The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:47 PM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 36,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I'm betting the friends are laughing their asses off at what this guy will believe.
Someone who will believe anything they are told is irresistible bait to the sense of humor of some people.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #252  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:52 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
I believe in a God who respects man's free will to do whatever the heckfire he wants, and will not force himself upon man. You want to find God, you gotta seek him with an open heart and mind. Going to church would be a start.
So, this God would allow the people who chose which of the many writings available would become the Bible, make mistakes and choose an uninspired book? Then the evidence that says the writings of the Bible were changed in translation and copying repeatedly and there are many variations, is correct, because God because God would allow those changes to be made?
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 04-30-2012, 08:05 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Can you prove conclusively that Adam was NOT 90 feet tall? I mean, there is a book that millions of people believe in that says he was. Where in the bible does it give Adam's exact height? Go look, I'll wait.....

So I guess Adam was 90 feet tall. Because a book and a lot of devout people say so. And you can't prove that Adam was less than 90 feet tall.
I'm pretty sure feet and inches weren't the same back them so 90 early creation feet is really only 5 foot four in modern measurements.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 04-30-2012, 08:24 PM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post

But thank you for proving the Bible - Matthew 10:22
It is hard to overcome that "Yay me, I'm a martyr" mindset.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 04-30-2012, 08:37 PM
sisu sisu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmosdan View Post
So, this God would allow the people who chose which of the many writings available would become the Bible, make mistakes and choose an uninspired book? Then the evidence that says the writings of the Bible were changed in translation and copying repeatedly and there are many variations, is correct, because God because God would allow those changes to be made?
yep you are correct, sorry it does not fit the view of Geepers but well.....
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 04-30-2012, 09:45 PM
shy guy shy guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
You have insulted me and my friends by suggesting our supernatural experiences are merely lies.
Firstly, saying that you and your friends are mistaken about the nature of your experiences is not saying that you are lying. To the extent that you think certain experiences of yours are the result of magic, I think you are dead wrong about that, but I don't doubt that you believe that. I will again note, however, the double standard; you have accused atheists of being liars about pretty much everything on multiple occasions in this thread alone, so you aren't setting the standard of good faith discussion very high.

Secondly, if you refused to take anybody seriously unless he accepts that you're right about the nature of your experiences, then there isn't any point in the discussion in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:02 AM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 51,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Wow, so scientists can make mistakes,
Science could quite reasonably be described as the process of deliberately making mistakes, then learning from them. The scientific method develops a notion of 'what we think something is by systematically eliminating what we can prove that thing *is not*.
Finding out you've been wrong, in science, is more interesting (and therefore quite actively pursued) than thinking you're right.

Quote:
and therefore, atheists who practically worship the scientists as gods can actually be wrong?
Nobody really does that.

Last edited by Mangetout; 05-01-2012 at 02:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:22 AM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Jesus raised people from the dead in his day. That didn't convince the skeptics back then.
Well, yeah, what about that? How come his disciples allegedly saw him raise the dead, walk on water, feed the 5000, and on and on, and still didn't believe he had risen, without seeing him for themselves?

In fact, the other day you told me that the reason you couldn't cast a mountain into the sea was because Jesus was only talking about his disciples when he said believers would be able to do anything they wanted. So not only did they see him do all these miracles, but they were given the power to do them themselves, and they STILL didn't believe he had risen.

Since Jesus's disciples were hand-picked to start his church, they must be worthy of emulation. They didn't believe eyewitnesses who were well known to them about Jesus rising, so why should anyone believe stories from anonymous authors who are just repeating what they heard -- that is, if they didn't make it up?

Last edited by TonySinclair; 05-01-2012 at 04:23 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 05-01-2012, 05:44 AM
cosmosdan cosmosdan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by sisu View Post
yep you are correct, sorry it does not fit the view of Geepers but well.....
I know. I was pointing out the apparant conflict.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 05-01-2012, 06:20 AM
DrFidelius DrFidelius is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 9,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by sisu View Post
yep you are correct, sorry it does not fit the view of Geepers but well.....
Well, what's the point of worshipping a merciful and all-loving God if He lets just anyone into Paradise? I mean, being one of the Elect has to be worth something, otherwise you won't get to laugh at all those smart alecks who should be burning in Hell for daring to have a different relationship with the Allmighty...
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 05-01-2012, 06:59 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
You have insulted me and my friends by suggesting our supernatural experiences are merely lies.
I never said they were lies. I said they weren't supernatural and that there were better and simpler explanation, which there were. That's not an insult.

