You don’t seem to get it. When someone forwards you an urban legend email, do you automatically accept it as genuine? If someone had an experience that was explicable through the psychological phenomenon of sleep paralysis, yet they believed they were abducted by aliens, which of the two explanations would you believe?
Your ‘cites’ are dubious. Why this is so has been pointed out (and ignored) to you. Further, IIRC, you simply googled it and then picked the first miraculous claims you found - there was no indepth research done on your part. Yet you expect us to simply believe it was legit?
This, of course, is nonsense. You are simply poisoning the well. I noted a decided lack of examples here. Just vague assertions.
No one is saying that science produces epistemically certain results. You seem unable to comprehend this.
Yeah, it does mean you didn’t provide a cite. All cites are not equivalent.
Science is frequently wrong. It is designed to discover when it is wrong. Then the science changes. That is why it is superior to religion, which cannot change without scaring the believers.
Israel is not the geopolitical center of the world, no matter how often you repeat it.
I have no idea what you are referring to - however, people are ‘raised from the dead’ all the time, thanks to medical science. What’s supernatural about that?
Why do you hate atheists so much? Every comment you make you disparage them.
I don’t expect them to lie often, but I certainly consider the possibility that they can be mistaken. Everybody makes mistakes and sometimes they say things that are incorrect - nevermind if they told me they saw something that was either impossible or miraculous. Is it actually easier for you to accept that your friends saw something supernatural than to accept that they might just be wrong about what they saw?
Mainstream science has been very consistent on this point, actually: there’s no link between cell phones and brain cancer. Crazy people or people with an agenda have been known to say otherwise and they can print things and call them scientific studies, but I’ve never seen serious reason to think there’s a link there. But the bottom line is that when you look at scientific evidence you have to think critically, look for flaws in theories and studies, and consider the possibility that further research might lead to different conclusions. There is no received truth in science, so the way you are attempting to impeach science itself does not work. Ironically it works pretty well against religion, which is why apologetics exists.
I think we need to be clear, despite Marley’s great thread, that GEEPERS objects to empiricism and the scientific method. Atheists are simply a convenient group he can rail against. Hence his dismissal of a number of Christians that have posted who he discounts as false believers.
No, you didn’t. You posted something with more holes in it than a wheel of Jarlsberg. Even if you hadn’t, and I couldn’t explain it, it would not be required that I “scientifically explain how someone can be raised from the dead.” I could quite easily say “If it actually happened, I’m not sure how.” And that would again see you pulling out your God of the Gaps / Bifurcation Fallacy.
Yet again, as you keep ignoring, even if we could prove that our understanding of the world around us is wrong, that would not at all show that your specific concept of God was the one and only correct one.
You mean, like the earthquakes, ground settling, potential gravitational energy imparted to all resting objects above ground level, and so on? To say nothing of the fact that we have an unverified, unobserved event that’s being recounted second hand.
And yet again, as you keep ignoring as if you hope that the flaws in your argument will vanish if you just pretend you can’t read them, even if we accept that there was something ‘supernatural’ about the objects’ motion, you still have provided zero evidence for us assuming that it was your God that allowed it and not Loki, or Coyote, or a Tulpa, or…
I said someplace a few pages ago that GEEPERS regards everybody who isn’t a Biblical literalist as an atheist. Maybe I should’ve started a thread for non-literalists including atheists and also believers.
I think a lot of fundies think that only their brand is true and everyone else is betrayed by demons or such. I don’t think it’s a stretch for such a person to assume that say, Catholics and atheists are the same animal (demonically confused people) with different spots.
Hey, just for fun, can you be honest just one time? Let down the shields, and answer this question honestly. If my arguments are so flawed and I’m so intellectually inferior (snicker) to you, why do you bother responding? Seriously, haven’t I demonstrated that you will never convince me that my beliefs are a fairy tale? You are wasting your time by responding to me.
You know what I think? I think you people get some kind of pleasure by ripping down Christians which certainly explains the feeding frenzy. I make one comment, and I’m bombarded with replies. Want to bring your brilliant arguments to a more Christian oriented forum? Of course not, that wouldn’t be much fun on a level playing field!
I’m sure by the time I hit the submit button, there will five more comments begging me to respond. lol
I’m active on a few Christian forums and I used to be active on a few ‘other’ forums (including one devoted to Vampires and another to UFO’s). I’m interested in discussion of these sorts of ideas, not ripping down Christians. You have made several dubious claims and several arrogant and insulting assertions.
No one is “begging” you to do anything. This is a discussion board. You have weird views that are being challenged. You continually stick your toe into the discussion and insult those who disagree with you.
What sort of a discussion board were you expecting? One where absurd claims are met with nothing at all?
It’s not about you. It’s about other people on the fence who might read this. As far as “bringing it to a Christian oriented forum”, anyone who tried would be banned, as I’m sure you already know if you frequent any.
You calling me a liar, bucko?
As it happens, I’ve been honest with you in every single statement I’ve made.
Your arguments are flawed, the fact that you repeatedly change the subject, hop up on the cross, or spew vitriol about atheists demonstrates that you aint got nuthin’, else you would’ve brought it to the table.
2.I have not made mention of whether or not you’re my intellectual inferior, and such comments would be out of line in this forum. I have pointed out, and proven with logic, that your reasoning is inferior to mine, of course.
As I’ve pointed out to you multiple times, of course I have no expectation that facts or logic will change your views, at all. I’m cleaning my claws and providing a demonstration for those members of the peanut gallery who are curious.
I know you will ignore this, as you have literally dozens of times before, but: yet again, you are seeing general statements about the epistemological invariability of all religious/supernatural claims, and pretending that it’s somehow a targeted attack on your beliefs. You seem very comfortable pretending that you’re being persecuted when you’re not, and very comfortable voicing intense hatred for atheists when they’ve done nothing other than pointing out errors in your claims.
I’ve tried to be honest and open with you- I’ve sent you multiple good-natured PMs. I can accept that you’re not going to change your mind about God and Christianity, but are you just as certain that you know exactly how atheists as a group, and individual atheists like me, think?
Do you have just a tiny bit of doubt that maybe you’re wrong about how us atheists think and are reaching our conclusions? That maybe we’re actually telling the truth (just about our own beliefs) when we tell you why we think the way we do? Are we all liars, every last one of us?
If you do have any curiosity about the way folks who think differently than you actually think (as opposed to already knowing everything about us), feel free to respond.
Surely arguments are valid or invalid regardless of the venue, yes ? Or do you feel your arguments would hold more weight if 50 people were willing to write “yay ! What he said ! Woohoooh !” ?
Now, you “brought this on yourself”, in the sense that you have decided you were willing to defend the Judeo-Christian myth on this here forum, which is populated by a lot more agnostics, atheists and the like than fundie Christians. You must have known this coming in. In fact, I’d wager that is the very reason you registered on this forum to begin with: to proselityze, to try and convince us heathens that we’re in the wrong.
Bearing this in mind, you can’t whine that “but y’all are atheists ! Of course I can’t convince you !” now, can you ? Or else, why bother in the first place ? If your rhetoric only holds within a community that already shares most or all of your views, then your rhetoric ain’t shit, pardon my French.