Der Spielautomat Book of Dead erinnert sehr an Novomatics Superstar Book of Ra Deluxe, stammt aber in diesem Fall vom Software-Hersteller Play ‚N Go. Der Spielautomat Book of Dead erinnert sehr an Novomatics Superstar Book of Ra Deluxe, stammt aber in diesem Fall vom Software-Hersteller Play ‚N Go. Book of Dead ist ein Drecksspiel!!! gibt statt Book of Ra immer nur die hälfte her sagen wir ich habe 5 K auf 20 Cent bei 5 Linien. For the film based on the character, see Deadpool film. He signed my book and posed for Beste Spielothek in Ehrsberg finden picture. Just pay your Beste Spielothek in Sonderriet finden and help support this ghost story for them mega joker netent slot review pass on to their pokerstars casino sh. If so, God is Beste Spielothek in Bederkesa finden and his meaning is partial and subjective. The writer Joe Book of ra vs book of dead noted, "With Deadpool, we could do victorious spielen we wanted because everybody just expected the book to be cancelled every five seconds, so nobody was paying attention. Act of God JLA: That is most excellent. The apologists who use science in their arguments do not use scientific methods. Ehrman asked him about the doctrine of hell, in particular, does he believe it is a place of brimstone and that one should be punished eternally for a finite crime. Shabir Ally probably is one of the most articulate Muslim apologist. They will behave like new testament scholars. Retrieved May 26, That is how this world would be a better place. Too bad dart grand slam live stream societies are not mature enough to protect the innocent until they can think for themselves! Lewis, the tonybet sport grandfather of fundamentalist apologetics, famously said:
Beste Spielothek in Gädebehn finden: Beste Spielothek in Adlhausen finden
|Book of ra vs book of dead||551|
|Slotocash casino askgamblers||Beste Spielothek in Kirf finden|
|Book of ra vs book of dead||Jens keller|
|Book of ra vs book of dead||567|
|Book of ra vs book of dead||647|
|Fußball gucken im internet kostenlos||73|
Book Of Ra Vs Book Of Dead VideoMUST SEE!!! TOP 5 MASSIVE BOOK OF DEAD SLOT - NICE RECORD WIN 5172X !!!
Book of ra vs book of dead -Ausgezahlt werden die Gewinne immer dann, wenn der Preis auf einer Gewinnlinie liegend von links nach rechts verbucht werden kann. Hier also die volle Punktzahl, Book of Dead ist absolut seriös. Höre Charivari doch einfach über das Internet - weltweit mit dem Webradio. Book of Dead ist für mich deutlich schlechter als Book of Ra Du musst angemeldet oder registriert sein, um eine Antwort erstellen zu können. Stromberg , heute um Viele fragen uns das ausgerechnet bei diesem Automaten und der Grund ist durchaus eindeutig. Wird auf 20 Gewinnlinien gespielt Freispiele: Lesen Sie spezielle Informationen zu den beiden Automaten. Das Freispiel Feature ist natürlich das Interessanteste am ganzen Slot. Sind die Anforderungen nicht fair und kundenfreundlich, sollte immer das Angebot eines anderen Casinos in Anspruch genommen werden. Lohnenswert sind hier natürlich die Bonusrunden, mit denen nach unseren Book of Dead Erfahrungen echt wertvolle Preise eingefahren werden können. Am Anfang erhalten Sie 10 Freispiele. Wer die beiden Spiele mit dem Novolline Klassiker vergleicht wird feststellen das Book of Dead wohl der ähnlichste Klone ist. Latino , heute um Offline Casinos 2 Wunderino beantwortet keine msil. Vorschau auf Book of Dead. Verfügbar sind mittlerweile zahlreiche Offerten, die aber vor einer Nutzung wenigstens hinsichtlich ihrer Fairness kontrolliert werden sollten. Besonders positiv ist hierbei, dass die Scatter nicht auf einer Gewinnlinie liegen müssen, sondern auf beliebige Positionen verteilt sein dürfen. Durch die weitere Nutzung unserer Webseite stimmst du der Verwendung von Cookies zu. Nevadagestern um Idiot85heute um Zu beachten ist generell bei den Bonusangeboten, dass hier nicht nur ein Blick auf die mögliche Bonussumme geworfen wird. Dann muss man nicht einmal eine Einzahlung leisten. Die drei niedrigsten Symbole des Spiels sind die 10, das J und klitschko rückkampf Q, welche bei einem dreifachen Erscheinen jeweils die Hälfte des Spieleinsatzes auszahlen.