Quote:
Likewise, you have failed miserably to demonstrate one single point where I'm wrong.
People have demonstrated points where you were wrong. Your response is typically changing the subject or saying the atheists are being mean, or both. I'll ask again: what statements do you want atheists to agree with you about? The reasonable points you think everybody can agree on?

Last edited by Marley23; 05-01-2012 at 07:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:23 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
I never said they were lies. I said they weren't supernatural and that there were better and simpler explanation, which there were. That's not an insult.
Yes, you explained it as perhaps earthquakes even though earthquakes don't cause objects to fly horizontally. Then you said some other natural occurance without offering any scientific explanation how an object can fly horizontally. That's a bit of a copout. It's the same result as when you laughed off the story of the angel lifting the tractor, or Doyle Dyke's White Rose for Heidi. You simply continue to refuse to accept evidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post

People have demonstrated points where you were wrong. Your response is typically changing the subject or saying the atheists are being mean, or both. I'll ask again: what statements do you want atheists to agree with you about? The reasonable points you think everybody can agree on?

How about admitting that there are archaeological finds that support some of the events in the Bible? That's a verifiable fact. Then you would have to at least admit that I'm not completely wrong in every single post.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:37 AM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 36,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Yes, you explained it as perhaps earthquakes even though earthquakes don't cause objects to fly horizontally.
Of course they can, quakes can throw things all over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
How about admitting that there are archaeological finds that support some of the events in the Bible? That's a verifiable fact.
So? No one has claimed that everything in the Bible is false. The supernatural stuff is all false of course, as are many other claims like the Exodus and the period of slavery in Egypt, but not all of it.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:37 AM
FinnAgain FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Yes, you explained it as perhaps earthquakes even though earthquakes don't cause objects to fly horizontally.
Of course they do. Where do you even get these claims? Do you just make them up or is there some sort of website you're cribbing from?
As for a story of an angle lifting a tractor, that's no more proof of anything than people's Bigfoot or Nessie sightings are.Of course, if that tractor was actually lifted by a divine herald while 100 people stood around and filmed on their smart phones, then we might at least have something to begin analyzing. Of course, as always, even if we had a glowy superstrong winged beasty, deciding that it was an angel and proof of your personal theology would still be premature. Any half-decent alien race should have pretty good cloaking technology, so you might've been rescued by Glort of Ixion VII. Maybe there is a 'supernatural' realm, but there are many competing residents. You weren't rescued by an angel, you were rescued by a valkyrie, and Odin expects your axe to be swung for him come Ragnarok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
How about admitting that there are archaeological finds that support some of the events in the Bible?
Nobody has claimed that everything in the bible is fake. Major, central events like the Exodus and the Flood are fake, but certainly there was a city named Jerusalem and there were religious festivals held there. In the same way, while there really is a San Fransisco, Starfleet Academy is not a real place.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:38 AM
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
How about admitting that there are archaeological finds that support some of the events in the Bible? That's a verifiable fact.
Well, like what? That the city of Jericho existed in antiquity and was besieged? That Sodom and Gomorrah existed but were wiped out in some natural disaster? That an ancient king of Israel may have been called Solomon, or David? A sketchy correspondence with real-life events does nothing to support the bible's mystical/spiritual authority.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:39 AM
CurtC CurtC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
How about admitting that there are archaeological finds that support some of the events in the Bible? That's a verifiable fact. Then you would have to at least admit that I'm not completely wrong in every single post.
I think that pretty much every other poster on the board would agree with me here, that some of the events in the Bible are supported by external evidence. For example, the Babylonians oppressed the ancient Israelites and kept their leaders in captivity, then they were sent back home when Cyrus the Great came through and kicked butt.

Later, Antiochus Epiphanes ruled over the area with an iron fist, and almost wiped out Judaism, but the Maccabees revolted and kicked him out.

Those things are referred to in the Bible, and we're very sure that they really happened. On the other hand, several events in the Bible are not supported by external evidence, and flatly contradicted by the evidence we do have.

There were no Adam and Eve as the first humans. There was no flood that covered all the land and one man saved every animal on his boat. The Jews were never slaves in large numbers in Egypt, but instead were indigenous to the Canaan area.

