Text 19576, 58 rader
Skriven 2005-12-21 09:21:45 av Björn Forsström (2:203/614.61)
  Kommentar till text 19493 av SHANNON TALLEY (1:275/311)
Ärende: Editorial
=================

>> Then, let me ask you, being a Christian, are you absolutely certain beyond a
>> shadow of a doubt that there exist a God? It doesn't require a great deal of

 ST> Yes.

OK.

>> thought -- a simple yes or no will suffice. If the answer is 'yes', please
>> elaborate and explain to this group how you care absolutely certain that
>> there is a God.

 ST> I've seen him in my own way.  I have no doubt of the existence of God.

Not much of evidence now, is it? It's only in your mind, like the WMD:s in
Iraq and that they have been moved.
When you saw him, did he stand beside the WMD:s in Iraq?
If he did it might explain the existence of them.
Me, being an atheist, believe that you who believe in a God can make up
anything just to justify your own words without having any, what so ever
proof and it must be nice to have a God to hide behind and say: "I did it in
the name of my God" when things doesn't go your way.

>> You haven't seen him, I guess, and you haven't seen the WMD:s either and the
>> same goes for me so I can't be more sure about their non-existance as you
>> can be of their existance so that will lead us to a draw, doesn't it?

 ST> Since I have no doubt about god, then you have no basis to continue this
 ST> discussion.

It's all in what you WANT to believe and if you try hard enough you might see
it all in a dream because that's all it is, dreams.

>> you accuse someone of someting you better have this evidence otherweise (we
>> make it the American way) he's innocent until proven guilty.

 ST> The Bill of Rights ONLY covers Citizens of the United States.  Saddam is
 ST> an Enemy combatant and is NOT protected by our constitution.  Again, you
 ST> have no relevant argument here.

That's because you *made* him your combatant for your own purpose.

>> And now the judge in this court (Bush) have said that he (Saddam) IS
>> innocent and since you believed Bush when he said that there were WMD:s,

 ST> Seriously Bj"rn, you are assuming that Saddam is on trial for the WMD's...
 ST> He isn't.  Find some relevant news sources (preferably someplace like the
 ST> BBC), read them, and then find out what he is really on trial for and THEN
 ST> come back and have this conversation with me.  For the most part, I think
 ST> you are a pretty amiable fellow, and I don't want to make you look dumb,
 ST> or stupid -- or even argue with you.  Honestly, just go do some research
 ST> first -- 'before' assuming he is on trial for possession of WMD's.

But those WMD:s were the reason Bush gave to justify the invation of Iraq
so I think that it pretty much have to do with the whole question.

---
 * Origin: . (2:203/614.61)