Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 04-01-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that a loving, rational God would use copies of copies of written records as a primary means of communcating with humans, and that he would inspire a book like the Bible ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I have no idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since your viewer profile says that you are an agnostic, I find your comment to be quite odd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Shouldn't you expect an agnostic to say "I have no idea." to any question about God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Not about the existence and the character of the God of the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Which is not the issue you asked me to speak upon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

On the contrary, I said:

Johnny Skeptic:

"Are you saying that a loving, rational God would use copies of copies of written records as a primary means of communcating with humans, and that he would inspire a book like the Bible?"

You replied:

Jeffrey Gibson:

"I have no idea."

Your reply is not consistent with the commonly accepted definitions of agnosticism. Agnostics do not preclude a reasonably possibility that a god exists, but as far as I know, all agnostics preclude a reasonable possibility that the God of the Bible exists, and that the vast majority of agnostics believe that if a being inspired the Bible, he does not have good character.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Umm, you are in touch with the vast majority of agnostics, are you?

Do you preclude a reasonable possibility that the God of the Bible exists?

Johnny Skeptic · 04-01-2008, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What benefits would a loving, rational God derive from making 100% disputable prophecies? What benefits would anyone else derive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

A standard theistic response is to argue that if God was too clear in how he revealed himself to us, this would take away our free will (free will to freely come to him and believe in him). It would be gravely wrong to remove our free will. Therefore God does not reveal himself completely clearly to all people in all places.

My response to any Christian who uses that argument would be to visit my thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=237143 at the GRD forum that is titled 'Would more evidence from God unfairly interfere with people's free will?' and make a post. I started it in February. The few dissenters gave up, including arnoldo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

And to add to that; even if you, Johnny Skeptic, do not regard that as loving behaviour, many theists do. So they can quite consistently argue that God is loving in not revealing himself to us at all times completely clearly.

You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

The issue quickly centres around the definition of 'good' no matter how you approach it. But a brief survey of the terrain should have demonstrated that it is unlikely to faze most with faith that God chooses not to contact us all directly, and equally that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (at least according how most theists would define benevolence) might choose not to contact us all directly.

I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But many Christians have given up Christianity, and many people will continue to do so. In addition, although I have helped to convince some Christians to give up Christianity, my main intended audience is not dedicated Christians, but the undecided crowd, the nominal Christian crowd, and those of the skeptic crowd who might become interested in Christianity in the future.

In my opinion, skeptics who insist upon opposing Christianity only by debating Biblical criticism and history and discount the additional advantages of philosophical arguments are missing the boat. I assume that the majority of people who give up Christianity, or who refuse to become Christians, do so because of philosophical arguments. not because of arguments that pertain to Biblical criticism and history. Some skeptics' interest in Biblical criticism and history is entirely academic. That is fine, but very few if any conservative Christians' interest in Biblical and patristic texts is entirely academic, and that includes Roger Pearse. Roger's unstated position is surely that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, the early chuch fathers would not have written what they wrote. That position is by necessity indirectly linked, but nevertheless linked to God's motives for sending Jesus to the earth, for inspiring the Bible, and for using written texts as a primary means of communciating with humans instead of telepathically or verbal giving the same messages to everyone in the world, thereby tending to discourage dissent instead of needlessly inviting dissent.

I got the following private message today:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe, fictitious name

Johnny, I must say... Bravo.

I love reading your posts, even though I know you're forced to repeat your arguments to willfully ignorant fundies like sugarhitman. PLEASE KEEP REPEATING THEM. They're well phrased and pretty much unassailable. I've even borrowed them on occasion when speaking to my family. Hope you don't mind.......You're doing us fresh de-converts a great service.

He was referring to some of my posts at other forums.

Following are some other private messages that I have received:

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe, fictitious name

Johnny Skeptic,

The people at the website are bible thumpers, they will not venture over to a secular website such as this. They are fully aware that coming over here to join a discussion will not go their way. That is why I am trying to get an expert as yourself to come to their bible thumping site and and take the discussion away from them there.