So yes, we'll admit that some of the events in the Bible are supported. Will you admit that some of them didn't really happen?
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:46 AM
gus28 gus28 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
I have spent years reading threads like these (lurker). Very interesting discourse. Posters like GEEPERS really make me miss Dio. This could have been over a while ago.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:47 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Of course they can, quakes can throw things all over.

So? No one has claimed that everything in the Bible is false. The supernatural stuff is all false of course, as are many other claims like the Exodus and the period of slavery in Egypt, but not all of it.
You are really reaching.


1. This was an ongoing event that eventually led to my friend's moving out of the apartment.

2. This was in East Texas. Quakes don't happen in this region.

3. You have no counter-evidence to prove that the supernatural events never occured. I offered the explanation that an Egyptian king would most likely order all records of the Israelites to be striked from existence or never recorded. Such a defeat would be a great shame, and they simply did not record their defeats.

In a nutshell, I bring something to the table, and atheists can only bring their baseless denials.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:52 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
I think that pretty much every other poster on the board would agree with me here, that some of the events in the Bible are supported by external evidence. For example, the Babylonians oppressed the ancient Israelites and kept their leaders in captivity, then they were sent back home when Cyrus the Great came through and kicked butt.

Later, Antiochus Epiphanes ruled over the area with an iron fist, and almost wiped out Judaism, but the Maccabees revolted and kicked him out.

Those things are referred to in the Bible, and we're very sure that they really happened. On the other hand, several events in the Bible are not supported by external evidence, and flatly contradicted by the evidence we do have.

There were no Adam and Eve as the first humans. There was no flood that covered all the land and one man saved every animal on his boat. The Jews were never slaves in large numbers in Egypt, but instead were indigenous to the Canaan area.

So yes, we'll admit that some of the events in the Bible are supported. Will you admit that some of them didn't really happen?

First, admit that I'm not completely wrong about everything, and we'll start from there.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 05-01-2012, 08:56 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Yes, you explained it as perhaps earthquakes even though earthquakes don't cause objects to fly horizontally. Then you said some other natural occurance without offering any scientific explanation how an object can fly horizontally. That's a bit of a copout.
It's not a copout. It's the best response I can give to a vague and incomplete description of something I didn't see and which nobody documented. My point is that something like an object "flying" off a shelf or a radio turning on and off does not have to be a supernatural event. I've seen radios go on and off and thought nothing of it. If there's a simpler explanation - a short circuit from a radio instead of divine interference - the simpler explanation is going to be preferred, other things being equal. You were saying that supernatural events like these are the first step on the way to accepting God, and I'm saying God isn't required to explain them. And as FinnAgain has been saying, you haven't explained how we know that these things are caused by your version of God instead of a poltergeist or other things.

Quote:
You simply continue to refuse to accept evidence.
It's not persuasive evidence to somebody who doesn't already believe. I realize it's persuasive to you, but that's not the beginning and end of the story.

Quote:
How about admitting that there are archaeological finds that support some of the events in the Bible? That's a verifiable fact. Then you would have to at least admit that I'm not completely wrong in every single post.
This is just plain frustrating. I said exactly that in the first post of this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
There are some historical events that are described in the Bible and are supported by archeology, and many that aren't - including the miracles and a lot of other major points like the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the Exodus.
And that's not the first place I said it, either.
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:10 AM
FinnAgain FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
1. This was an ongoing event
[...]
2. This was in East Texas. Quakes don't happen in this region.
[...]
3. You have no counter-evidence to prove that the supernatural events never occured.
1. Buildings have been known to settle, neighbors and roommates have been known to play tricks, and then again people can also be bugnuts batshit insane.
2. Yes, they do. Again, do you just make this stuff up?
3. Yet again, you have to falsify the null hypothesis, and not prove it. Else, can you prove that Mohammad didn't ascend directly to heaven? (you keep ignoring those sort of questions, so I anticipate you'll ignore this one too)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
I offered the explanation that an Egyptian king would most likely order all records of the Israelites to be striked from existence or never recorded.
Except, no. We have no evidence that the Egyptians did this and in any case hiding/changing official pronouncements is much, much more easier than erasing the archeological evidence for an entire slave population. So, your persecution claims aside, in a nutshell you bring unverified claims which have multiple interpretations even if true, and then demand that they be taken seriously as signs and sigils of your religion.

Last edited by FinnAgain; 05-01-2012 at 09:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:11 AM
Revtim Revtim is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
I'm going to write holy book, inspired by god as far as you know, that says Gary Coleman was the messiah, and he will return from the grave in the future (to battle the antichrist, Emmanuel Lewis).

