On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:42:25 GMT, Will <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>Al Klein <rukbat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>news:hn0ai3tbm4pkdtnbmh5pknesg2cerh6j6n@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 02:53:06 GMT, Will <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Al Klein <rukbat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>news:jdl7i3tlocrinn11mjvcca7ge792og37b2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 19:45:49 GMT, Will <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Al Klein <rukbat@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>news:q527i3pmb02aagbk1f7f4i1ci6h7802m98@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:37:33 GMT, Will <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:re3Ui.6130$b9.4174
>>>>>>>@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are many hundreds of religious and god beliefs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you know your belief is the correct belief and all the
>>>others
>>>>>>>> are fakes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>By the daily miracles, signs, and wonders. By the prophecies that
>>>>>>>have been fulfilled, and are still being fulfilled today? By the
>>>>>>>grace that He has extended me. By the answered prayers. By the
>>>>>>>unanswered prayers. By faith and love.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, you don't have a clue.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not the one asking the questions here, you are. Try reading my
>>>>>answer, however, instead of writing your own IOW answer.
>>>>
>>>> Not a single one of your assertions is objective, so you have no
>>>> objective evidence, you have only your belief - as evidence that
>>>> your belief is correct? The illogic is astounding.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would any real God permit his creations to be so deceived?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why don't you ask Him with an open mind and an open heart?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you post objective evidence that "he" objectively
>>>>>> exists?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because I'm not the one asking the loaded question
>>>>
>>>> No, you're the one claiming that your god objectively exists.
>>>
>>>I never claimed them to be.
>>
>> You claimed that your god produced "miracles, signs, and wonders",
>
>He does.
That's a claim that he objectively exists, meaning that you have
objective evidence, so post it. If you don't realize that claiming
miracles is claiming possession of objective evidence, so be it, but
that still doesn't mean that you aren't making the claim, it just
means that you don't realize that you're making it. A young child
alone in a room with a broken cookie jar, and chocolate smears all
over his hands and face, making the claim that a monster broke the jar
and ate the cookies, *IS* making a totally ludicrous claim that
contradicts objective evidence, even though he's totally unaware that
he is. But the claim is still totally ludicrous. So is the claim
that your god "does" things, unless you can post the objective
evidence that your god objectively exists.
> At least, I've seen them in my life.
You've seen unlikely things happen and you decide that they're
miracles. That's not the same thing as seeing things happen that are
impossible, which is what a miracle is.
>> that it fulfilled prophecies,
>OK. The Dead-Sea Scrolls have been R-14 dated back to well before the
time
>of Christ, and within these are prophecies that related to Christ.
Only if you distort them, the way Isaiah has been distorted. His name
doesn't appear on any of them.
>When you examine the synoptic gospels, and compare them to the
prophecies from
>the Dead Sea Scrolls, than the evidence speaks for itself.
So it's absolutely impossible that people in 325 AD knew what had been
written a few hundred years before? You set a VERY low standard for
miracles. "If it's HIGHLY likely, and it happens, it's a miracle."
Then just about everything is a miracle. Except you. Do you know how
UNLIKELY it is that you should exist? Close enough to 0 probability
that the fact that your mother had you when she gave birth, and not
some other child, is indeed a miracle. Nothing to do with any god,
though.
>> These are objective acts that require something that objectively exists
to
>> accomplish.
>Is that what they are? I thought they were simply acts of God.
You'd first have to show objective evidence that this god exists in
order to claim that he acted. Acting requires objective existence.
You're merely assuming your conclusion and arguing in a circle. "The
evidence that my god exists is that these things are acts of his."
Might as well claim Biblical proof - "the Bible claims it's the word
of God, and it claims that God exists, so that's proof that God
exists." Just as ridiculous.
>In any event, the R-14 dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls
What the heck is R-14? Something you've invented?
> in and of itself is objective
The fact that do***ents existed prior to the year 1 isn't objective
evidence of any god's objective existence, it's objective evidence
that THE DO***ENTS existed. If a do***ent, that could be ACCURATELY
WITH NO QUESTION dated to, say, 100 BC, stated that a virgin named
Miryam, married to a man named Yosuf, would give birth to a child they
would name Yeshua, in exactly X years, that would be an accurate
prophecy. Not a miracle, but at least one accurate prophesy (of which
the Bible has exactly zero).
The fact that a do***ent, written at a time when everyone and his
uncle was claiming to be the savior, claimed that a savior would be
born, is about as much a miracle as a do***ent written now that
"predicts" that the US will have a president in 2009.
You want a miracle? Let's see a do***ent written in the 1960s that
predicted 9-11, by time, date, sequence, flight numbers and names of
the "terrorists" involved.
>but the rest is personal.