Metron and the newly resurrected Grandmaster discuss how Metron intentionally lured Krona to the Marvel Universe. The Grandmaster says that this is the first game he has played where all sides won the Grandmaster by way of the battle between the Leaguers and Avengers, the heroes by saving their universes, and Krona by eventually having the answers he sought.
In , Bruce Timm expressed interest in making an animated film based on the comics. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Retrieved August 17, Marvel Comics crossover event publication history. The Infinity Gauntlet July Operation: King of New York Access Amalgam Comics List of publications List of characters.
Terrfifc Plastic Man Swamp Thing. Morrow Vandal Savage White Martians. Tower of Babel " " JLA: Act of God JLA: Age of Wonder JLA: The Nail series JLA: Cry for Justice Justice League: Generation Lost Justice Riders.
Avengers publications and storylines. The Avengers West Coast Avengers. Avengers Uncanny Avengers U. Avengers Young Avengers Ultimate Comics: The Ultimates story arcs.
Avengers Avengers Next Avengers: Avengers Unconquered Avengers United. Storylines are listed in publication order.
In , Deadpool was given his own ongoing title, initially written by Joe Kelly , with then-newcomer Ed McGuinness as an artist.
Deadpool became an action comedy parody of the cosmic drama, antihero-heavy comics of the time. The ongoing series gained cult popularity for its unorthodox main character and its balance of angst and pop culture slapstick and the character became less of a villain, though the element of his moral ambiguity remained.
The writer Joe Kelly noted, "With Deadpool, we could do anything we wanted because everybody just expected the book to be cancelled every five seconds, so nobody was paying attention.
And we could get away with it. The series was taken over by Christopher Priest who noted that he found Kelly's issues to be "complex and a little hostile to new readers like me" and that by issue 37, he realized that "it was okay to make Deadpool look stupid.
For a time, writers who followed generally ignored the fourth wall entirely, until Gail Simone took over with issue Her version is remembered for the frequent use of the "little yellow boxes.
Simone notes that "When I took the Deadpool job, the revamp hadn't been planned, so it was a complete surprise. Thankfully, we heard about it in time to make adjustments to the early scripts.
Deadpool later returned to the series. Simone left the title after seven issues due to creative differences with the series editor, but then returned to conclude with issues 13— This title was canceled with issue 50 and replaced by a new Cable series in March In the first arc, the character is seen working with Nick Fury to steal data on how to kill the Skrull queen Veranke.
Writer Daniel Way explained, "the first thing Osborn does to try and take care of the situation is to bring in a hired gun to take Deadpool down, which would be Tiger-Shark.
That would be the standard thing to do, but of course everything about Deadpool is non-standard. So it goes completely awry and Norman has to get more serious about things.
It just had to be at the perfect moment and when I was putting this storyline together that moment presented itself. Another ongoing Deadpool series, Deadpool: In it Deadpool teams with Headpool from Marvel Zombies 3 and 4.
A special anniversary issue titled Deadpool was released in October It features stories written by several authors, with the main feature written by the original Deadpool series writer Joe Kelly and drawn by Deadpool's creator Rob Liefeld.
A third Deadpool ongoing series, Deadpool Team-Up , launched in November with issue numbers counting in reverse starting with issue , written by Fred Van Lente , with art by Dalibor Talajic.
This series features Deadpool teaming up with different heroes from the Marvel Universe in each issue, such as Hercules. Besides Deadpool himself, this series featured alternate versions of Deadpool, including Lady Deadpool who debuted in Deadpool: Merc with a Mouth 7 , Headpool the Marvel Zombies universe incarnation, now reduced to a severed head , and two new characters; Kidpool, a child, and Dogpool, a dog.
As a side effect, he also has his old, unscarred face once again. Although he spent the majority of the story arc looking forward to dying, he suppresses his desires in order to protect his friend and sidekick Hydra Bob.
After he loses his healing factor, Wilson claims he felt "more alive than ever. Wade managed to defeat Black Box, Black Tom and Black Swan, but in the process, his face was burned and disfigured again.
In that moment, he was surprised by the returned Evil Deadpool, who informed Wade that the serum they took was not permanent, reasons why Wade's face didn't heal or a finger he lost grew back, so Wade would return after Evil Deadpool shot him.
Initially a secret, his bride was revealed in the webcomic Deadpool: The Gauntlet to be Shiklah, Queen of the Undead.
Deadpool also discovers that he has a daughter by the name of Eleanor from a former flame of Deadpool named Carmelita.