He was referring to some of my posts at another forum. Please be advised that I have never said that I am an expert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moderator

I must say that you have an impressive talent for picking up on shifts in the discussion.

Stepping outside of the mod role for a moment, I wanted to let you know that I've actually incorporated some of your points into discussions that I have with a close personal friend who is currently a Church of Christ-type fundamentalist Christian. I intend to incorporate more as the discussions evolve to greater depth.

Keep up the good work!

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe, fictitious name

On a personal note, for about a 1/2 year before you came here, I dabbled in throwing the bible back at Christians here. I debated fundies with their own living manual. Many gave up, just like they do to you. Then you came along with more gusto than I. It was great seeing someone take more notice of turning the Bible back at 'em. So I just basically shut my mouth and let you go to it.

That private message was from a administrator who is, or was, whichever is the case, also a moderator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Doe, fictitious name

You got a "Johnny Skeptic fan" thread made in your honor, so that's not bad!

That private message was from an administrator who is not a moderator.

Last but not least, Dr. Robert Price has given me some nice compliments regarding some arguments that I have sent him over the years. I do not remember which arguments that I sent him. If you wish, you can confirm that by contacting Bob at criticus@aol.com.

I am not bragging. I only mentioned those compliments because I wanted you to know that many skeptics approve of the arguments that I use. All of the preceding compliments were regarding some of my posts at other forums. I do not pretend to know a lot about Biblical criticism and history.

badger3k · 04-01-2008, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

What benefits would a loving, rational God derive from making 100% disputable prophecies? What benefits would anyone else derive?

A standard theistic response is to argue that if God was too clear in how he revealed himself to us, this would take away our free will (free will to freely come to him and believe in him). It would be gravely wrong to remove our free will. Therefore God does not reveal himself completely clearly to all people in all places.

And to add to that; even if you, Johnny Skeptic, do not regard that as loving behaviour, many theists do. So they can quite consistently argue that God is loving in not revealing himself to us at all times completely clearly.

The standard theistic response fails when you consider that, if you believe the bible literally, then god did appear to the Israelites many times, and that did not do a thing for their free will. For goddness' sake - according to Exodus, there was a series of miracles, and a huge freaking pillar of flame, and yet all these apparently did not stop the Israelites from worshipping other gods. Did God take away Moses' free will?

Of course, if the exodus never happened, and this was all some kind of metaphorical or poetical construct, then the argument can change to the existence of laws. We have many laws in this country, and in most cases they are clear and unambiguous, and yet many people still choose not to follow them. Why would the words, written in a book, in a clear, unambiguous way, somehow remove free will. Heck, even the archenemy of the Christian god, Satan/Lucifer/etc, knows that this god exists, and yet he apparently had enough free will to turn aside. The free will defense is a very poor example. Its a rationalization that fails.

Of course, all these have probably been argued on that thread, and maybe shot down - I haven't been able to go and read, as I'm at work, but I wanted to toss that out here in this thread.

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-01-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Umm, you are in touch with the vast majority of agnostics, are you?

Do you preclude a reasonable possibility that the God of the Bible exists?

The issue is whether you have warrant for your claim "that the vast majority of agnostics believe that if a being inspired the Bible, he does not have good character", not what I do or do not consider to be reasonable possibility.

Your claim is true or false regardless of what I believe or preclude as reasonable on any matter whatsoever.

More importantly, your claim presupposes that you are indeed in touch with the vast majority of agnostics. Otherwise how could you make the claim that you have made about what the vast majority of agnostics believe, with the degree of certainty with which you made it?

So are you going to tell us whether you are what you claim your are (i.e. someone who is in touch with the vast majority of agnostics), or not?

How do you know -- as certainly as you imply you do -- what the vast majority of agnostics believe?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13 · 04-01-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Not about the existence and the character of the God of the Bible.