The rest is still just your assumption that your god exists, because
some long odds came in.
>>> In fact, within this thread, I have claimed
>>>just the opposite, that I am not here to prove
>>
>> Sorry, but claiming that your god objectively exists (which, if you
>> have any intelligence at all, you'll see from the above that you did)
>
>/sigh/
>
>[begin logical argument]
>
>[begin construct (from dictionary.com)]
>
>claim: an assertion of something as a fact
You claim, as a fact, that your god acted (in some way - the details
are irrelevant).
>My claim:
That your god acted, therefore your god objectively exists (meaning
that you have objective evidence of its existence) so post the
objective evidence.
>Your claim:
>
>You have asserted of fact that my belief is a claim.
No, YOU have asserted that your god acted. (Produced [an act]
miracles, produced [an act] signs and produced [an act] wonders. Your
words, not mine. I'm not responsible for your lack of understanding
what your words mean.)
>> No, I go to the source - and, in this case, YOU'RE the source of the
>> claim.
>As far as claims go, see above.
I see, above, you claiming that your god objectively acted.
>As far as truth goes, see source
That's you, the source of the above claim.
>> And my brain ceased all function for quite a while, which is the
>> definition of death.
>Well, then consider yourself blessed.
"Blessed" by the fact that I live in a time in which DOCTORS can bring
recently deceased people back to life. No miracle involved. The
brain doesn't immediately totally putrefy at the instant of death.
Let's see your god bring someone back to life who's been stabbed in
his side deeply that fluid runs freely, then left in desert heat (and
the inside of a stone tomb would be very warm) for 3 days. Let's see
him, under laboratory conditions, bring people back to life from the
grave - the claim is that Jesus did that with people long dead and
rotted.
Let's see ANY of the miracles claimed in the Bible being performed
under laboratory conditions.
>BTW, FYI, in my belief, you wouldn't
>see God until the resurrection after Christ's second comming
Which HE CLAIMED would occur during the lifetime of at least one
person hearing the claim. ALL of them are now dead (and have been for
almost 2 millennia), so he's just a tad late. We call that a failed
prophesy.
And your "belief" flies in the face of Christian belief, which is that
we individually face God immediately upon death of the body.
>> But prove me wrong - post A SINGLE objective miracle.
>See below. Again, I don't care what you call it, the fact remains that
the
>baby is alive and well now, despite having come so close to death that
the
>doctors and nursing staff in ICU didn't have much hope for the poor
child.
"Didn't have much hope" and "there's no possibility that the baby will
survive" are worlds apart, yet only survival under the LATTER
condition could even come close to being a miracle. (And, then, only
if the speaker was all-knowing. "We don't know of any way it could
possibly happen" isn't the same as "it couldn't happen".)
>Now, I don't know if you have a doctorate or not, but if a staff of
people
>medically trained, some with nursing degrees and some with doctorates,
come
>to the conclusion that a miracle took place
No, they came to the conclusion that there was very little chance that
the baby could survive - that means there was SOME chance. *YOU* came
to the conclusion that something unlikely that happens anyway is a
miracle. Then we see miracles every week. People win lotteries
against odds of millions to one. Every single person alive is so
unlikely as to have made that baby's survival a certainty. (Out of
the almost infinite number of possible combinations of genes, how
likely is it that your particular combination would have occurred just
at the instant you were conceived? More likely than that a baby with
million-to-one odds against surviving would survive? Nonsense.)
A miracle is something happening that *CAN NOT* happen, not something
that's not very likely to happen.
>than to me that outweighs any
>uncertainty that you could possibly try to stir up.
What "uncertainty"? You're redefining "miracle" to mean "unlikely
event". That's nonsense. Post ONE OBJECTIVELY REAL MIRACLE. That
means something we know that, beyond ANY doubt, COULD NOT happen, yet
did.
Of course you'll have to post exactly how we know it couldn't happen.
Proof that is totally beyond doubt, etc. ("Laws of physics", "natural
laws", etc, are far from being beyond doubt.)
>> All I'm asking you for is objective evidence, not fairy tales.
>Great. The story I provided above is real, and happenned to a family
>within my congregation.
And, since it's only long odds, not total impossibility, it's long
odds, not a miracle. No matter HOW long the odds, there IS a chance
that it could happen - that's what "odds" means. If it's possible,
regardless of how unlikely it is, it's not a miracle.
>Now, here's an im****tant question, and perhaps the most im****tant
question.
>If what you BELIEVE is the truth, than why is it so im****tant for you
that
>the world believe as you do.