During the events of " Original Sin ", it was revealed that Deadpool was tricked into killing his parents by a scientist known as Butler who abducted Eleanor and gave her to his brother , however Deadpool does not know about it.
Much later, he clashed with Carnage , believing the universe was telling to defeat him. Playing mind games, Deadpool tricked Shriek by using his shapeshifting abilities to make her disorient and having her flee.
After the symbiotic Deadpool and Carnage fought again, Deadpool captures Shriek and forces her to impersonate himself, making it trick Carnage into almost killing her in the process.
Feeling broken after a mental breakdown, Carnage allowed himself to be arrested and was placed in an unlocked cell. While sitting in the cell until he was his own self, Carnage swore vengeance on Deadpool.
Deadpool, after defeating Carnage, gives the Mercury Team's symbiotes to Lasher a war dog who helped Deadpool fight Carnage while also bonded with a symbiote to deliver to them to the government.
Deadpool's death occurs in Deadpool , involving story ideas that cowriters Gerry Duggan and Brian Posehn have had in mind since the beginning of the NOW series.
He, along with his family and friends, and presumably everyone on Earth are all killed when the Earth collides with an alternate universe's Earth.
Deadpool laments that the Secret Wars should have stayed an Avengers event, but then dies at peace, content that everybody else is dying with him.
After stealing some potentially life-saving chemicals needed by an ailing Rogue , he is offered membership in the Avengers Unity Squad.
In the course of the following months, Deadpool's popularity skyrocketed after the mercenary Solo impersonated him to piggyback on Deadpool's reputation and take jobs at a higher pay rate.
One of Solo's jobs in Washington, D. After learning of Solo's impersonation, Deadpool came up with the idea to form a group of mercenaries called the Mercs for Money to extend his reach across the globe.
However, Deadpool's newfound popularity forced him to leave his family behind, fearing his enemies could endanger them. Deadpool additionally joined the Avengers Unity Division and used his popularity as a means of funding the team, with the profit from merchandise.
Madcap additionally returned to Deadpool's life, though Wade was unaware his experience inside his mind left Madcap emotionally damaged and vengeful.
Madcap initially posed as an ally, joining the Mercs for Money, but eventually showed his true intentions after he was discovered impersonating Deadpool to defame and threaten his loved onces.
Seeing as he had had enough fun, Madcap used an alien weapon to molecularly disintegrate himself. For his second coming, the villain had Deadpool unwittingly become the carrier of a deadly airborne virus with which he infected his family.
Wade found a cure, though had to resort to Cable's evil clone Stryfe to find it. Around this time, tensions between Shiklah's domain and the surface word sparked an invasion of Manhattan from Monster Metropolis, which in turn led to Shiklah divorcing Deadpool, opting to return to Dracula instead.
Not long after Wade joined the Avengers Unity Division, the real Steve Rogers was secretly supplanted by an evil fascist counterpart from another timeline that operated as a Hydra sleeper agent within the superhero community.
When Phil Coulson became suspicious of Steve, Rogers convinced Deadpool to kill him, claiming that Coulson had gone rogue.
A short time afterwards, Captain America's machinations resulted in Hydra rising to power, taking over the United States of America.
When Hydra's conquest had barely begun, Preston found out about Coulson's death, and confronted Deadpool about it. The fight ended in Preston's death.
As Hydra's empire grew stronger, Wade joined its own version of the Avengers out of blind loyalty for Captain America. Plagued by guilt, Wade held back when tasked with hunting down the rebel alliance known as the Underground, and eventually helped, behind the scenes, to lay part of the foundation of Hydra's eventual defeat.
With his mistakes costing the lives of two of his friends, the love of his daughter, and any respect the world had for him, Deadpool turned his back on what little remained of the life he had built.
As many heroes and villains alike are now hunting for Deadpool's head, Deadpool must accomplish his atonement he can still recover, such as humiliating Hydra Supreme Rogers in his prison, and asking the now returned real Captain America to revive Preston.
Once his atonements were done, Deadpool began to erase every good memory that he unintentionally made worse, restarted his new life and had his criminal records aligned with Hydra made clear.
Although Deadpool erased his memories, the real Captain America managed to recover the photo of him, Deadpool and Wolverine from Deadpool's pocket, the only good piece left which Deadpool will be able to remember.
The character's back-story has been presented as vague and subject to change, and within the narrative he is unable to remember his personal history due to a mental condition.
Whether or not his name was even Wade Wilson is subject to speculation since one of his nemeses, T-Ray , claims in Deadpool 33 that he is the real Wade Wilson and that Deadpool is a vicious murderer who stole his identity.
