Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MadPhatCat · 01-12-2006, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aradia

My stance is not that "prayer works", but that "prayer can work".
Likewise, not that "prayer is good", but that "prayer can be good".

This may be outside the scope of this thread, but my stance is not that "throwing salt over my shoulder, spinning around three times and saying Bugga-bugga-boo to the IPU" works but that it can work. I mean, it works for me, it makes me feel all fuzzy inside. Therefore the IPU exists.

:Cheeky:

FarmMama · 01-12-2006, 12:27 PM

We've now moved in the direction of Biblical Criticism and History, which is beyond the scope of this forum. I'm going to split the last few posts over to BC&H, please continue the discussion there. I'll leave a link to the new thread when the split is completed.

FM

steamer · 01-12-2006, 12:29 PM

Mark,

Can I ask you why you are not a Muslim or a Mormon? These stories are also based on "testimony". I'm quite sure that they both are quite correct in whatever the then current cultural, governmental and geographical specifics references might have been. Let me know how you decided that these testimonies were unacceptable (and I agree they are), then we can find out why you'd accept the magical claims of one but dismiss the magical claims of the others.

TomboyMom · 01-12-2006, 12:32 PM

And when you get there, take pity on those of us unschooled in these matters. I try to follow threads in B C & H and get lost in the post-ers assumptions that I'm already familiar with these writers, which I think most of the people in that forum are. Instead of just referring to authors, as in,"Oh yeah, what about McRodriguez' evidence that absolutely disproves O'Choy on the Whozits fragments?", it would help me a lot if you would tell me who McRodriguez was, what he wrote, what the fragments are, why they matter, what O'Choy said about them, and the like. Thanks.

FarmMama · 01-12-2006, 12:37 PM

The split is complete. I've merged them into the same thread that baldbantam started this morning when he originally split out the BC&H bits.

Please let's keep this thread on topic and pay the good folks at BC&H a visit.

Thanks all!

FM

MarkB4 · 01-12-2006, 12:41 PM

TomboyMom - I was responding to Biff's claims, that's all. I would not have the time to review each of these writers iif I wanted to, but for those who are interested, a quick google search will give you information on the John Ryland fragments. The "ignorant or dishonest" statement was directed at anyone who would claim serious scholarship and make a 325 authorship claim.

I haven't even had a chance to get to belief, yet. I am hoping there are a few who are willing to check out the claims of the authorship first, then we can do a comparative religion discussion.

steamer · 01-12-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkB4

I haven't even had a chance to get to belief, yet. I am hoping there are a few who are willing to check out the claims of the authorship first, then we can do a comparative religion discussion.

Actually before a comparative religion discussion ensues shouldn't we just check if there is any evidence that any god exists? So what if one religion compares favorably to another if all of them are wrong. My point was that testimony has never been a great way to determine truth. There are a huge amount of folk being released from prisons where testimony has landed them but science and logic have freed them.

If god could provide evidence to Moses in the past then he can provide evidence to men now. Without this evidence I shall be tortured forever according to those same people that claim god exists. If god exists now, let him proclaim his existence himself. This hiding game is just too stupid to play.

ETA
On some reflection, I think your statements have already indicated that you don't believe testimony is very good evidence. I agree. When you actually get around to telling us what you think a god is and whether it is a god that tortures dead Non-Christians and whether the love an individual has for a torturer is any reflection on the individual, then I'll get back to you.

TomboyMom · 01-12-2006, 01:35 PM

But to get back to the OP, Mark, do you believe that prayer has an effect on the world, outside of any psychological (or theological) benefit to the person praying? For example, do you believe that sincere prayer by a devout Christian, asking for a sick person to get better, increases the chances that the person will in fact get better?

Agnostic Theist · 01-12-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yggdrasill

All you theists are the same.

"Our god is real, look at what our prayers have done, look at the miracles in our religion, look at how moral we are and how many we are, all the evidence is right in front of you, just believe." and "Just accept it's Truth and then you'll believe."

Scientific experiments have shown prayer to be useless, and I get no fuzzy feelings from any religion. We atheists want evidence, not an insistence to accept your god as truth.

We're all the same, are we?

Ask Chris Weimer what I think

Agnostic Theist · 01-12-2006, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B

I'd argue that all knowing means all knowing. And 'all' includes the future.

And if so, then what is going to happen is going to happen, which makes it dtermined as far as I can see.

Still, maybe Mark will come up with a definition of omniscience that doesn't mean all knowing.

Has he claimed 'omnibenevolent'? I don't recall him doing so.

But that is for the future, determined or not. For now, I'd just like to see his explanation of how omniscience does not imply determinism. This, I'd argue, means some definition of omniscience that does not man all knowing.

David B

x is omniscient = (def) For any proposition p, such that p is truth-apt, x knows whether p is true or false

If the future is accidentally contingent, then statements made at t(3-n) about t3 are not truth-apt. For instance 'Tomorrow I will drink a glass of water' is not true, and it is not false.

Hence, without assuming determining or the accidental necessity of the future, there is no reason to suppose God must know the future in order to be omniscient, anymore than He would have to know that salt makes porridge taste nicer.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-12-2006, 12:27 PM	#102
FarmMama Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,086	We've now moved in the direction of Biblical Criticism and History, which is beyond the scope of this forum. I'm going to split the last few posts over to BC&H, please continue the discussion there. I'll leave a link to the new thread when the split is completed. FM

01-12-2006, 12:29 PM	#103
steamer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: CA Posts: 7,653	Mark, Can I ask you why you are not a Muslim or a Mormon? These stories are also based on "testimony". I'm quite sure that they both are quite correct in whatever the then current cultural, governmental and geographical specifics references might have been. Let me know how you decided that these testimonies were unacceptable (and I agree they are), then we can find out why you'd accept the magical claims of one but dismiss the magical claims of the others.

01-12-2006, 12:32 PM	#104
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	And when you get there, take pity on those of us unschooled in these matters. I try to follow threads in B C & H and get lost in the post-ers assumptions that I'm already familiar with these writers, which I think most of the people in that forum are. Instead of just referring to authors, as in,"Oh yeah, what about McRodriguez' evidence that absolutely disproves O'Choy on the Whozits fragments?", it would help me a lot if you would tell me who McRodriguez was, what he wrote, what the fragments are, why they matter, what O'Choy said about them, and the like. Thanks.

01-12-2006, 12:37 PM	#105
FarmMama Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,086	The split is complete. I've merged them into the same thread that baldbantam started this morning when he originally split out the BC&H bits. Please let's keep this thread on topic and pay the good folks at BC&H a visit. Thanks all! FM

01-12-2006, 12:41 PM	#106
MarkB4 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 211	TomboyMom - I was responding to Biff's claims, that's all. I would not have the time to review each of these writers iif I wanted to, but for those who are interested, a quick google search will give you information on the John Ryland fragments. The "ignorant or dishonest" statement was directed at anyone who would claim serious scholarship and make a 325 authorship claim. I haven't even had a chance to get to belief, yet. I am hoping there are a few who are willing to check out the claims of the authorship first, then we can do a comparative religion discussion.

01-12-2006, 01:35 PM	#108
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	But to get back to the OP, Mark, do you believe that prayer has an effect on the world, outside of any psychological (or theological) benefit to the person praying? For example, do you believe that sincere prayer by a devout Christian, asking for a sick person to get better, increases the chances that the person will in fact get better?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.