Since this book will state the proven facts that Gary Coleman starred in a TV show called "Diff'rent Strokes" and lived in a city named Los Angeles, does that support in any way that Gary Coleman is the messiah?

How about if I include text that says those who do not believe that Gary Coleman is the messiah will ridicule me? When I get ridiculed, is that more support that Coleman died for our sins?
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:16 AM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 51,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
First, admit that I'm not completely wrong about everything, and we'll start from there.
It seems almost as if you want to be granted a free pass on a number of as yet unspecified claims.

It's fairly certain you're not completely wrong about everything, because that would actually be a difficult state for anyone to attain, but not being wrong about everything doesn't provide any kind of useful handle on whether any particular one of your claims is true or false.

Or to put it another way: suppose someone tells you that they think you're right about half the time - that's great. Now, let's look at a specific claim... which half does it belong in? How do we decide? (flip a coin?) We decide by examining the claim in detail (and thus, the declaration of how right or wrong you are, overall, was pretty pointless).
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:20 AM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 36,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
1. This was an ongoing event that eventually led to my friend's moving out of the apartment.

2. This was in East Texas. Quakes don't happen in this region.
I was only correcting your statements about earthquakes. In my opinion the most likely actual explanation is that either the events never happened at all or were very different from what you claim happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
3. You have no counter-evidence to prove that the supernatural events never occured.
Nonsense; I have the collected knowledge of modern science, which rules out such supernatural happenings. And again; it's not my job to prove a negative. It's yours to provide evidence such supernatural events happened. You can't even provide evidence that they could have happened, much less did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
I offered the explanation that an Egyptian king would most likely order all records of the Israelites to be striked from existence or never recorded. Such a defeat would be a great shame, and they simply did not record their defeats.
Doesn't matter even if they did (and I have no reason to believe your claim they did that), there would have been archaeological evidence if those stories are true, such as signs of habitation in the desert; there is no such evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
In a nutshell, I bring something to the table, and atheists can only bring their baseless denials.
No, you bring nothing but baseless assertions and illogic.
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:41 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revtim View Post
I'm going to write holy book, inspired by god as far as you know, that says Gary Coleman was the messiah, and he will return from the grave in the future (to battle the antichrist, Emmanuel Lewis).

Since this book will state the proven facts that Gary Coleman starred in a TV show called "Diff'rent Strokes" and lived in a city named Los Angeles, does that support in any way that Gary Coleman is the messiah?

How about if I include text that says those who do not believe that Gary Coleman is the messiah will ridicule me? When I get ridiculed, is that more support that Coleman died for our sins?
Sigh, another flavor of the fairies/Santa Claus/Odin type arguments. There is no reason or evidence at all to suggest that Gary is the messiah. There are plenty of strong arguments for the existence of God.

Over 90% of the American population believe in God. Despite the brass chest thumping on this atheist forum, atheism remains a small minority. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate why the majority is wrong. Otherwise, you are claiming that most people in society are mentally insane - suffering from delusions.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:43 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
The onus is on YOU to demonstrate why the majority is wrong.
You correctly identified this as an argumentum ad populum earlier, and I even dealt with this (in a way) in the OP. "More people agree with me!" does not make an argument stronger.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:45 AM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 51,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Over 90% of the American population believe in God. Despite the brass chest thumping on this atheist forum, atheism remains a small minority. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate why the majority is wrong. Otherwise, you are claiming that most people in society are mentally insane - suffering from delusions.
That's two logical fallacies in one post - appeal to popularity and shifting the burden of proof.

The burden of proof, for any claim, no matter how popular, rests with the claimant.

(I am not an atheist, BTW, in case it matters)
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:47 AM
Revtim Revtim is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Sigh, another flavor of the fairies/Santa Claus/Odin type arguments. There is no reason or evidence at all to suggest that Gary is the messiah. There are plenty of strong arguments for the existence of God.
The point I'm trying to make is that the use of real-life places in a written work is not believable evidence that the work is correct in other matters. Do you see this at least?
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:48 AM
Meatros Meatros is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
I offered the explanation that an Egyptian king would most likely order all records of the Israelites to be striked from existence or never recorded. Such a defeat would be a great shame, and they simply did not record their defeats.
I offered several counters to this - one being a previous time when the Egyptians had tried to 'erase' something from their record (ie, we still have those statues). I also pointed out that the exodus itself would have left archaeological evidence. In other words, even if the Pharaoh had magically erased all evidence of not only the Israelites and of slavery, there would still be physical evidence.