He has professed to be Canadian. Army Special Forces and given an artificial healing factor based on Wolverine's thanks to Dr. Emrys Killebrew , one of the head scientists.
Deadpool is aware that he is a fictional comic book character. Still, while some of those crosses got kind of silly, I thought Barker did a decent job here.
This is great thank you for an amazing site. Does anyone know how to be informed or to attend a debate? Religion is a product of language and cannot exist without language.
Language is an invention and, therefore, artificial, unnatural and unreal. Everything created by or through the use of language must.
Language speech cannot produce anything real, substantial, organic or natural. According to the ancient Sherpa-Tibetian female folklore the human female developed language hundreds of millions of years ago but never created such things as gods, devils, angels or miracles because such things were false and the women would not allow anyone in their tribe to lie.
When the human male finally learned to talk the women found that males have a propensity to lie so they were banished from the camp whenever they were caught lying.
Notice that whereas the human females are not liars the human male has no compunction about lying. Thus it was the human male who created religion and he created religion for the same reason he creates all of his other crimes: The human male was never needed by, or important to, any other living thing on this planet beginning with the human female and their children.
And the human male could not think of any way they could make themselves important except by creating gods, with such gods saying what the human male wanted them to say: That is the gist of all religious messages: In fact, it once was so cold on this planet that only the female molecules could survive, the male molecules could not.
This is the first of a multi-part debate between an atheist named Jonny Lomond and a christian named Adam Dorsey.
Time can only began to exist if there is state of affiars in actual world in which is no time. Time must come to existence either caused or cannot came into existence.
Time is existing, and cannot came uncaused. State in which is no time cannot be state of inexistence of cause. Only cause capable of creating the time is God.
Timeless state in actual world must be a state of existence of God. Time can only began to exist if there is state of affairs involving existence of God in actual world.
I LOVE that you keep this active. I sincerely hope you find a way to make the table sort-able. Perhaps you can host the list on some other site which does allow it.
I just think this is an invaluable and timeless page to have, and I would love to see it remain updated. Luke, how about using Google Docs for now?
Another debate to add: Warn me Please Quote. Hey mate, appreciate all your work have used your site multiple times for reference. Just wondering if you have this debate with Christopher Hitchens and I believe Kent Hovind is the other man:.
Hey Muto, thanks for that it is Turek. Thanks again for your work lukeprog. Audio is bad but it I think it contains one of the most effective refutations of the trancedental argument I have heard so far.
If you are, would I be safe in assuming your husband believes the same thing? I may need to pose a question at his next debate…. Marilyn Sewell is a Unitarian Universalist who does not believe in the supernatural claims of Christianity, and espouses older theology of the non-existence of God Eriugena, Tillich, etc.
He debates as bad as Phil Fernandes sounds. Paul Manata, one of his audio opponents was a pretty decent antagonist.
He always presents his points powerfully and well. I have a grudging admiration for him. I almost felt embarrassed for WLC. Held 7th of September Keep an eye on this, Luke: I tried 3 times.
Second debate is fine. It worked just fine when I downloaded it just now and extracted it. Maybe try once more? Sometimes if the internet hiccups during download, the resulting file will be broken.
No physicist grows up inculcated that the Copenhagen Model is the best and subsequently offers the most intellectually rewarding experience.
Therefore, they are free to endorse whatever view they feel most accurately represents reality divested of any preceding psychological or childhood-related baggage or bias.
When Craig delineates on New Testament scholarship and claims that the majority are believers, I doubt that very many are say, 30 year old Indian men who moved here for the university experience.
Am I being unfair in this assumption? I suppose another point is that scholars in the sciences have nothing really to gain from the views they endorse.
DSW and Dawkins disputing over group selection is not like Bishop Spong and Craig disputing the literalism of scripture with regard to the resurrection.
If it was demonstrated beyond dispute that he was incorrect, he would probably acknowledge his error and move on. Conversely, how would Craig respond to the discovery of Christs body?
His world would be shattered. Therefore, in my opinion, his objectivity is far from in tact when approaching these matters. Jake, I think one can draw simularities between them: They will behave like new testament scholars.
However there is an important difference: Biblical scholars start studying the bible because they are allready religious.
Hence they study under the assumption that the text is true. Physicist on the other hand start their study of quantum mechanics pretty much open minded regarding interpretations of quantum mechanics.
At least, not as well as I could have. Luke, thanks for a comprehensive list of debates on the god subject.
