Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 11-28-2005, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

You, of course, didn't answer the question.

After seeking god's protection, the soldier now has his limbs blown off.

Is there any point in his praying to god for new ones to grow back?

If he does, should he expect them to in fact grow back?

Wouldn't this be just as worthy as praying to god for a cure to one's incurable cancer?

No and no.

Why would one pray to God for a cure to one's incurable cancer?

rhutchin · 11-28-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
The exciting part of this is that unbelievers get to find out if it is a scam when they die.

Wayne Delia
That's the part that I identified as "unfalsifiable". Why is your God so afraid of me He can't challenge me until I'm dead?

I guess God just wants you to have fun.

Quote:

rhutchin
That makes dying an adventure (maybe that is why people commit suicide; they get so excited, they can't wait to find out).

Wayne Delia
…

Atheists, on the other hand, hold to the position that this life is all we have,…

Atheists aren’t dumb; they figured out the obvious.

Wayne Delia · 11-28-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

No, I would not say that. My view is that we should do those things that Christ taught us to do.

Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."

You go right ahead and do those things that Christ taught you to do, but I cannot and will not, because I love my family and myself.

WMD

Wayne Delia · 11-28-2005, 04:33 PM

rhutchin - you've been completely silent on the matter of the reasons why you disagree with the Bishop Ussher timeline which pinpoints the date and time of creation to 4004 B.C. Can I assume you've given up and you concede that point, or are you just hoping it will fade away if you tiptoe away from it?

WMD

rhutchin · 11-28-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
Yes, God has to save you BEFORE you will turn to Christ (otherwise, why would you seek Christ except, perhaps, to appease yourself or maybe to get into some girl's pants).

Wayne Delia
I've heard Christian girls are easy, but are they really that easy?

Actually, it is because they are not easy that we have so many men claiming to be ex-Christians.

Wayne Delia · 11-28-2005, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I guess God just wants you to have fun.

So, essentially, your God's my bitch. See if you can get him to bring me a beer.

Quote:

Atheists aren’t dumb; they figured out the obvious.

That seems to me to be a blanket stereotype against Christians as being dumb, since they think they've figured out something that the atheists haven't, while the non-dumb atheists figure out the obvious. To me, it is indeed obvious that this life is all we have. If you think that Christians agree with that, then you seriously misunderstand Christianity.

WMD

Ubercat · 11-28-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Actually, it is because they are not easy that we have so many men claiming to be ex-Christians.

Not just claiming. I for one AM an ex-christian. I have no reason to doubt the testimony of all the others, either. It would be the height of arrogance for me to accuse them of lying, when I have no evidence to back up my accusations. Therefore, I'm mature enough to just take their word for it, and trust that they're more familiar with their own lives than I am.

-Ubercat

Wayne Delia · 11-28-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

You, of course, didn't answer the question.

After seeking god's protection, the soldier now has his limbs blown off.

Is there any point in his praying to god for new ones to grow back?

If he does, should he expect them to in fact grow back?

Wouldn't this be just as worthy as praying to god for a cure to one's incurable cancer?

No and no.

Even though Jesus said anything prayed for would be delivered to the faithful? The quadriplegic soldier doesn't have to be a Christian; some other Christian could pray for him and according to Jesus, it'll happen. The fact that it doesn't happen at all indicates one (or more) of several possibilities:
1. God doesn't exist.
2. Jesus is God's son, but He can't make good on what He promised in Mark 11:22-24.
3. Jesus existed, but He was greatly confused about what would be delivered in response to prayer.
4. Jesus is God's son, but He's a devious bastard, and He lied to you.
5. Jesus is God's son, and the abilities are legitimate, but absolutely nobody has sufficient faith for the abilities to work.
6. Jesus is God's son, the abilities are legitimate, any faithful Christian can do them, but all choose not to use them. (Those bastards!)

Quote:

Why would one pray to God for a cure to one's incurable cancer?

Because Jesus said anything prayed for would be delivered to the faithful. Also, Jesus said that Christians would be distinguished by their abilities to cure any illness. Not that they need to cure every illness, but that they would be identified as Christians for their ability to cure any illness. So, there's no such thing as "incurable anything," much less "incurable cancer," if Jesus was telling the truth, and if any Christians had sufficient faith, and if any of those Christians were willing to use their magical super-powers.

But all we get is a damn list of damn excuses why the damn abilities won't work.

WMD

Wayne Delia · 11-28-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

As I understand it, science predicts until scientists learn something new and predict something else.

Scientific estimates began with, "If we assume that what we know is correct, then our estimates can predict so and so, and then we can accept those estimates with a certain degree of probability. Of course, when we learn new stuff, we can always go back and revise our estimates"

Earlier, I said (or meant if not expressed well) that we can know what the Bible says, but we may not understand everything about what we read.

And on that basis, it's better to rely on the Bible instead of science - for the explicit reason that the Bible is less certain? Are you out of your mind? The scientific method, even as you have naively described it here, is self-correcting, and That's A Good Thing, because as new information becomes available, it is incorporated into the body of knowledge, with revisions to older hypotheses modified or entirely discarded to account for the newly-discovered information. On the other hand, we're stuck with what the Bible says, with no revisions, modifications, or discarding of anything permitted. New knowledge is discouraged, which sucks for any hope of scientific advancements.

This pretty much refutes your entire argument in this area.

WMD

John A. Broussard · 11-28-2005, 08:21 PM

Bearlaker post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin
John was correct when he said:

"I am he as you are me as you are we and we are all together."

I don't remember saying that.

Maybe it was John the Baptist, or John the gospel writer, or perhaps John the King of England.

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

11-28-2005, 04:33 PM	#204
Wayne Delia Contributor Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Hudson Valley, NY Posts: 10,056	rhutchin - you've been completely silent on the matter of the reasons why you disagree with the Bishop Ussher timeline which pinpoints the date and time of creation to 4004 B.C. Can I assume you've given up and you concede that point, or are you just hoping it will fade away if you tiptoe away from it? WMD

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.