All right, Smeghead, my position is: I defend the Bible, even as you scorn it. If I withdraw, it’s because I get sick and tired of being ragged. And obviously I don’t agree with atheists. Satisfied?
You are the ones making that claim, which I have never accepted. You don’t agree? Big deal.
you actually think you’re “defending” the bible?
by posting a random “consider verse x” or non-sequitor random musings and no discussion outside of “I disagree”?
And not once have you provided a rational answer to explain why you fail to accept this obvious fact.
It probably does not matter. With nonsense posts and cheap shots that are just under the line for insults from both sides and one side refusing to actually address the issue being debated, this thread is not likely to survive much longer.
The OP was addressed long ago, (including corrective demonstrations that the board is not overwhelmingly atheist along with the reasons why it does have more atheist posters than is typical on American based boards). And while the drift to discussions of attitudes toward the bible has provided points that have occasionally been interesting and occasionally been informative, the current round of meaningless feuding provides neither.
Unless something like a genuine debate appears pretty soon, this thread will be closed. (Anyone wishing to simply bash other posters is welcome to open a thread in The BBQ Pit.)
[ /Moderating ]
Take it or leave it.
"…“This obvious fact…” I resent questions and statements that are brazenly leading. Such as this, which is as bad as “Do you still beat your wife?” Don’t ask me a question in such a way that you can predict the answer I would give. I didn’t give you your hoped-for answer and you welched.
Insults, even ones that rely on tropes form the comics, are still insults.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
NO. There are obvious contradictions in the bible.
You have asserted that there are none.
Every reply you have posted regarding such contradictions has used hypotheticals and imaginary claims to try to evade the issue.
I have no interest in that aspect of the discussion and I am not one of your opponents in that particular hijack. I could not have “welched” on a discussion which I am not participating, so your accusation, (using an ethnic slur*), is without merit. The presence of contradictions in scripture is, indeed, an “obvious fact.”
Do not try to drag me into this discussion. No one has posted any question analogous to “are you still beating your wife?” so your claim is without merit.
*(Welch is a minced oath of Welsh and is based on a presumption that the Welsh are dishonest.)
Ethnic slur?
Well, maybe you can muster another term which is not a stilted circumlocution.
Well don’t leave me in suspense! Tell me of this connection.
So basically what you’re saying is, it doesn’t matter that the bible has apparently unresolvable contradictions, you should just believe in it anyways? I’m sorry, but if that’s your epistemology, then you don’t have an epistemology.
I originally cut you some slack on this stuff as i am sure you feel that you are being “attacked” by many other posters.
However, since you decided to post more than one insult while remaining obstinately unresponsive to the question submitted to you, I have changed my mind and I am issuing you a Warning to stop insulting other posters.
[ /Moderating ]
There was nothing “stilted” about my observation and we have had enough of your games.
[ /Moderating ]
There is no question but that faith played a part in all of these, the Battle of Bunker Hill most notably. For the first time, colonials realized that regular British troops could be beaten–if not this time, then maybe next time. The Viet Cong was defeated in the Tet Offensive, but they came to the same conclusion–quite properly–as Colonel Prescott ’ s army. Robert the Bruce had the faith to persist, like the spider attaching its web, and he was vindicated.
I hope this is a good illustration. 
That’s not what I meant. Lately political correctness tends to discard single words, such as the one I used that you said is an ethnic slur, in favor of circumlocution ("altitudinally challenged " instead of “short”, for example). This stifles my expression and I have to hunt for alternate words.
-
Wrong. There is plenty of question. There might be all sorts of reasons that people might choose to persist in pursuing s cause in the face of adversity.
-
What about all the people who persisted (or “had faith,” if you insist) and lost?
Such as?
For every winning side, there is a a losing side, presumably one with people who had faith.
It only illustrates that they persevered - it doesn’t illustrate “faith” - atleast not the religious type of faith thats been discussed - and while it might be a “nice illustration” - you have yet to demonstrate “what” they had faith in, nor have you cited any evidence for it.
So - there are plenty of questions - and you have provided no evidence or citation for your claims.
How about all those people that constantly pray to avert hurricanes - do they not have “faith” ?