This is an apologist's book - but for heaven's sake are these people mentally ill or just deluded?

Is there any evidence to support the theory? What is the theory? I'm not paying to read this crap but I'm guessing someone here has.

Views: 375

Replies to This Discussion

I already said 5.
David "bagsied" (how do you spell that?)

So that makes Dr. Meaden 6, Nathan 7 and Pat 8... I think. :-)
"bagsied"? Spell what?
Did I write something that looked like that, with the spell-check on?
I looked around. Where is it?
Make that 6. I'm even gonna write a review.
Make it 7.
Amazon won't let us... what a crock!
Maybe I didn't read it right, but didn't it say there were only 2 copies left? And did you notice that the price of it used is twice the new one?
Anyway, most of you have probably seen this, but I'll add it on for the heck of it:
I could only bear to read some of it.
I've seen the site, but never really given it much thought.

For example, the argument presented here seems, on the face of things, quite compelling.

But like any apologetic, it seeks to justify rather than actually contradict the argument.

So, if you're a baddy or a murderer or a whole bunch of other stuff, then it's OK to kill you. So far so good - but the only evidence we have of the wrongdoings the victims were guilty of is the very same book. According to the defence, the Canaanites, Sodomites, were wicked people - and we know that how? ...

because the person accused of killing them says so


Presumably this author is not party to the common wisdom that history is written by the winners - or perhaps that this is a self-referencing argument.
As long as these folks keep arguing among themselves over interpretations of scripture, who cares? Too bad they can't keep it to themselves.
I've been a non-believer since I was a small child, even though I had to attend services until later , I tuned it all out. I was reading quite early on as well. The point being that one of the reasons I never had doubts about "his" non-existence was that I hated the Bible so much. I have so little insight into it, and so little interest, that when I come across debates over translations or interpretations of it, this dense fog of indifference and willful ignorance descends on me. I do admire those who have taken the time to learn enough about it to throw it back at the theists, I just can't stomach it.
I find it all so sad. People twisting their minds into uselessness so they can somehow justify the patently unjustifiable.
The problem is however, is that they can't be ignored either. Not when they want to use it as a political cudgel to force it on everyone else.
I suppose this site wouldn't exist if that weren't the case. I just wish it weren't necessary to expose myself to all the religious drivel.
It's a matter of self-defense. I like to quote the first two lines from one of my favorite books whenever I have any excuse to, Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment:

"In the most general sense of progressive thought, the Enlightenment has always aimed at liberating men from fear and establishing their sovereignty. Yet the fully Enlightened earth radiates disaster triumphant."
I just tried to visit the site and got this:

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

Oh, darn! Slashdotted again!
Is that such a bad thing, in this case though??
Just tried the Barnes and Noble website. Apparently they have a bit more integrity than Amazon, since it's not at listed on their site. Guess that cinches it for me as to whether to get a Kindle or Nook.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service