atheism and axeman have fallen

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Guardian Angel, Dec 4, 2003.

  1. GA wonders why I didnt bother to reply AGAIN to
    his bad arguments.


    Notice the following. I show a CLEAR biblical contradiction.
    The bible commands that THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
    THEN... I show an instance where god sends wild animals
    to kill babies. A CLEAR contradiction.


    AXE:3) God sends wild animals sent to kill infants, but THOU SHALT NOT KILL!!


    Now watch very closely what the reply is:


    CONT REPLIES: MOST atheist believe that their is NO GOD and that the above Scripture you referenced is EVIL but yet the continue to kill the unborn- at a rate of about 30 million a year in the U.S.



    Ahem.... what in the hell does this have to do with the point at hand??? NOTHING.
    It is a DODGE, and a very poor one indeed.
    As if were not going to notice that he FAILED to disolve
    the contradiction at hand.

    Even we ACCEPT that atheists kill 30 million a year in the U.S.,
    this DOES NOT in anyway disolve the fact that god sent
    wild animals to kill infants in the bible, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME,
    commanding that THOU SHALT NOT KILL.


    And you wonder why I dont bother answering all your
    silly explainations for the bible contradictions? :D
    Its because your explainations fall flat on their face
    all by themselves. They are not explainations at all!
    Its so obvious, I dont even have to address them.


    You only further show you complete LACK of reasoning skill.
    Please continue, its quite entertaining.

    peace

    axeman
     
    #31     Dec 8, 2003


  2. Now that I have answered the above will you answer my contradictions of your statement:

     
    #32     Dec 8, 2003
  3. You have NOT solved the contradiction.

    Even if I were to accept your argument that kill REALLY
    means murder, which is debatable, this doesnt solve
    your problem.


    God KILLS innocent children! This is murder by any rational standard.

    How can an infant be guilty and deserve to be killed????

    God clearly MURDERED and KILLED babies.

    The contradiction clearly stands.


    As for your attack on evolution, it is a Red Herring designed
    to derail the main point on this argument.
    It is irrelevant. I show you a biblical contradiction and
    you reply with evolution is false?? HUH???
    What does that have to do with anything???



    peace

    axeman




     
    #33     Dec 8, 2003
  4.  
    #34     Dec 8, 2003
  5. AXE:Even if I were to accept your argument that kill REALLY
    means murder, which is debatable, this doesn't solve
    your problem.
    God KILLS innocent children! This is murder by any rational standard.


    Now listen to this ludicrous reply:

    GA: The "children" were not innocent in the fact that they would have been murdered by their parents anyway.


    YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!
    Do you actually believe for one MILLISECOND this is
    actually a REASONABLE reply???????
    They were NOT innocent ***BECAUSE** their parents
    would have murdered them anyway???????????
    You are truly logically impaired, and possibly insane or
    mentally retarded.
    The contradiction clearly stands.


    AXE:God clearly MURDERED and KILLED babies.
    CONT: NO. God allowed the guilty to lose their children to the sword in divine judgement.

    Another sick and twisted reply.


    CLEARLY.... you COMPLETELY lack anything that even remotely
    resembles the ability to reason.

    You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you
    are a WASTE OF TIME for anyone, including myself to debate.
    You utterly lack the minimal amount of skills required to hold
    a rational discussion.

    I rest my case.



    peace

    axeman

    ps. Im not sure if I should laugh my ass off at one of the
    most ridiculous replies of ALL TIME, or to feel sad that people
    THIS completely brainwashed exist, that they have completely
    lost all human faculty to reason :(
     
    #35     Dec 8, 2003
  6.  
    #36     Dec 8, 2003
  7. Do you now understand the Biblical text in relation to God's judgement and the taking of the 1st born male in Egypt?

    Do you now comprehend the idea of death of the innocent vs. death of the guilty. God often throughout the old testament took the natural lives of human beings and thier offspring in response to his moral judgement of sin.

    Whether or not you agree with this you can atleast understand it.

    Now can we move on to your explanation to my argument of the effect on atheism on our society?

    i.e. partial birth abortion.
     
    #37     Dec 8, 2003
  8. "The babies were not guilty of sin. This is true however their parents were guilty of sin and thus the penalty was death"

    So you admit this is true.
    Therefore: Since god killed them, IT WAS MURDER! Duh! :D

    But wait...now your argument is that its NOT murder,
    because their PARENTS and NOT THE INFANTS were guilty?!?!?

    You are mentally insane, or simply a complete idiot, or who
    knows what else. In any case...really screwed up in the head.


    I rest my case further. This is the most idiotic argument
    I have heard in over a decade.


    I am utterly stunned at how you could believe anything
    this obviously wrong, absurd, and idiotic.

    NO rational person would accept your assertion that
    an INFANT is guilty and deserves the penalty of DEATH
    ****BECAUSE THEIR PARENTS ARE GUILTY *****.

    You are one seriously scary and screwed up individual.



    peace

    axeman
     
    #38     Dec 8, 2003
  9. I know that it is hard to swallow. Let us take a break here and focus on some other points. You wanted an answer and I gave you one. I know that you do not understand it but that does not change the facts that God judges sin.

    You seem to have a problem with death. Death is a part of life. We will all die sooner or later. That is a fact. The death rate has never changed since the begining of time.

    The death reat is still one per person.

    Now answer my above questions about YOUR apparent contridictions within your belief system.
     
    #39     Dec 8, 2003
  10. I understand what you SAID.
    Its the meaning which I completely reject as any rational person should.


    I dont have a problem with death. I accept it as a part of life.

    You have made it painfully clear that no rational man should
    attempt to debate you since you clearly do not posses
    the required instruments of reason.

    Anyone who believes a baby deserves DEATH because
    of their parents guilt is NOT a reasonable person.

    I will not debate anything further with such a person.
    Its pointless.

    I rest my case.

    peace

    axeman




     
    #40     Dec 8, 2003