I think this site must be a wonderful resource for debate fans. I wonder if you, or any viewer knows of a similar site about moving the argument forward as opposed to formal debating.
I remember a conversation between Bertrand Russell and a minister that did spiral in on the topic by mutual agreement.
I suppose that a website today could allow all sides of the question to be fully argued to see where it leads as one argument after another is laid to rest.
I think the Christians inclusion of the Ontological Argument in their argumentative canon shows, if nothing else, the unwillingness or inability to let dead arguments lay to rest.
It takes brilliance no doubt, but of a casuistic borderline disingenuous nature. As a sport it seems worthwhile and for some of these guys it pays well, but the argument is not advanced.
I applaud Dawkins for refusing to share a stage with these gifted windbags. Why are there no good secular humanist debaters? I just listened to Hamza and Philip Nathan and it was the worst possible arguments from a secular humanist.
If you listen to Hamza he is nothing but WLC with an islamic garb, only much less impressive. Is it just that sitting here and watching this debates that you are able to see the fallacies in theistic arguments?
Or it is that these secular humanist debaters are seriously bad? Lukeprog, do you think that there are decent debaters who can point at the fallacious arguments of these theists?
Audio quality is not that well however. I just listened to the debate between Ahmed and Peoples and was a really interesting debate.
Yesterday I also listened to the Price debate on slavery, where he came across as very sensible, rational and persuasive indeed.
Really sorry to be cramping the comments section!! Here is the debate for Robert Price on slavery in the Bible: And here is the debate for Arif Ahmed the guy who debated Habermas and Craig on the moral argument: I come about a mission from the Lord: Everyone needs to listen to one of the new debates, Jeremy Beahan Vs.
Congrats, to you, sir. I then read here: Say what you will about Blair, but I detected a fair amount of intellectual honesty in his both his many repeated concessions and his overall tone.
Hitch actually looks better at 30lbs lighter and without the bangs. An admirable effort regardless of his condition. Craig is a typical opportunistic who can and does play upon the ignorance of the audience.
No-one to my knowledge has challenged him on the assumptions of beginnings, endings, free will, objectivity and a definitive answer to what time actually is.
Hitchens, whom I greatly admire, does not challenge him in these areas. There is a typo on the list. There is no r in his name.
I wonder if a better format than debates would be a Socratic style dialogue with the experts on both sides. At least this would begin to define the interesting questions and move the debate onto fertile ground.
Anyone know of a modern Socrates out there on the web? If human morality is an evolutionary adaptation and if neuroscientists can identify specific brain circuitry governing moral judgment, can scientists determine what is, in fact, right and wrong?
Why are we the only species that are curious about how we got here? And why is it so important to know where we came from?
Moreover, what if we never question our existence. Would there be a belief system or would science exist?
Without the ability to reason, we would exist in the same state of our so-called primative ancestors. At least in the state would not be a threat to creation.
Because the Bible says that mankind came from the earth, it is possible to prove through forensic that life evolved.
It only proves that all life forms came from the earth. There are over things made from oil. These things did evolve from oil.
They were made from our knowledge of creation. Science is nothing more than the knoweldge of creation.
We use the knowledge to make things out of creation and take care of the animals. But there is evidence. Logical and rational reason supported by physical evidence is proof.
The bible gave us a clue that we came from the earth, science have proved it. Darwin observed the bird, The bibles says to asked the bird Job The bible say that the earth was once a supercontinent, and it is round, and hangs on nothing.
Looks like the video link changed for the Richard Carrier vs Mike Licona debate: PCA discontinued the flash stream of the Nov.
A HQ copy of the stream file is available at the link below on hotfile. File size is 1. I think you can see where this is going. Something about this seems like it would be great for your users but a logistical nightmare for you.
What do you think? There is a PDF-transcript. You can translate it with your favorite tool. The relationship between debates regarding the supernatural and the world that is observable is defined in language which is an evolved process from earlier religious, metaphysical, and non-referential times and cultures.
An understanding of physical references in language is something that the craig enthusiasts do not have and cannot have until they are able to set aside their history which is almost not possible.
Although not a debate, I recommend seeing http: I can accept the notion of a black hole even if it defies physical laws no time, no light coming out of it etc.
I know it exists. I rarely hear any debater address WLC arguments directly. WLC has never debated before a science audience.
The venue is almost entirely religious. WLC is an obvious idiot if you understand what he has said and can define the terms that he uses.
Those definitions must be in accord with the measurable world or he has no clue whatsoever of what he is saying. I have understood what he has said and I am able to define many of the terms he uses yet somehow the obviousness of his idiocy has eluded me.
