🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 2, 7:39 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 14:59:18 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
> in alt.atheism:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Aug 1, 4:39?am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 04:11:50 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
> >> in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >On Jul 31, 6:21?pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> >> rbwinn wrote:
> >> ...
> >> >> > Well, we have made progress to a point, that an atheist has admitted
> >> >> > that the Biblical account of the construction of Hezekiah's tunnel is
> >> >> > true. ?First of all, not all fiction books describe the construction
> >> >> > of something that can be observed.
>
> >> >> And that's irrelevant.
>
> >> >> > But your premise is wrong. ?Just because you can find a fiction book
> >> >> > that describes something that can be seen does not prove that all
> >> >> > books that describe something that can be seen are fiction.
>
> >> >> Doesn't prove they're nonfiction, either. ?You're starting to get it.
> >> >> Just because a book talks about the construction of something is
> >> >> irrelevant to the veracity of the book.
>
> >> >No, it is not irrelevant.
>
> >> Sure it is.
>
> >> >> > ?The
> >> >> > furthest you can go ?would be to say that the book that describes
> >> >> > something that can be seen could be fiction or non-fiction, but you
> >> >> > cannot say that you have proven it to be fiction. ?So you would have
> >> >> > to find something else in the book that you claim is fiction, not
> >> >> > Hezekiah's tunnel, which has been proven to be non-fiction. ?I hope
> >> >> > this will help you in your studies.
>
> >> >> When you get on to proving that God thing as non-fiction, do let me know.
>
> >> >God already proved it. ?If you reject the atonement of Christ for your
> >> >sins, it is your problem, not mine.
>
> >> God proved nothing. There is no evidence that the Bible has anything to
> >> do with God. There is no evidence that God exists. There is no evidence
> >> that the doctrine of atonement is true. There is no evidence for a soul,
> >> an afterlife, heaven or hell. These doctrines are derived from a book
> >> that contains many, many serious errors of fact, yet you want us to
> >> believe doctrines that are completely unsupported by any evidence. When
> >> we are skeptical about this nonsense, you try to threaten us with a
> >> completely unbelievable and totally unsubstantiated judgement.
>
> >> It's no wonder that no one here takes you seriously. You just aren't
> >> being serious here. You try to sell a completely dishonest,
> >> unsupportable religion to us and get mad at us when we aren't persuaded.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Well, rejecting the atonement of Christ seems very foolish to me, but
> >you are going to have to make your own decision about it.  So find out
> >for yourself whether the Bible is true.
>
> I don't reject atonement. I reject fantasy stories that are completely
> without foundation.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What atonement.?
The ancient people of the small number of abcient Jews invented
stories to fool people....atonement?