Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice stepping around my point. The point remains. You are still defining what is extraordinary. It is an ambiguous term. The claim that snow exists might be extraordinary to a lost Amazonian tribe. That doesn't mean snow is any less real.
Our beliefs are based on a wide variety of evidences and personal experiences. Of course, if one is unwilling to get off their behinds and actively seek God then they will not have those personal experiences.
Umm no, lack of evidence proves nothing. It's only lack of evidence. A doctor could run scans on a patient and find a lack of evidence of a disease. And then the patient gets the disease. The doctor proved nothing. Happens all the time.
I don't deny that other religions can have supernatural experiences. Like Native Americans going on a spirit quest or people in New Age being able to astral project themselves. On that basis alone, it proves that there is a spiritual realm. The vast majority of the world's population DO NOT believe like you. What's more like, that most of the world suffers from imaginary delusions or people are having real supernatural encounters. I would say the latter.
God knows the hearts of all men. And He knows if someone has this misfortune of being led astray into a false religion but has an open heart to receiving Him, He will find a way for the gospel to reach them. In the Holy Spirit documentary, there is one scene where all these events and places time just right so these Christian men are able to cross paths with people who need to hear the gospel. It's pretty amazing. God can even reach people like the members of Korn who were so far into sin, but He knew their hearts would be open to receiving the truth. Half of the band of Korn are now Christians. But the same thing didn't happen to the other guys because their hearts are closed.
The other religions all reek of man made creation like how they are action based.
I wouldn't say I'm immune. Satan's goal is to either destroy or make our lives miserable. So even Christians are constantly under attack as negative thoughts get pumped into our minds. This is why we have pity parties or put ourselves down in hard times. That's really the deceiver doing that.
Jeff, I will try to answer your question.
If you claim that you can play the guitar that is a very regular claim, one you have made in past posts, so very little if any evidence from you required. I would simply take you at your word.
If you claimed that you have stood in for some big band for a performance that is a bigger claim and I would expect you to be able to back it with press clippings or a tank you note.
Now if you made the claim that it was you that taught Jimmi Hendrix how to play the guitar and considering your supposed age etc, that would be an extraordinary claim and you would need to provide much indisputable evidence in order for me to believe you. I cannot tell you precisely what exact pieces of evidence you would need to provide but I do know it would require more than your say so or someone I never heard of before stating that you taught Hendrix how to play.
Maybe not an exact answer as you tend to think in yes or no, black or white but it is the best I can do. For each of us the word extraordinary may have different starting points. Hope this helps you understand what others mean
Very good. And shows up that the Smokescreen is in Theists pretending that all claims are equally believable without some good evidence. A quick check is to ask, if a muslim made any of those claims (they learned a musical instrument, or that God spoke to them) which would they accept?
Extraordinary according to what standards? Why do atheists have the right to classify claims as "extraordinary"? It's simply a parachute tactic. The atheist can always just say hey that evidence wasn't extraordinary enough. Or they will make bold claims like the Bible is fiction using lack of evidence as evidence which is another fallacy.
I don't reject claims of miracles from other religions at all. I view it in terms of weight of evidence. The net sum of evidences vastly favors Christianity therefore it would take a greater amount of evidence to force me to question if I serve the true God. Furthermore, I think people believe in other religions for two main reasons. They are either born and raised in a culture that is heavily engrained into the religion like most Middle East countries. Or they have having real supernatural experiences with their beliefs. However, based on what I know of the spirit world, I believe those experiences are being fueled by the great deceiver who has you blinded as well. OTOH, even in those cultural theocracies, we see people coming to Christ. I rarely hear of a born again Christian becoming a Muslim or Buddhist.
I'm not sure that the weight of evidence does favor Christianity. It has a heap of evidence, much of which turns out to be (on evidence) false, which means that the weight of evidence is against Christianity. But of course you simply reject the evidence and stick with what it suits you to believe, just as you believe that the evidence for God in the religion you believe is evidence of Satan in the others.
As in the faux -ingenuous question about what is extraordinary in claims or denial that negative evidence is actually evidence, it is clear that religion does the usual thing to your head, it makes a perso who it probably a smart and decent person intellectually dishonest for Jesus.
You try to argue that no 'born again' (real "Real ) christian would ever convert to Islam or Buddhism. You say you haven't heard of it. That's negative evidence and no mistake. You don't look, don;'t find it, therefore it doesn't happen.
You may be right about 'Born again' in a way, just as I maintain that 'thinking atheists' won't convert.
If you claim that you can play the guitar that is a very regular claim, one you have made in past posts, so very little if any evidence from you required. I would simply take you at your word.
If you claimed that you have stood in for some big band for a performance that is a bigger claim and I would expect you to be able to back it with press clippings or a tank you note.
Now if you made the claim that it was you that taught Jimmi Hendrix how to play the guitar and considering your supposed age etc, that would be an extraordinary claim and you would need to provide much indisputable evidence in order for me to believe you. I cannot tell you precisely what exact pieces of evidence you would need to provide but I do know it would require more than your say so or someone I never heard of before stating that you taught Hendrix how to play.
Maybe not an exact answer as you tend to think in yes or no, black or white but it is the best I can do. For each of us the word extraordinary may have different starting points. Hope this helps you understand what others mean
Nice stepping around my point. The point remains. You are still defining what is extraordinary. It is an ambiguous term. The claim that snow exists might be extraordinary to a lost Amazonian tribe. That doesn't mean snow is any less real.