If the world attempts to force me to live as if its fantasies are
reality, there's a problem. And that's exactly what Christianity is
attempting to do in the US. Take education, for example. Christianity
wants kids to be taught that evolution doesn't happen. If everyone
believes that, *I* could contract a disease that has EVOLVED
resistance to all known antibiotics, and die, because people don't
"believe" that THEIR stopping a course of antibiotics as soon as they
feel better can be dangerous to MY health. That's kind of im****tant
to me.
Take embryonic stem cell research as another example. Christianity
wants blastocysts thrown out before stem cells can be harvested. If I
break my neck, that research could have led to advances that would
prevent my total paralysis. That's kind of im****tant to me.
Take *** education as another example. Christianity wants kids taught
that abstinence is the ONLY acceptable method of birth control. Since
total abstinence doesn't work (pregnancy rates are actually higher
among kids who have been taught this rubbish), it leads to - since
Christianity wants to criminalize ALL abortions, except those done by
its god - unwanted children, broken families, higher crime, higher
taxes due to the need for more welfare ... That's kind of im****tant
to me.
Abortions. Nicaragua, due to CHRISTIAN influence, has criminalized
ALL abortions. So if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy, both she and
the fetus are sentenced to death, (It's IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to
survive an ectopic pregnancy without an abortion.) Sentencing
innocent people to death is kind of im****tant. (And, no, the fetus
WON'T survive, abortion or no abortion.)
And there are thousands of other reasons that it's im****tant to me
that people keep their religious beliefs to themselves.
It should be im****tant to you, for at least 2 reasons:
1) If some religion other than Christianity becomes dominant, and
you're forced to live by the beliefs of another religion, you won't be
too happy.
2) Your god, Jesus, TOLD YOU to keep it to yourselves. You're
committing the sin of disobeying your god by making it public. If
you're really a Christian, not just someone who uses the name to get
what he wants.
>I haven't tried one bit to pursuade you to my belief
See above. You're not a pro-choice, pro-teaching-evolution,
pro-embryonic-stem-cell-research, pro-REAL-***-education-in-schools,
pray-in-your-closet, leave-where-your-preaching-isn't-wanted Christian
are you? IOW, the kind of Christian JESUS, your god, not Paul, told
you to be?
>as the only way to really get true believers is by acts of kindness
>and love, not a meaningless war of words.
Not in a group in which we consider belief to be what it is - a mental
defect. But you're posting to such a group. Why? Do you really hope
to win converts here? Why should we convert to being mentally
defective?
>In fact, the only thing I've
>tried to pursuade anyone in this NG on is having some tolerance for those
>who choose to believe differently.
Religious belief being forced on non-believers SHOULD NOT be
tolerated. Do you want to be forced to bow down 5 times a day toward
Mecca? (And that wouldn't kill or even harm you in any way.)
>So, since I choose to believe
>differently than you, let me ask you, is your faith in your belief that
>unsteady that you feel you must get the world to believe as you do?
Atheism isn't a belief, it's LACK OF a particular belief. It isn't
that my lack of belief is unsteady, it's that my BELIEF that religion
can destroy civilization, and even the human species, if left alone,
that troubles me. If you Christians would simply pray in your
closets, as you believe Jesus ordered you to do (it says so in your
Bible - the word of your god), no one would care. But Christianity is
too hypocritical to actually obey Jesus' words when they're
inconvenient, or when they're not what you wish they were. At very
best, you 'interpret' them to mean what you want them to mean. Do you
really think an omnipotent, omniscient god didn't say EXACTLY what he
meant to say? That he needs mere men to 'interpret' his infallible
words?
>When it comes down to it, most atheists I meet are just like most theists
I
>meet. Everything has to be their way
You're looking at it backwards. Reality *IS* reality. We see
reality, you see fantasy, and you insist that we live as if your
fantasy is reality. We don't want everything to be our way - "our
way" is the way everything is BECAUSE that's what really is. You want
everything to be the way your fantasy is - forcing it on the entire
world. Teach kids ***ual abstinence and they'll abstain from ***?
Reality PROVES that to be false. Criminalize abortions and fewer
women will have abortions? Reality PROVES that to be false. Teach
that evolution is false and bacteria will stop evolving? Reality
PROVES that to be false. Make embryonic stem cell research illegal
and blastocysts won't be discarded? Reality PROVES that to be false.
>and if the world doesn't believe as
>they do, than the unbelievers must be, by default, one step lower on the
>evolutionary scale. Seriosly (and this goes to any theists that would
fall
>in this category as well), it's time to grow up.
Yes, it is. Religious belief is a "warm blanky" for children afraid
of death, so it's time you listened to those who ARE grown up, and
stop believing this childish nonsense you call your religion. That
warm blanky is too dangerous to be allowed to continue. You're
playing with matches in a room soaked in gasoline.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation
and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger
with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change
them."
- Abraham Lincoln
|