As Jeffrey pointed out, that isn't what you asked. You asked him what he thought a particular type of god would do.

agnostic: 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with Jeffrey's response and the above definition.

And quit repeating every damn post in your replies! People can scroll back if they haven't been following this ridiculous tangent.

Johnny Skeptic · 04-02-2008, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that a loving, rational God would use copies of copies of written records as a primary means of communcating with humans, and that he would inspire a book like the Bible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I have no idea.

Let me put it another way: Do you believe that it would be sensible for a God to use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans? If so, do you believe that it is reasonably possible that a God uses copies of copies of ancient Bible texts as a primary means of communicating with humans?

What are you trying to accomplish at this forum? Is your interest in the Bible entirely academic? If so, you can bet that conservative Christians' interest in the Bible is not entirely academic.

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-02-2008, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying that a loving, rational God would use copies of copies of written records as a primary means of communcating

Wow. Cool hand Luke!

Quote:

with humans, and that he would inspire a book like the Bible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I have no idea.

Quote:

Let me put it another way: Do you believe that it would be sensible for a God to use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans?

Define "sensible" and state your criteria by which you judge something to be "sensible" and please give reasons why anyone here should accept your definition of "sensible" as determinative of anything.

Quote:

If so, do you believe that it is reasonably possible that a God uses copies of copies of ancient Bible texts as a primary means of communicating with humans?

What is possible and what is sensible are two different things. And just because it is not sensible to do a thing in a particular way does not mean that that thing has not been done.

May I ask where you learned logic?

And what does any of this have to do with determining what an ancient text says?

Quote:

What are you trying to accomplish at this forum?

I might ask you the same thing.

Quote:

Is your interest in the Bible entirely academic? If so, you can bet that conservative Christians' interest in the Bible is not entirely academic.

Even if true, so what?

Jeffrey

Yellum Notnef · 04-02-2008, 07:51 AM

I once inquired about the nature of Gibsons agnosticism and instead of receiving an answer I was instead told I didn't know what agnostics believe.
I wasn't told what Jeffrey believes or even what agnostics as a whole believe. I was just told that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Here is my question again for Mr Gibson.
Does his agnosticism leave open the possibility that Jesus might be god?

I fully expect that my query will again be dodged by Mr Gibson, but I would love to be proven wrong.

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-02-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

I once inquired about the nature of Gibsons agnosticism and instead of receiving an answer I was instead told I didn't know what agnostics believe.
I wasn't told what Jeffrey believes or even what agnostics as a whole believe. I was just told that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Which, time and again, has been shown to be true.

Quote:

Here is my question again for Mr Gibson.
Does his agnosticism leave open the possibility that Jesus might be god?

Define god.

And what does this question have to do with determining what biblical texts say?

Jeffrey

Yellum Notnef · 04-02-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenton Mulley

I once inquired about the nature of Gibsons agnosticism and instead of receiving an answer I was instead told I didn't know what agnostics believe.
I wasn't told what Jeffrey believes or even what agnostics as a whole believe. I was just told that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Which, time and again, has been shown to be true.

Quote:

Here is my question again for Mr Gibson.
Does his agnosticism leave open the possibility that Jesus might be god?

Define god.

And what does this question have to do with determining what biblical texts say?

Jeffrey

As usual, a question to Jeffrey is met not with a answer, but rather questions for the inquirer. I'm not trying to pick a fight here and I've actually grown to like you even though you can be rather difficult at times.
Why is this such a guarded secret with you? Help me understand.

04-02-2008, 07:51 AM	#28
Yellum Notnef Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Gone Posts: 4,676	One more try I once inquired about the nature of Gibsons agnosticism and instead of receiving an answer I was instead told I didn't know what agnostics believe. I wasn't told what Jeffrey believes or even what agnostics as a whole believe. I was just told that I don't know what I'm talking about. Here is my question again for Mr Gibson. Does his agnosticism leave open the possibility that Jesus might be god? I fully expect that my query will again be dodged by Mr Gibson, but I would love to be proven wrong.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.