Singularity v. Bubba on whether the Bible is Reasonable

Trell,

It is a Biblical tradition for God to use other men. Here I am.


The Lord is real.

If you ignore this, that's your choice. So be it.

Christ said knock on the door, if they won't listen, shake the dust from your feet on go on to who will.

The problem is not with the intellectual argumentation, it is with the heart.

 

I ask this rhetorically and expect no answer, but how hard have you been listening?

Truth be told, I am not in the habit of listening for little voices to just start talking to me.

Trell,

It is a Biblical tradition for God to use other men. Here I am.

HI!

The Lord is real.

If you ignore this, that's your choice. So be it.

How do I know you aren't one of the following: lying, wrong, nuts? Give me proof here man. More than words. I saw a flying cow yesterday name Will. Those are words. You would want proof of this to believe it though.

Christ said knock on the door, if they won't listen, shake the dust from your feet on go on to who will.

The problem is not with the intellectual argumentation, it is with the heart.

Not really. Nobodies speaking. I have heard nothing.

Okay, how about this. I swear to god, I will believe in god, if there is a BIG flash of lightining in the next 3 minutes. GO.

-P!-

 

The Lord is real.

If you ignore this, that's your choice. So be it.


A quote from a nice song called, "Hell yeah."


So vote for me for Savior and you'll go to heaven
Your lame duck Lord is like Kevin Spacey in "Seven"
With creepy threats of H-E-Double-Hockey-Stick

Ah, I love that, it's soo....true.

 

Last time I checked, my heart was responsible for depositing oxygen-enriched blood to parts of my body that needed it, and to get oxygen-poor blood to the lungs for replenishment.

I find it so humorous that before you get the cookie, you have to promise that you'll believe you'll soon get a cookie.

I can suggest myself that my arm is weightless. I've done it numerous times. Its very freaky. It just hovers, and weighs nothing. Until, of course, you actually turn the brain on, snap out of it, and go "duh, I'm holding my freaki'n arm out". But under the self-suggestion it is QUITE real to you, and you amaze yuourself quite easily.

So, any evidence requiring you to first tell yourslef not to be sceptical about whats coming is precicely the kind of thin you need to be the most sceptic about.


So, what happened in Georgia?

Did you photograph any blatantly obvious lens flares claiming them to be paranormal?

/Z

 

Two minutes. Clear skies.

-P!-

 

I'm thinking god striking us down would be kinda like a Force choke.

 

"He's not an ahteist, Enforcer's agnostic, stooge."
signed, xxoo, Fire_Ice_Death

"My English professor would cry tears of blood at this grammatical mess."
signed, xxoo, Fire_Ice_Death


Yep, that adequately sums it up.

 

It's been like 4 minutes. No lightning. God has done didle to prove he exists. Guess there is nobody up there with anything to prove...

-P!-

 

Oooohhh Brooks...yoooohooo...

 

Zap,

I've seen more than you can possibly accept.

Fortunately, I never chose to put such restrictions on possibility and reality.

I was never so arrogant as to think that all that could be must be subject to me.

 

Pfft, yeah, how dare these things fall into the realm of science!

You've seen more than we can accept? Like what? You just tell us it's out there but never say what.

-P!-

 

Darth Brooks - try me. Lay it all on me.

But first, apologize about that thing about my father.

/Z

 

Oh, thanks for reminding me Zap.

I have to say, I have never believed in god or Santa. Both were equally nutty to me. Then I was taught stuff like creation and original sin. And all of a sudden, god got even more nutty.

I didn't believe in god years before I hated my dad.

-P!-

 

FID,


You know, it is entirely for your own sake I wish you'd lay off.


If I'm delusional, "schizo," mentally unbalanced, what does that make some of you?

What kind of individual's would torment a cripple?

So, if I've told you the truth, you've shown yourself.
And, if I'm simply disturbed, who's the worse for your behavior?


And you think your world is better without a "god."

 

You know, it is entirely for your own sake I wish you'd lay off.

For my own sake? Naw?I know you?d wish that I did; which is why I won?t.

If I'm delusional, "schizo," mentally unbalanced, what does that make some of you?

That would probably make some of us the opposite. But the schizo comment was directed toward Trell, not you.

What kind of individual's would torment a cripple?

You?re crippled? Sorry to hear it.

So, if I've told you the truth, you've shown yourself.

And it would only be the truth in your opinion.

And, if I'm simply disturbed, who's the worse for your behavior?

Probably the one making threats of going to hell.

And you think your world is better without a "god."

Indeed it is. See, I?m not restricted by its indoctrination.

 

"And you think your world is better without a 'god.'"