You didn't deal with this, instead, you simply ignored these counters as though your prior assertions were sufficient to deal with everything.

They weren't then, they aren't now.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:51 AM
Meatros Meatros is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Over 90% of the American population believe in God. Despite the brass chest thumping on this atheist forum, atheism remains a small minority. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate why the majority is wrong. Otherwise, you are claiming that most people in society are mentally insane - suffering from delusions.
You realize that the God these Americans believe in is not the same God, don't you? In fact, according to you, something like 50% aren't even Christians (even though they profess to be so), so your appeal to popularity is off base from the start.

BTW - you clearly do not understand the burden of proof. The onus is not on us and just because they believe in something that may be false does not mean that they are mentally insane.

Something like 50% of the population believes in Astrology, are they mentally insane? Is the onus on you to disprove them?
Reply With Quote
  #281  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:52 AM
Larry Borgia Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 8,911
I think a lot of people in this thread need the phrase "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" taped to the top of their monitor. Or possibly tattooed on the back of their eyelids.

Last edited by Larry Borgia; 05-01-2012 at 09:52 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:54 AM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 51,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Over 90% of the American population believe in God. Despite the brass chest thumping on this atheist forum, atheism remains a small minority. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate why the majority is wrong. Otherwise, you are claiming that most people in society are mentally insane - suffering from delusions.
Are all of these 90% 'true' Christians, in your estimation?
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:55 AM
shy guy shy guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Otherwise, you are claiming that most people in society are mentally insane - suffering from delusions.
You are the one saying that. Many of my family members are Catholic. I don't think they're insane (well, some of them, sure, but for other reasons), just wrong. People are wrong about all kinds of things.

At any rate, it's just another double standard. Do you think atheists are insane?
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 05-01-2012, 10:07 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by shy guy View Post
You are the one saying that. Many of my family members are Catholic. I don't think they're insane (well, some of them, sure, but for other reasons), just wrong. People are wrong about all kinds of things.

At any rate, it's just another double standard. Do you think atheists are insane?
Nope, Richard Dawkins said it. Even called his book, "The God Delusion". In order to be an atheist, you have to believe that when we Christians are praying, we are talking to an imaginary being. Isn't that a characteristic of mental delusion?

And yes, atheists are delusional. They suffer from the delusion that atheists are always right and Christians are always wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 05-01-2012, 10:15 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
In order to be an atheist, you have to believe that when we Christians are praying, we are talking to an imaginary being. Isn't that a characteristic of mental delusion?
Are you now actually insisting that atheists insult you?

Quote:
And yes, atheists are delusional. They suffer from the delusion that atheists are always right and Christians are always wrong.
Again:

*No, atheists don't think theists are always wrong.
*Atheists have no specific focus on Christianty.
*Atheists aren't delusional.

Hey, remember this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
How about admitting that there are archaeological finds that support some of the events in the Bible? That's a verifiable fact. Then you would have to at least admit that I'm not completely wrong in every single post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
There are some historical events that are described in the Bible and are supported by archeology, and many that aren't - including the miracles and a lot of other major points like the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the Exodus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
And that's not the first place I said it, either.
I'm starting to think that many of your problems with atheists come from the fact that you simply are not paying attention to what they say. What else is anybody supposed to think when you "demand" someone do something they'd already done, and then ignore their response?

Last edited by Marley23; 05-01-2012 at 10:20 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 05-01-2012, 10:20 AM
Revtim Revtim is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
I think a lot of people in this thread need the phrase "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" taped to the top of their monitor. Or possibly tattooed on the back of their eyelids.
I certainly didn't think I'd argue him out of theism, but I though I could at least show GEEPERS that some of the arguments he made were invalid. Of course, that was pointless as well. I doubt I will bother to return to this thread, nothing new to see here.
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 05-01-2012, 10:30 AM
shy guy shy guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Nope, Richard Dawkins said it. Even called his book, "The God Delusion". In order to be an atheist, you have to believe that when we Christians are praying, we are talking to an imaginary being. Isn't that a characteristic of mental delusion?
It's some type of delusion, sure, but that doesn't mean straight-up insanity. It's clear that the human brain is in some sense wired to extract profound meaning from certain observations and stimuli.

