Disrespectful phrasing (From South Wales Argus)

Who did write it then?

This is because, originally Terry criticised the beating of children and the dubious morality of the bible. The response? I'm 'personally' offended, by a sarcastic quip. Totally skipping over the subject matter (because they are indefencible). Ahem! Morals?

Then Mr. Reynolds betrays his own intentions by suggesting that his book would necessarily demand respect from someone soooo learned as Terry, before finishing with what his faith withered walnut perceives as the 'coup de grace' . . . a weak attempt to hopefully trick Terry into saying something terrible about the taboo subject of fascist Islam, that could actually backfire very nastily on him.

Charming, a beautiful show of honesty and morality. I've come to expect nothing less from this lot.

Could I recommend one of many works
on the subject, researched and well written .The History of Jehovah, the secret identity of Israel's YAHWEH REVEALED. Google is a starting point .

coalpicker wrote:
Could I recommend one of many works
on the subject, researched and well written .The History of Jehovah, the secret identity of Israel's YAHWEH REVEALED. Google is a starting point .

It wont make any difference. A religious brain it seems is incredibly good at compartmentalising their faith, effectively making it impervious to criticism, even by themselves. They will go to great lengths of mental contorsion in order to square any contradicting discoveries with their book.

Notice how they feverishly and aggressively fight anything that may challenge their faith until some clever theologian figures out a way to square it with the bible (usually taking years) Then it's OK.

They start with a presupposition, then select suitable arguments to bolster the presupposition, hoping that you wont notice the fallacy of 'special pleading'.

Notice how they accuse everyone else of doing this. I think that they genuinely think that this is how knowledge works, it could be a symptom of using 'blind faith' as a credible tool for recognising truths. More often than not, they just flat out avoid logical arguments, and try to direct the conversation elsewhere. When this fails it turns to ear plugging, denial and accusations of dishonesty. Sometimes they claim victimisation.

It's all a big conspiracy, who are you gonna believe, the bible, or your lying eyes?

Scientists are liers, history is wrong, atheists only deny god so they can live a life of sin, it's true because the bible says so, I know it because I feel it, so it's true.

Arguing about the accuracy or history of the bible is futile, the only way to have a serious debate with such a person is not to let them off the hook on single points, when they make claims about reality and nature. Don't accept 'special pleading' or appeals to authority and make they think about the claims that they make.

It's not that people like myself are angry at religion, it's more exhasperation at the ridiculous things that religious people say. The more stupid the statement, the bigger the list of critisims will be.

I'm sorry if I sometimes cause discomfort, but I will not apologise for preventing erroneous truth statements to go unchallenged in the public square. Some people will believe anything they read. We should respect the power of memes.