Preferences have nothing to do with it in my view. We live in a world with zero evidence of any kind of divine presence or supernatural intervention...

...or so I have to conclude although DB keeps alluding to evidence, which he will not share with us, apparently for fear we might not believe him.

"I've seen more than you can possibly accept."

 

_Darth_Brooks

I don't mean this to be mean or sarcastic, but to be honest, you do tend to have run on sentences. It does make it hard to follow what you are saying sometimes.

Also, if I may ask again, are there any similarities between your father and the Lord? You may very well be right when you talked about that before.

Zap

To be honest, from my point of view, you are clinging to the thought that it is impossible to prove a negative as blindly as it seems you think the theists cling to the idea of God.

So you try to redefine Santa. Fine. Redefine him in any way you want as long as it matches what we know Santa must be. You can give him the power to be invisible, make doppelgangers of our parents, whatever you want. But once we agree on what Santa is, even in part, it is in theory possible to disprove it.

Also, by saying Santa is like this or that, you are asserting something which you can in theory prove since you it would be proving a positive!

Not to mention that the more important question is what evidence or proof do you have that the theists are mistaken in their experience with God? How do you know so well that they are wrong? You seem to believe it with just as much vigor and enthusiasm as say Brooks believes in the Lord?

 

The problem with theists asserting that certain miracles, usually the ones contained in the religious texts they have showered their faith upon, are historical events is the same problem theists encounter with the faith itself. Just as theistic faith appears completely arbitrary, a Christian's(for example) embrace of Christian miracle claims and rejection of non-Christian miracle claims exhibits the same sort of arbitrary and inconsistent thought process.

Generally, Christians can't provide a reasonable basis as to why they believe that Jesus walked on water but that Asclepius did not even though there is qualitatively equivalent support for both "miracles."

Christians can't provide a reasonable basis as to why they believe that Jesus made the blind see yet Asclepius did not so the same even though there is equivalent evidence for both.

Christians can't provide a reasonable basis as to why they believe that the Red Sea parted for Moses but that Alexander the Great did not also part the sea before his march in The Iliad.

Christians can't provide a reasonable basis why they believe [insert Christian miracle claim here] but do not believe the alleged miracle of The Bab of the Bahai faith and his "miracluous" survival and subsequent vanishment from a firing squad.

Christians have not advanced a reasonable basis for their faith in only Christian claims and their belief in only Christian miracles. Quoting the Bible is not sufficient. Differentiating Christianity from other religions is what is required. Otherwise, a theist should find himself presented with the dilemna of different religions with qualitatively equivalent supporting material. And now I direct you to my sig file...

Christians. I implore you. Make your case. Why should Christianity deserve your faith and your belief in its miracles while you discard all other religions and other miracles that have been mentioned throughout history? What evidence exists to separate Christianity from these other religions? Bubba surely hasn't provided such evidence yet. Perhaps one of you other theists can do so. Differentiate Christian miracle claims from other miracle claims. Explain why the miracle claims of Jesus are authentic while those of Asclepius and countless others are frauds. Explain why the eyewitness accounts of various Christian miracles are valid while the eyewitness accounts of The Bab's miraculous survival and vanishment are mistaken frauds.

 

Right, but many theists will say that they have seen or somehow experienced God, the literal Biblical Christian Lord of the Universe. Obviously that is not enough for an atheist or agnostic to believe. It would be very nice if they could prove it, but unfortunately they cannot really.

However, I got the impression that you asserted that they are mistaken. I want to know why you think or believe that? Do you have evidence of that? Physiological reports about needing hope or authority? Any evidence that they are mistaken? Or did I not understand what you said.

 

Singularity, if you think there is no qualitative difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon -- even though the civilizations in the Book of Mormon can't even be verified by archaeology -- why should any of us theists think you're capable of being honest about the evidence at all?

I'll go ahead and address what I'm sure you'll make as a retort: no, that doesn't prove Mormonism wrong and no, that doesn't prove Christianity right.

But surely the fact you can find Rome and Jerusalem today but not any city mentioned in the Book of Mormon means something, doesn't it? That there's some difference in terms of the support of both books, doesn't it?

Implore all you want, but there's little reason to think you'd actually listen.

 

Singularity, if you think there is no qualitative difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon -- even though the civilizations in the Book of Mormon can't even be verified by archaeology -- why should any of us theists think you're capable of being honest about the evidence at all?

Bubba - I think you are smarter than this. I have already dealt with the issue of historical accuracy and its irrelevance to the supernatural claims of a text.