If a person today writes a letter to the King of France, that person thinks he is communicating with a being that, as it turns out, does not currently exist, and that person is deluded, but that doesn't mean he's insane. A magical being is several magnitudes less plausible than a European monarch, true. But on the other hand, the vast majority of believers are raised in environments where practically everyone around them reassures them, with absolute certainty, of them existence of such a being. Even atheists are, in large measure, expected to defer to believers to avoid hurting their feelings in most contexts.

Quote:
And yes, atheists are delusional. They suffer from the delusion that atheists are always right and Christians are always wrong.
About the existence of a magical being, sure. About everything else? No. That is something you invented.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 05-01-2012, 10:31 AM
Meatros Meatros is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Nope, Richard Dawkins said it. Even called his book, "The God Delusion". In order to be an atheist, you have to believe that when we Christians are praying, we are talking to an imaginary being. Isn't that a characteristic of mental delusion?
Richard Dawkins is wrong, IMO. In any event, my daughter occasionally talks to an imaginary being, she's not insane.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
And yes, atheists are delusional. They suffer from the delusion that atheists are always right and Christians are always wrong.
This seems like a personal problem you have. As I've stated (and you've ignored), I'm often wrong and many Christians are correct. I would wager that you have been correct, at times, although it seems difficult to find examples in this thread of such.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:06 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain View Post
Of course they do. Where do you even get these claims? Do you just make them up or is there some sort of website you're cribbing from?
As for a story of an angle lifting a tractor, that's no more proof of anything than people's Bigfoot or Nessie sightings are.Of course, if that tractor was actually lifted by a divine herald while 100 people stood around and filmed on their smart phones, then we might at least have something to begin analyzing. Of course, as always, even if we had a glowy superstrong winged beasty, deciding that it was an angel and proof of your personal theology would still be premature. Any half-decent alien race should have pretty good cloaking technology, so you might've been rescued by Glort of Ixion VII. Maybe there is a 'supernatural' realm, but there are many competing residents. You weren't rescued by an angel, you were rescued by a valkyrie, and Odin expects your axe to be swung for him come Ragnarok.
And the sightings of Bigfoot and Lessie suggest the possibility that they exist. So what's your point? The angel story can be a starting point on which you can build countless stories of divine healing (including one that I posted yesterday, and don't think you're off the hook on that one) and miracles.

But if there's anything to take away from your rantings, it's the reality that there is no kind of evidence that would ever satisfy you. That doesn't disprove anything. It just means you won't accept it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain View Post

Nobody has claimed that everything in the bible is fake. Major, central events like the Exodus and the Flood are fake, but certainly there was a city named Jerusalem and there were religious festivals held there. In the same way, while there really is a San Fransisco, Starfleet Academy is not a real place.

That's the only credit you are giving the Bible? The name of Jerusalem? Obviously, you don't know much about bible archaelogy.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:13 AM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 1,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
And the sightings of Bigfoot and Lessie suggest the possibility that they exist. So what's your point? The angel story can be a starting point on which you can build countless stories of divine healing (including one that I posted yesterday, and don't think you're off the hook on that one) and miracles.

But if there's anything to take away from your rantings, it's the reality that there is no kind of evidence that would ever satisfy you. That doesn't disprove anything. It just means you won't accept it.
If you have "proof" of the paranormal and faith healing, why not go make a bunch of money?

Last edited by rat avatar; 05-01-2012 at 11:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:13 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meatros View Post
I offered several counters to this - one being a previous time when the Egyptians had tried to 'erase' something from their record (ie, we still have those statues). I also pointed out that the exodus itself would have left archaeological evidence. In other words, even if the Pharaoh had magically erased all evidence of not only the Israelites and of slavery, there would still be physical evidence.

You didn't deal with this, instead, you simply ignored these counters as though your prior assertions were sufficient to deal with everything.

They weren't then, they aren't now.
Give me the post #, or specific example of your counter. This website explains pretty clearly the problem of Exodus along with a specific example of Pharoh erasing records:


Archaeologist Edwin Yamauchi points out the limits of this science when he explains:

(1) little of what was made or written in antiquity survives to this day;

(2) few of the ancient sites have been surveyed and a number have not even been found;

(3) probably fewer than 2 percent of the known sites have been meaningfully excavated;

(4) few of these have been more than scratched; and

(5) only a fraction of the fraction that have been excavated have been published and data made available to the scholarly world (1972: chapter 4).

