worldwatcher,

I explained your email situation to my son with regard to what you have deleted and his response was: 'If they've deleted it like that, it's gone'.

OzSpen,

Discussion with you is next to useless and you have mentioned Leviticus and the nature of your god. Here are some other parts of this god’s nature from Leviticus (KJV version). As you know, there are Christians promoting ‘dominionism’ as a way of governing countries. (Are you one of them?) This means following the Bible as is written. Scary stuff.

20:9
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

21:9
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

And check out Leviticus 24:10-16 which is about killing blasphemers.

All this is shades of Islam don’tcha think. As I said, all religions make the same mistakes.

Do you agree with your Lord’s adjudications as above or do you only ‘choose’ the nicey bits from the Bible? Seems Yahweh doesn't mind a bit of hissy-spit killing to keep the attention of his people focused. Other Bible writers have their own version of this god's mayhem and absurdity.

I really don’t need or warrant your condescending remarks about me not being ready for your particular god. No, I’m not ready for any of the thousands of gods, but only because I have not surrendered my mental integrity to indoctrinated nonsense.

David

Josephus,

“So yo deny that attitude, character, motive, behaviour have any reality.”

They are a reflection of the mind’s experience through the senses and genetic proclivities. Dogs have those attributes. What is your point?

I note you have failed to answer the question again.

David

David,

<<Discussion with you is next to useless and you have mentioned Leviticus and the nature of your god. Here are some other parts of this god’s nature from Leviticus (KJV version). As you know, there are Christians promoting ‘dominionism’ as a way of governing countries. (Are you one of them?) This means following the Bible as is written. Scary stuff.>>

AND

<<I really don’t need or warrant your condescending remarks about me not being ready for your particular god. No, I’m not ready for any of the thousands of gods, but only because I have not surrendered my mental integrity to indoctrinated nonsense.>>

These are further examples from you of red herring logical fallacies. You did not respond to the 5 points I made in two posts. You were off and running with your own agenda without addressing the content of these five points.

Discussion with you is impossible when you continuously resort to the use of logical fallacies. Nice try but no cigars!

OzSpen,

I don’t smoke, so no cigar for me thanks. A beer to go with the Saturnalian originated festivities of the season would be acceptable though.

There are no reasons good enough that you have offered, for me to take the words in your bible seriously, so I don’t. It’s not that I won’t accept these scribbling’s from centuries ago by a superstitious race of people, it’s that they are meaningless to non-indoctrinated folk.

I do have a sadness for you but I am not responsible for you surrendering your mind to your childhood teachings, not being able to escape the instilled terror of torture forever and your incapability to be able to face death head on, but I do mind that you would just as easily lay this rubbish on the innocent minds of children who have no defence against the fears you would instil. If you wish to think in this contorted fashion although it is not your fault, so be it. Only you can undo the damage you have experienced.

Your god talk is no different than the god talk of other sects of Christianity or other religions.

It is ridiculous to ask me to respond to biblical ideas. That is just a ploy to escape answering the question I posed. Some would call this gutless on your behalf, but I rather think of it as something not of your doing.

It is obvious that the AFA must try harder so as not to let this kind of warped behaviour infect the thought process of new generations. But, on the other hand, the zealotry observed on this thread by religious people is a lesson enough to others that even in Australia, religion, like rust, never sleeps.

The good thing is that like rust, the material rusting eventually rots away to nothing. We are seeing this demonstrated with Christianity now. Even though the flaying around is palpable, within a couple of generations religion will be a negligible and powerless part of society.

I see there has been no answer to the biblical quotes I provided. Interesting.

David

Another pulpit, another bunch of pointless sermons.

What puzzles me most is why the religious find it necessary to lecture atheists at such length, using only their beliefs as evidence. Surely the rational part of their brain - I grant that there must be one - should alert them to the fact that the only arguments available to them are totally circular, in that only if you believe that the Bible is "the word of God" can you remotely imagine that anything in it has any disputational value whatsoever.

Sometimes, it becomes totally bizarre, with accusations such as this one from OzSpen.

>>You are not yet ready to follow Jesus or anything he says for these reasons: You don’t want to know God, your condition before God, and why God needs to change you.<<

The urge to substitute "Bugs Bunny" for Jesus and "Wily Coyote" for God in the above sentence is almost, but not quite, irresistible. Sadly, even if I had succumbed to the temptation to do so, it would not have had any impact at all on its meaningfulness.

Here's another perspective:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/21/christmas-atheism-conversation