If you believe that the validity of an entire text is determined by the amount of collateral historicity that exists then you should be a Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Christian and likely dozens of other religions all at once. Hell, I can make one right now. "The religion of the Copper Clown. Bob, the supreme entity of all the universe, lived in the Bronx. Bob lived on 89 Martone Street in an old red brick building with a faded Coke ad on the northern face. Now, Bob floats around Cleveland. Bob requires that all of his followers pay for everything with pennies." Let's see. Bronx. Check. 89 Martone Street. Check. Faded Coke ad on northern face. Check! Oh my Bob! I need to start cashing my paycheck into pennies!

Of course, this is a completely absurd way to corroborate supernatural claims. Qualitative comparisons of texts and religious materials is not an exercise in picking arbitrary factors that you have already determined are in the favor of your preferred religious text and jumping up and down and using boldface HTML. Such epistemological chicanery smells of intellectual dishonesty and deceit, i.e., of someone not interested in a dispassionate and objective evaluation of the matter at hand but rather at proving an assumption in which the person has invested such a significant sum they are unable or unwilling to even evaluate its merits objectively.

I'll go ahead and address what I'm sure you'll make as a retort: no, that doesn't prove Mormonism wrong and no, that doesn't prove Christianity right.

But surely the fact you can find Rome and Jerusalem today but not any city mentioned in the Book of Mormon means something, doesn't it?

Yes, it means you can fine Rome and Jerusalem but not any city mentioned in the Book of Mormon. You can find any city mentioned in the Koran also. Ready to rename yourself Ali Ali Bubba Mustafa?

That there's some difference in terms of the support of both books, doesn't it?

No it doesn't for the clear and obvious reasons already stated.

Implore all you want, but there's little reason to think you'd actually listen.

I listened (or read) and responded. Your attempt to set the Bible apart is unconvincing. Next.

P.S. These people seem to think they have evidence for some of the BoM stuff. Nephi Project

 

Do you even read what I write?

I admit that the lack of archaelogical support for the Book of Mormon doesn't prove Mormonism wrong, and I admit that the archaelogical support for the Bible doesn't prove Christianity right.

Does that stop you from acting as if I did otherwise? Noooooo.


"That there's some difference in terms of the support of both books, doesn't it?"

No it doesn't for the clear and obvious reasons already stated.

What you stated -- and I agree with you here, though you act as if I don't -- is that the archaeological difference doesn't prove anything conclusively.

That's right.

But it does suggest that one is more trustworthy than the other, doesn't it? Even if it's just by a teensy, weensy bit?

Otherwise, how can we make any judgment calls about any text, religious or otherwise?


Let's remove religion and claims for the supernatural out of it for a moment.


Let's say you have two history books. One says that Rome is the capital of Italy, the other says Rome is the capital of France.

If you know from other sources that Rome is the capital of Italy, doesn't that mean that the second books is at least somewhat less reliable than the first?

 

Wow, this thread has grown up since last time I checked !

But it does suggest that one is more trustworthy than the other, doesn't it? Even if it's just by a teensy, weensy bit?

I agree, but what is the point your are trying to make. Sure some of the places where the stories of the Bible are set still exist, but it doesn`t prove anything. You admit that yourself, but I wonder, what is your point, exactly ?

And on another note, when will the debate continue ?

 

Still working on the reply -- did too much posting in other, current threads today, to be honest.


I agree, but what is the point your are trying to make. Sure some of the places where the stories of the Bible are set still exist, but it doesn`t prove anything. You admit that yourself, but I wonder, what is your point, exactly ?

My point is this: if Singularity can't even admit that there is a difference in terms of the support for the Bible and the support for the Book of Mormon, then there's no point discussing anything in terms of evidence.

 

Ali Ali Bubba wrote:

But it does suggest that one is more trustworthy than the other, doesn't it?

Bubba - put the HTML down for a moment and listen. Archeological context is meaningless when evaluating supernatural claims. The Bible, the BoM, the Koran, etc. are all religious texts asserting supernatural events and agents. It is the supernatural claims that must be evaluated - not how many ancient cities were cited in the text.

Let's remove religion and claims for the supernatural out of it for a moment.

Ok, so now we aren't attempting to evaluate supernatural or religious claims anymore and are on an entirely different subject.

Let's say you have two history books. One says that Rome is the capital of Italy, the other says Rome is the capital of France.

If you know from other sources that Rome is the capital of Italy, doesn't that mean that the second books is at least somewhat less reliable than the first?

Less reliable on historical accuracy concerning geography yes. But what if the Italy/Rome book also said that all blue-eyed people should be shot in the head immediately while the France/Rome book espoused the Golden Rule. Are you going on a mad rampage against blue-eyed people because Rome is the capital of Italy? Of course not. Neither would you view other claims of the Italy/Rome book any differently than the France/Rome book. Each fact claim must be judged on its own merits.