Considering not only the limits but also the positive side of archaeology, it is remarkable how many Biblical accounts have been illuminated and confirmed by the relatively small number of sites excavated and finds uncovered to date. Even though, regrettably, some professionals go out of their way to present a distorted picture of what archaeology does reveal, it does provide some of the strongest evidence for the reliability of the Bible as credible and accurate history.

Evidence Destroyed

A major challenge in reconstructing an accurate view of history is that, through the ages, most negative or embarrassing evidence was never written down or was intentionally destroyed by later rulers. In fact, the Bible stands in marked contrast to most ancient literature in that it objectively records the facts about Biblical personalities, whether good or bad.

When new kings ascended the throne, they naturally wanted to be seen in the best light. So in many nations they covered up or destroyed monuments and records of previous monarchs. This pattern of expunging earlier historical evidence can be repeatedly seen in Egyptian monuments and historical records. For example, after the Hyksos rulers were expelled from Egypt, the Egyptians erased the records of that humiliating period so thoroughly that some of the names and the order of the Hyksos kings remain uncertain.

Some time later Pharaoh Thutmosis III destroyed virtually all records relating to Queen Hatshepsut, the previous ruler, whom he despised. Visitors to her famous temple can still see where Thutmosisís workmen carefully chiseled away her image from the walls of the structure. A few decades afterwards, the ruling priests eliminated virtually all possible traces of the teachings of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who had introduced what they considered to be heretical Egyptian religious reforms.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...y.aspx#Article


So tell me again why it is not plausible that Pharoh would have erased or never recorded the encounters with the Israelities?
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:21 AM
FinnAgain FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
And the sightings of Bigfoot and Lessie suggest the possibility that they exist.
Wrong. The utter lack of physical evidence coupled with facts which gainsay their claims means that they do not get placed in the "possible" category except in as much as they appear to be ontologically possible. Your nonsense about how an "angel story" can be a jumping off point "on which you can build countless stories of divine healing" is an utter absurdity. As has been put to you probably a dozen times and you will continue to ignore, even if we accepted that there is a type of magical being that looks like an angel, there's no way to tell if it's your religion's angel or a tulpa, or Glorp the Ixian slave trader, or what.

Further, of course, you offered no actual evidence for "divine healing", let alone "countless stories". Yet again, your unsupported, unverified claims aren't evidence, they're allegations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
That's the only credit you are giving the Bible?
Read again.
This time for comprehension.
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:23 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangetout View Post
That's two logical fallacies in one post - appeal to popularity and shifting the burden of proof.

The burden of proof, for any claim, no matter how popular, rests with the claimant.

(I am not an atheist, BTW, in case it matters)
Atheists often use these fallacies as a quick escape route. Fallacy Fallacy, haha I don't have to prove anything!

It's easy to make a bold statement here. Not so easy to back it up with supporting evidence. The stiff refusal to support atheist assertions just shows how weak atheist's beliefs really are.
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:25 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Give me the post #, or specific example of your counter.
He explained it to you in post #317 and #330 of the 'present evidence for your deity' thread. What you're doing here is arguing from ignorance. There is no evidence supporting the Exodus story. It's all tradition and Biblical interpretation - that Pharaoh is Rameses II, for example, or that the Hebrews built some of the pyramids even though the evidence says the pyramids weren't build by slaves. The problem is that we are not just talking about Egyptian-made documents that can be destroyed; we are talking about a complete lack of evidence of a large group of Hebrews in Egypt and then wandering around Sinai for 40 years. That's a lot of missing evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
It's easy to make a bold statement here. Not so easy to back it up with supporting evidence.
Indeed. For example you've said there's a god... This whole thing is kind of ironic given that you keep refusing to make your case.

Last edited by Marley23; 05-01-2012 at 11:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:27 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain View Post
Wrong. The utter lack of physical evidence coupled with facts which gainsay their claims means that they do not get placed in the "possible" category except in as much as they appear to be ontologically possible. Your nonsense about how an "angel story" can be a jumping off point "on which you can build countless stories of divine healing" is an utter absurdity. As has been put to you probably a dozen times and you will continue to ignore, even if we accepted that there is a type of magical being that looks like an angel, there's no way to tell if it's your religion's angel or a tulpa, or Glorp the Ixian slave trader, or what.

Further, of course, you offered no actual evidence for "divine healing", let alone "countless stories". Yet again, your unsupported, unverified claims aren't evidence, they're allegations.