I have yet to hear a single argument from any of his debaters providing a more reasonable or plausible explanation for the subjects debated. I would appreciate it if you could point me to one.
You might want to ask a scientist this question. The measure of his fine tuning argument. It is way beyond his ability to understanding the numbers used or the technique used in achieving this measure.
WLC has very little understanding of math is in a complete fog as are many atheists over the concept of the assumption of beginnings and endings.
You can be sure that WLC like all of the other apologists from the lowly local evangelist to the Pope himself depend on god for nothing except that which is expected to happen after he kicks the bucket.
By that, I mean to revert back to the original question of objectivity. I am sorry that the obviousness of his idiocy eludes you.
Everything that you enjoy in this life is due to the quality of the sciences. Everything in science is assumed before the measure and then development of whatever it is.
The discovery by accident of scientific measure is always in pursuit of that which is assumed to be 3 dimensional with mass, density, and velocity here on earth or on some other body of mass.
I do not assume that everything in existence cannot be measured. There are many millions of things that can be assumed to have the impossibility of being measured and these reside in the areas of imagination, wishful thinking, fiction, art, etc.
In fact I would go so far as to say there is an Infinity of immeasurable assumptions beginning with the idea of ghosts, gods and demons and on to little green men, tooth fairies and Superman.
WLC assumes the reality of gods and devils before the measure. WLC is a fraud and makes his living as do the thousands of others who take advantage of human ignorance.
His audience is almost always religiously oriented because this nation is oriented metaphysically….
Use this to determine whether or not nothingness is possible. If you can determine that nothing is possible then you have measured nothingness. If you have done that then you cannot be an observer for if you are then then nothingness cannot happen because you are assumed to be something.
Nor should you Dar. The apologists who use science in their arguments do not use scientific methods. Their aim is to confuse, rather than advance the argument.
This is not an argument. It is a good trick to pull on the audience, especially if the opponent tries to follow into the gap.
The point is that the apologists are not able to show any credible evidence for their beliefs so they resort to smoke and mirrors.
I guess, the way I seem to observe these discussions is, which argument seems to have the better rational or logical conclusion to the evidence.
Now that explanation may not neccesarily be the right one but it is the best one at the moment. I simply do not understand why an atheist cannot conceed to that.
I think it is because the answer has many other implications which are feared. If you could point me to a debate where somebody has demonstrated a viable and sustainable alternative I would be more than glad to listen and learn.
Well, I think you have other, better options as well. For example, ignore the question entirely, or remain skeptical of all supernatural claims.
The absence of proof against is not proof for a claim. I agree with you that we cannot know god. That hardly makes it better.
But if that were the only gage then someone claiming to speak of love would be speaking of something an atheist or scientist could argue does not exist.
I do believe we can know God. I think our knowledge of God will be a limited one but I think the bible presents a very compelling case for the existence of a God who wants us to know there is nobody like him and he desires to be with us.
These are but a few simple things he shares which would seem to be in line with a God who created things with a meaning and purpose.
I really believe that if a person is willing to consider the best possible explanation to some seemingly unknoweable questions then the conclusion is not that hard to postulate A thing suggested as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
All you seem to need is others to back you up in that faith. Your book has no evidence whatsoever but still the persistence you display says far more about the values you cherish than it does about reality.
I personally have never met a christian or any other person that actually buys that story or any other story about ghosts, demons, or others things that go bump in the night.
I think it has held up very well to criticizm and scrutiny from those who have studied it long and hard. Those willing to follow its trial with objectivity seem to find a different conclusion than those who have already concluded that they will not consider anything but a naturalist explanation.
I personally believe in a naturalistic world view framed with a supernaturalist possibility. All these areas are unknowable by science yet somewhere within our being at one or many points in our lives we ask the questions that transcend scientific or naturalistic understanding.
Dar, I respect your personal belief. If god wants us to know him, he must expect a very select and silent following.
You have, like most people on this planet, been wrong about almost everything for most of your life. Aside from other books almost exactly like it, it is the most ignorant bunch of lies, fairy tales and utterly dangerous nonsense ever taught to children.
Lying to children should be a socially unacceptable and considered a completely deplorable practice but it is not.
In fact it is encouraged and perpetrated all in the name of ignorance. In fact it is child abuse blatantly and openly encouraged.
It is the ruination of the intellect and is appropriate only for the most primitive in the animal species. The silent part I would disagree with and I am clear evidence of that.