You are still straw manning. We are NOT redefining extraordinary, we are pointing out that YOU are claiming Jesus did extraordinary things to prove he was the messiah. And you are now attempting to say that we are redefining YOUR use of the word extraordinary to mean YOUR use of the word extraordinary so that we can dismiss it as unlikely.
And no, extraordinary is not ambiguous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Our beliefs are based on a wide variety of evidences and personal experiences. Of course, if one is unwilling to get off their behinds and actively seek God then they will not have those personal experiences.
Really? It sounds like a remarkable way for your god to let us know it exists. A road to Damascus to save our souls. It appears that maybe your god is not to bright not to think of this. Or maybe it is quiet happy with none believers being tortured. Or maybe it is because you can not comprehend that people who believe in other gods also have personal experiences of those other gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Umm no, lack of evidence proves nothing.
You are disagreeing with me by agreeing with me? That is what I said, lack of evidence is not conclusive evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It's only lack of evidence.
If your argument expects to find no evidence for X, and you find no evidence for X, that lack of evidence for X is evidence your argument is correct. You don't seem to have the hang of this evidence thing, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I don't deny that other religions can have supernatural experiences. Like Native Americans going on a spirit quest or people in New Age being able to astral project themselves. On that basis alone, it proves that there is a spiritual realm. The vast majority of the world's population DO NOT believe like you. What's more like, that most of the world suffers from imaginary delusions or people are having real supernatural encounters. I would say the latter.
The vast majority of the world's population DO believe like me. Almost everyone instinctively believes there is purpose behind events, even when it turns out to be wrong. The only difference is that atheists recognize this teleological thinking wrapped up as religion makes no sense.
Actually, I'm not sure he was asking about Constitutional rights. He was pointing out that the atheist claim is more of a smokescreen tactic to keep from asking tough questions. And I'll agree with him.
Wrong. He was saying we redefine the use of the word extraordinary from how Christians correctly use it to mean extraordinary how Christians correctly use it; so that we can dismiss the alleged miracles of Jesus as something extraordinary (just as the Christians correctly use it).
Matthew (so I argue) didn't rewrite Mark because mark himself rewore the synoptic original text quite a lot. But if by 'mark' you mean the synoptic original that all three used, then Ok.
I think Mark was the synoptic original as I see no evidence for a proto Mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And I don't agree that "Mark" had a resurrection account. I reckon that the original synoptic gospel had no nativity, and no resurrection. That was Not added in mark's version, but Matthew and Luke (writing later) added both Nativity and resurrections, and they both contradict each other all the way.
As the resurrection is key to both Paul's letters and Hebrews, I would argue it was there from the beginning of Christianity. Its position at the end of Mark matching the baptism at the start strengthens this idea for me.
The nativity, I agree with you totally, and its anti Marcion message makes me think it was invented sometime around 130 - 150 AD.
Wrong. He was saying we redefine the use of the word extraordinary from how Christians correctly use it to mean extraordinary how Christians correctly use it; so that we can dismiss the alleged miracles of Jesus as something extraordinary (just as the Christians correctly use it).
Matthew (so I argue) didn't rewrite Mark because mark himself rewore the synoptic original text quite a lot. But if by 'mark' you mean the synoptic original that all three used, then Ok.
And I don't agree that "Mark" had a resurrection account. I reckon that the original synoptic gospel had no nativity, and no resurrection. That was Not added in mark's version, but Matthew and Luke (writing later) added both Nativity and resurrections, and they both contradict each other all the way.
Up to then the women at the open tomb is agreed by all four gospels. So that isn't the issue. The women running off to the disciples is agreed by all four (though the original ending of them being afraid and saying nothing - which Mark uses) is altered to fit the views of the writers. From then on they contradict totally.
I know - I myself for a Loooong time assumed that the nativities and Resurrections were talling the same story. We take the Basic point that they are trying to prove in either ase
Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem
Jesus resurrected in the body - and they all saw it.
And we weave the discrepancies together into a coherent story. But they are not. They are different and mutually contradictory stories. And they are false, and they are individually invented, and Mark doesn't have either of them
There was also a 5th Gospel, Q. Historians have surmised that when Matthew and Luke have passages that are virtually identical, but not contained in Mark, they came from another source - the Book of Q. Given Matthew and Luke were written in different areas, at different times, it is difficult to think that one copied the other.
True, we did redefine extraordinary to mean ordinary. Oh, wait, that was Jeff.
Then yes, we do redefine extraordinary to mean extraordinary.
At least you stayed only with the straw man.
Jeff's other argument was 1) he knows what atheists believe better than atheists, 2) we redefine words to mean what they actually mean, just to pretend for some unknown reason that your god does not exist (like that would work ), and 3) that Satan has fooled us into not believing in your god while at the same time (see point 2) we allegedly believe in your god.
: smack::s mack::sm ack::sma ck:
And you, , yes, you, thought his post was a good one.
See, this is the problem with unintentional intellectual dishonesty Jonessg projects on us atheists. If you theists simply post the same old delusional arguments without thinking about them, then you will consistently be caught out in your unintentional intellectual dishonesty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) christian would ever convert to Islam or Buddhism. You say you haven't heard of it. That's negative evidence and no mistake. You don't look, don;'t find it, therefore it doesn't happen.
), and 3) that Satan has fooled us into not believing in your god while at the same time (see point 2) we allegedly believe in your god.
, yes, you, thought his post was a good one.