Read again.
This time for comprehension.
1. What is your definition of evidence?

2. What are your acceptable requirements of evidence? Specifically in the realm of the existence of the supernatural and divine healing.


If you can't at least answer those two statements, I have nothing more to say to you.
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:30 AM
Marley23 Marley23 is online now
I Am the One Who Bans
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 77,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
1. What is your definition of evidence?
Are you ever going to acknowledge the point he's making? I think you've been asked this dozens of times in several threads now: how do you decide that "supernatural evidence" like healings and stuff flying off shelves is evidence for one god and not another? How do you know it's Jesus and not Buddha or a poltergeist or Mithra? This is a serious problem for your argument.

Last edited by Marley23; 05-01-2012 at 11:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:33 AM
FinnAgain FinnAgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Atheists often use these fallacies as a quick escape route. Fallacy Fallacy, haha I don't have to prove anything!
It's telling that someone points out you've made an error in logic (i.e. a fallacy) and your response it to claim that it's some kind of "escape". Yeah.... you're unable to argue your own case, what an escape. Of course, are you again shifting the burden of proof. Yes, you do need to prove everything. No, someone arguing against you only has to show how you have not proved your case. Despite your obvious reliance on fallacy and error, you will not convince people here that your untestable, unfalsifiable, logically incoherent deity is the null hypothesis which we must refute.

The so-called "atheist assertions" that you're objecting to are that logic and facts both matter. Your refusal to accept reason since it is an "atheist assertion", while inherently self-defeating and absurd, is also amusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
I have nothing more to say to you.
You've had nothing to say to anybody here yet. You've had plenty to say at them. And none of it has been particularly cogent.

The requirements for evidence are the same as in any particularly rigorous experiment. "I'm sure that I saw an FTL neutrino!" is not evidence of any sort, for example.
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:33 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
He explained it to you in post #317 and #330 of the 'present evidence for your deity' thread. What you're doing here is arguing from ignorance. There is no evidence supporting the Exodus story. It's all tradition and Biblical interpretation - that Pharaoh is Rameses II, for example, or that the Hebrews built some of the pyramids even though the evidence says the pyramids weren't build by slaves. The problem is that we are not just talking about Egyptian-made documents that can be destroyed; we are talking about a complete lack of evidence of a large group of Hebrews in Egypt and then wandering around Sinai for 40 years. That's a lot of missing evidence.


Indeed. For example you've said there's a god... This whole thing is kind of ironic given that you keep refusing to make your case.

Are you really that blind, or you just purposely ignore my posts? You never back up anything you say, instead just boldly claim over and over how wrong I am.

Again, lack of evidence is not conclusive proof that such events never occured. It's just lack of evidence.

I went to the effort yesterday of finding a documented story of a man who was raised from the dead. Detailed records. It was dismissed immediately without a single statement demonstrating why the story is not credible.

Fester all you want in your denial. It is a piece of evidence and I presented so stop saying that I never offer anything to support my arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:33 AM
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 51,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEEPERS View Post
Atheists often use these fallacies as a quick escape route. Fallacy Fallacy, haha I don't have to prove anythiing.
It's true that using fallacies in your argument doesn't automatically make you wrong, but it does mean you're constructing a weak argument.

Why don't you take the wind out of their sails by constructing a fallacy-free argument?
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:43 AM
GEEPERS GEEPERS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinnAgain View Post
It's telling that someone points out you've made an error in logic (i.e. a fallacy) and your response it to claim that it's some kind of "escape". Yeah.... you're unable to argue your own case, what an escape. Of course, are you again shifting the burden of proof. Yes, you do need to prove everything. No, someone arguing against you only has to show how you have not proved your case. Despite your obvious reliance on fallacy and error, you will not convince people here that your untestable, unfalsifiable, logically incoherent deity is the null hypothesis which we must refute.

The so-called "atheist assertions" that you're objecting to are that logic and facts both matter. Your refusal to accept reason since it is an "atheist assertion", while inherently self-defeating and absurd, is also amusing.



You've had nothing to say to anybody here yet. You've had plenty to say at them. And none of it has been particularly cogent.

The requirements for evidence are the same as in any particularly rigorous experiment. "I'm sure that I saw an FTL neutrino!" is not evidence of any sort, for example.

There you have it, folks. Read below the bloated brass talk, and you'll see this man's clear dishonesty. He could not even answer two simple questions.

The real answer is he doesn't even know himself.

Answer the questions or be ignored.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.