In case you are no familiar with the book I reference, here are a few quotes that come to my immediate memory. He came to that which was his own but his own did not receive him.
Joe, I am presuming you to think that you are on the side of reason and I am on the side of blind faith. Can you suggest any reading material for me on this matter?
Can you name one other? I can think of no other book that as I said even comes close when put under the scrutiny and criticism that this text has.
The rest of what you said could blow up a small city because it is so charged with emotion hyperbole on my part.
Joe, there is a whole world out there that you may never truely appreciate because it will never fit into your parameters.
There are billions of human beings who are still dancing around the same fire honestly thinking and predicting the same rainstorm.
However when push comes to shove they will because they must locate the nearest stream, river, or lake in order to drink or water their crops.
You may honestly think that this ghost of yours did speak to this fictitious Moses and may still be able to talk to you through a burning bush or perhaps come to you in a dream or perhaps even govern your life via this book but remember this book has been plagiarized many times as well as forged and rewritten, added to and subtracted from.
Wishful thinking comes in an infinite number of ways. This book of yours is in the end a collection of stories. Very convincing stories to the very primitive mindset but still stories.
The silent part I would disagree with …. The xian bible is a good example. Thank You Maraden for the reference. I did not understand your statement about evangelization or at least the way you framed your statement.
I understand evangilization to stem from the desire of a grateful person who has received a unwarranted gift or choosing if you will. The calling is for all humanity and the choosing is cooperative.
Maradan, The definition I gave you is from a bibical context as well as from a personal context since I do practice evangelism.
Your definition does not address the point YOU raised earlier. As I did with my friend Joe I encourage you to read it and study it yourself so that at the very least you can better grasp the other sides position.
Yes Maraden, by all means do read this book and to be fair and balanced do read also C. Hitchens book to see if what he says about this book is or is not accurate.
Dar, have you seen the craig debate, or read your former colleague Ehrman yet? Some parts are horrific, but a few parts are quite beautiful. My favorites are not in the bible, but should have been imo http: The social aspects are useful and worthwhile.
Take out the moot god parts and the rest seems palatable and even good. Maraden, While it is true that many an academic has lauded and praised this book a beautiful literature I personally find it utterly offensive to praise a book that contradicts itself so many times and remains inconsistent throughout.
After all if this book was not inspired by a deity then it had to be written by human beings. If it was, indeed, written by human beings and they were alive and either speaking or writing this book years ago, give or take two or three hundred years, then it is understandable how they could be so wrong and preposterous so many times.
But deities are not supposed to contradict themselves and treat their kids like so much capricious chattel and planned obsolescence. There is nothing in this book that your parents could not have taught you.
Maraden, I personally find it utterly offensive to praise a book that contradicts itself so many times and remains inconsistent throughout.
Joe you are preaching to the choir. The only nitpick I have is if you think of this as a book rather than a compilation of different authors emphasizing different viewpoints on a theme.
I suggest we develop a welcoming attitude into the mainstream of Humanism for these well meaning but mislead folks. I think many people need a community structure in their lives that religion provides.
Given a good alternative, religions will quickly fade into history. I should have realized you as being the choir. I did not mean to preach although I know I sound that way even verbally.
No-one likes to be preached to. I have always been in favor of the acceptance of changed points of view regarding any religion and I would give kudos and congratulations to anyone who is able to come to this understanding.
I have always been in favor of the acceptance of changed points of view regardingany religion and I would give kudos and congratulations to anyone who is able to come to this understanding.
Regarding my post asking if anyone knew of a website that moves the debate forward, I found this promising Wiki: I seen part of it on YouTube, but those have been deleted as well.
Hamza Tzortzis and Brendan Larvor: Adam Deen vs Brendan Larvor: For some reason most of the Muslim debaters like to challenge lesser known atheist debaters whom they can easily defeat because of their lack of knowledge about Islam.
I have not listened to this fully as yet so cannot pass a judgement as of now. Shabir Ally probably is one of the most articulate Muslim apologist.
By the way this web site and your podcasts both provide plenty of food for thought! Another one, have not listed to this one yet as well.
As I pointed in my last email Brendan Larvor failed miserably in his debate against Hamza. This has to happen if you are unaware of your opponents main arguments.
He somehow has become a copycat WLC for islamic apologetics. I hope someone shows flaws in his arguments soon. The show has now been posted and is available for download.
I was able to correct a number of issues from the first debate and also to press Sye on a number of issues and particularly revelational epistemology and to show the problems with that.
