Mark. Here's Dawkins again.

[Boris Norris]

See if you can debunk this.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

See if you can debunk this.

It is quite easy to prove that water has not been changed into wine.

In the times of Jesus, wine was often stored in wineskins. These were used over and over until they began to leak. They were not normally rinsed out. So if one put clear water in a wineskin that had been used over and over, it is likely that the water would dissolve pigments and other elements from previous loads of wine and after being left in the sun for a while, the water would no longer be clear, but wine colored.

 

[mark francis]

See if you can debunk this.

Is Dawkins spewing more of his own ignorance or delusions about God?

 

[Boris Norris]

Is Dawkins spewing more of his own ignorance or delusions about God?

No. He's telling the truth. It's you who has the delusions by thinking you're going to some celestial eternity and god gives you blessings and grace. Dawkins doesn't believe that either. Keep praying old man. Jesus loves idiots.

 

[the annoying thing]

It is quite easy to prove that water has not been changed into wine.

In the times of Jesus, wine was often stored in wineskins. These were used over and over until they began to leak. They were not normally rinsed out. So if one put clear water in a wineskin that had been used over and over, it is likely that the water would dissolve pigments and other elements from previous loads of wine and after being left in the sun for a while, the water would no longer be clear, but wine colored.

really . hate to tell you this and make you look stupid again but wine is esecentally water

It is quite easy to prove that water has not been changed into wine.

In the times of Jesus, wine was often stored in wineskins. These were used over and over until they began to leak. They were not normally rinsed out. So if one put clear water in a wineskin that had been used over and over, it is likely that the water would dissolve pigments and other elements from previous loads of wine and after being left in the sun for a while, the water would no longer be clear, but wine colored.

I enjoy making you stupid again . Water is not wine chemically its very different and has a added hydrogen and carbon . saying it was in wine skin is not turning water into wine lug nut . its called changing the color of water.
Now you seem to be saying that how water was turned into wine .Lol Do you think people didn't know the difference between wine and stained water ? Sorry but even back then people were not as stupid as you are.

 

[the annoying thing]

No. He's telling the truth. It's you who has the delusions by thinking you're going to some celestial eternity and god gives you blessings and grace. Dawkins doesn't believe that either. Keep praying old man. Jesus loves idiots.

no he loves idiots like you

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

really . hate to tell you this and make you look stupid again but wine is esecentally water

I enjoy making you stupid again . Water is not wine chemically its very different and has a added hydrogen and carbon . saying it was in wine skin is not turning water into wine lug nut . its called changing the color of water.
Now you seem to be saying that how water was turned into wine .Lol Do you think people didn't know the difference between wine and stained water ? Sorry but even back then people were not as stupid as you are.

I think that to someone who did not TASTE the wine-colored water, it looked like wine. Behold a MIRACLE!

 

[the annoying thing]

I think that to someone who did not TASTE the wine-colored water, it looked like wine. Behold a MIRACLE!

Lol Behold another opnion on a subject that no one can really say for sure. I give people back then more credit and think they would know the difference.
So I guess you might be right.
It's possible that back then a segment of the population could be that stupid and gullable as proof a segment of the population today thinks million upon million of illegals is good for the nation .
So such ignorance exists even in modern times.

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

No one has a clue who Matthew, Mark, Luke or John actually were, or whether any of them was an actual eyewitness to anything Jesus said or did. The Gospels are not eyewitness reports: no reputable Biblical scholar believes they are.

 

[mark francis]

No. He's telling the truth. It's you who has the delusions by thinking you're going to some celestial eternity and god gives you blessings and grace. Dawkins doesn't believe that either. Keep praying old man. Jesus loves idiots.

It takes real ignorance and gullibility to believe Dawkins has scientifically disproven life after death.

 

[Boris Norris]

It takes real ignorance and gullibility to believe Dawkins has scientifically disproven life after death.

It takes real ignorance and gullibility to believe you get life after death.

Where's your evidence old man? Slip another but of god quotes into me. That always works.

 

[mark francis]

It takes real ignorance and gullibility to believe you get life after death.

Where's your evidence old man? Slip another but of god quotes into me. That always works.

What evidence are you looking for? Evidence that there is life after death or evidence that there isn't life after death?

 

[Boris Norris]

What evidence are you looking for? Evidence that there is life after death or evidence that there isn't life after death?

Evidence there is life after death. See how good you are with your irrefutable evidence.
I'll bet you can't prove anything.

 

[Tripoli]

See if you can debunk this.

Dawkins is a babbling nobody

 

[mark francis]

Evidence there is life after death. See how good you are with your irrefutable evidence.
I'll bet you can't prove anything.

When it comes to God, origins, souls, spirits, and the like science is as dumb as a rock.