your posts differently? they are virtually impossible to read.

clearly, i'm not likely to agree with much, if anything, of what you write. but at the moment i'm not substantially agreeing or disagreeing with you: i'm simply not reading you. i suspect i'm not alone.

OK OUG, let's cut to the quick.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there exists a creator of the universe. I doubt it. But, for the sake of argument only, I am going to pretend such an entity exists.

In following with tradition let us call this (probably mythical) creator "God."

Most religions believe there is some sort of "holy book" or "holy recitation" that is in some sense the "word" of "God."

Now do you have any evidence that your particular holy book is the "word" of "God?"

Because, let's be clear on this, it is quite possible to believe that "God" exists while nonetheless concluding, as did Albert Einstein, that "the Bible [is] a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

So where is your evidence that your so-called "bible" is the "word" of "God?"

You do not have to prove that "God" exists. For the sake of argument I'll concede that.

But demonstrate that the "bible" really is what you believe it to be, the "word" of "God."

Because you know what, OUG, I suspect that "God" agree with Einstein about the bible. It IS a collection of primitive legends and it is pretty childish.

Let's see your evidence OUG.

Here's your chance to prove Einstein wrong!

oh steven einstein is in my 'holy' books
the bible is a mere collection [of books]
as is the quran a mere collection[re-collection] of the verbal stories of the bible ,to name but one is absurd

the evolution of ther SPECIES is in my book[my book would be called the tri-ble[the bi-ble is only two books] i dont have many religion books[but heaven and hell[by swedenborg is in my 'book' ,as is mary baker eddie]

it is perhaps easier to say what ISNT int MY book
the talmud isnt in my book
note my next post at the one israel war post about gaza
see you there[in about 3 hours]
revealing why the talmud isnt in my book

but here is a sample as to why[so you can respond to it then]

from
http://www.biblestudysite.com/factsarefacts.htm
I apologize..for the'language'which will appear'here-UNDER'

from The official unabridged'Soncino'Edition of the'Talmud'published in 1935..quotations with footnotes from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud,(Book)

YEBAMOTH,60b."As R.Joshua,b.Levi related:`There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants disputed,and Rabbi sent R.Ramanos who conducted an inquiry and'found'in it the daughter of a'proselyte'who was under the age of three years and one day(14),and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest(15)."

(footnotes)"(13)A proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest...(14)And was married to a priest.(15)i.e.,permitted to continue to live with her'husband'."

somehow i dont like that
that sounds like phycopath thinking
phycopaths dont think rational like we do
they blame the victim[as the next bit shall point out]

LOL OUG

You really don't get it do you?

I am not here to defend the bible, koran, talmud, whatever.

If you think the talmud is a collection of twaddle that's fine by me. You're probably right.

I am merely asking whether you have any EVIDENCE that ANY of humanity's so-called "holy books" are the "word" of "God" - assuming that "God" exists?"

If so please present your evidence.

As I wrote, here is your chance to prove Einstein wrong.

Go for it.

Let's see your evidence.