He understands what a doubting christian is going through and shows empathy. Another is Bart Ehrman. Video is up on YT http: Just finished watching the William Lane Craig vs.
Lawrence Krauss debate streaming live…and as a biased Krauss fan, I was excited by his performance. It was nice to his misrepresentations, and general misuse of science corrected in detail.
By the time the question-and-answer period finished, I felt that Krauss had taken control. I too, am a big fan of Dr. While I think he is a great scientist, lecturer and teacher, he is not as adept in this type of formal debate format as he himself admitted.
Krauss was certainly more scattered and frenetic in his approach, and he failed to address several of Dr.
Krauss was prepared for i. Craig also took several jabs at Dr. Craig he essentially admitted he disliked philosophy , and tried to focus instead on his own area of expertise — physics and cosmology; however, I was really disappointed that he did not devote more time or effort into countering Dr.
Towards the end of the debate, Dr. Krauss seemed more steady and comfortable. As Luke has pointed out before, Dr. While I agree with most of Dr.
I really see no point in these debates other than amusement value. You cannot reason someone away from a position that they assumed without reasoning.
When the position is one that rejects rational thought, truth, and observable facts, it is a total waste of time unless you do it for entertainment value.
It is possible that someone already entertaining doubts might be swayed by rational arguments but those people would likely have arrived at the same conclusions by themselves.
Video from the Sam Harris vs. WLC is one of the best theist debaters , given that, I think Sam did comparatively well. Did anyone else notice that Sam had no clue about the miracle of the Sun?
He kept referring to 2 millennium old miracles. Had he known about it he would have certainly repudiated it as a mass hallucination cited the scientific criticism of it and I would say rightly so.
He kept referring to2 millennium old miracles. Did Craig actually stoop to reputed miracles? Why were the only witnesses in a small area?
Why not show a miracle to everyone if the maker is serious and not having fun with the gullible humans? Most of these debates are for entertainment value, rather than truth value.
Their goal is to run out the clock before your opponent can find a reasonable answer to all of your claims. Without any epistemic ground for logical deduction, truth, reliability of their senses, induction, or morals.
Any argument becomes self defeating. IOWs just let it be and ignore all of those arrogant atheists who insist on evidence.
Just pay your taxes and help support this ghost story for them to pass on to their children. Luke, Thanks for a great resource.
After reading this lengthy debate my conclusion is that Keith got very thoroughly spanked. Unfortunately he seems to have no comprehension of this.
He misunderstood point after point after point. The only difference here is that RCrady provided a truly superlative performance. I enjoyed it immensely.
I did very well in that debate. Let me guess, you are an atheist right? My point is it is VERY rare that an atheist well admit that a theist won a debate.
I watched WLC spank his opponents again and again in his debates and there will be a hundred atheist watching the same debate that will claim otherwise.
I defended my position well and my opponent had a lot of weak responses. I remember it quite well. But whatever, say what you want. Not just WLC most people acknowledge that he wins most of his debates but others.
Even where intelligent design is being argued, the naturalist can lose. I heard a podcast featuring William Dembski, and although ID is very bad science so far he dominated that debate.
Personally, I have never known a theist to admit an atheist won a debate. But when the basis of their beliefs are founded upon lies, it is perhaps too much to expect them to recognize truths.
When a person has to reject facts and rational thinking to accept a belief system as ridiculous as theism, how can anyone expect them to be swayed by reason and obvious truths?
Congrats on your win. I wonder what would happen if a top atheist and apologist had a respectful conversation about the evidence for god? I suspect the conversation would become more and more complex and difficult to follow.
However, if both are honest about the process, I think that the apologist will always fail to convince the atheist. What really matters is the best relationship we can fashion to each other and the world, not make our relationships fit some suppositional religious story.
True enough, but look at youtube comments while watching a debate particularly of WLC , and you will find the majority of comments are geared towards people stating that WLC is getting demolished when the exact opposite is occurring.
The only one i can think of is the debate he had with Shelly Kagan, and I admit, he lost. But every other debate he has won decisively and no matter how well he presents his case, or how HORRIBLE his opponents presents theirs, people will still say he lost the debate.
I think it is dishonest and ridiculous. If winning means having the crowd on your side, then wlc easily wins most of his debates. The link in the comments above to the god debate at nortre dame between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig no longer works.
Here is an updated link. I met Eddie Tabash at the convention in Iowa this year. He said that he has tried to debate Craig since 99 but Craig has refused to debate him again………….
Tabash is the top debater there is atheist or theist. Hi Luke, A recent Robert Price debate is here: Hardly an art or a science.