makerowner

I've given up replacing mine now that sugarhitman and arnoldo seem to have taken up residence here.

Johnny Skeptic

Not at all. My position is that the God of the Bible doest no exist.

Any your new threads on Bible prophecy are so numerous that I don't even read them any longer.

Since you have continued to avoid replying to some of my arguments, you are not in any position to claim that I am evasive. I have posted the following argument on a number of occasions, and you and arnoldo have always refused to directly reply to it because you did not want to embarrass yourselves.

You knew that you would embarrass yourself if you claimed that no one more Jews would have accepted Jesus.

The reason that I did not make a reply in your "Desolation of Egypt" thread is because the following arguments adequately refute all of your arguments in all of your threads about Bible prophecy:

No God who wanted people to believe that he can predict the future would refuse to make indisputable predictions, and needlessly create confusion by making disputable predictions. An example of an indisputable prediction would be a prediction when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year. If the Bible contained lots of predictions like that, there would be no need to debate whether or not at least one being exists who is able to predict the future.

You have not provided any sensible reasons why God makes disputable predictions instead of making indisputable predictions. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why there is not one single indisputable prophecy in the Bible, or in any other religious book.

You once said that God predicts the future because only he can predict the future, but that does not explain why God has never made an indisputable prophecy. Why did the Bible writers write disputable prophecies? Obviously, because the writers of false religious books do not have any choice except to write disputable prophecies.

Arnoldo embarrassed himself by claiming that God uses prophecy after the fact to strengthen the faith of believers. No Jew who lived during Ezekiel's time saw the Tyre prophecy fulfilled, nor did any Jew who lived during the next several hundred years. Since Ezekiel claimed that "a king of kings" (Nebuchadnezzar) would go down the streets of Tyre, and tear down its towers, it is probable that most Jews believed that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Tyre. It would not have made any sense for Ezekiel to claim that "a king of kings" (Nebuchadnezzar) would go down the streets of Tyre, and tear down its towers, and fail to defeat Tyre, but it would have made sense for the "many nations" part of the prophecy to be added after it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar would not be able to defeat Tyre. When Alexander finally defeated Tyre, some Jews must have wondered why Ezekiel did not mention Tyre.

Arnoldo embarrassed himself on another occasion when he said that if Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander that skeptics would claim that that was written after the fact. I and another skeptic told arnoldo that since many people were already aware of the previous version, it would have been too late to make changes by the time that Alexander defeated Tyre. Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that if a God wanted to convince everyone in the world that he could predict the future, he could easily have done so thousands of years ago.

Bible prophecy is a losing argument because Christians cannot come up with any good reasons why there are not any indisputabe prophecies in the Bible.

That is fine. I will still continue to post these arguments from time to time in your threads on Bible prophecies.

chrisengland

Sugarhitman and Arnaldo don't listen to anything anybody else says so whats the point in debating them!!

Johnny Skeptic

Sugarhitman and Arnoldo don't talk "with" people. They talk "at" people. They are bullies. They inisist on controlling which issues get discussed. I finally decided to put a stop to that and told them that if they would not reply to my arguments, I would not reply to their arguments.

JEST2ASK

I just finished and all I can say is OK just what was it you think you proved in that thread

I would swear you are an atheist purposely making bad arguements to discredit Christians and amuse yourself at their expense. Unfortunately I do not think anyone would expand that much effort and time unless they were in fact sincere (IMO sadly so).

But hey that is your problem I am sure you feel the same sense of bewildered disappointment regarding unbelievers.

brettpalmer

And thus spin, perhaps without even intending to do so, gave us the most succinct recap of the metaphorical meaning of Genesis 2:4-3:24 ever to be submitted in a post on IIDB. :notworthy:

spin

I agree with this. They haven't come here to discuss anything

But this seems right off. These guys are apprentice Daniels in the lion's den, with blinkers that are so restricting that they won't see the lions.

That's understandable. They won't look outside the range of the blinkers. That's dangerous. They might see a lion.

That's functional. They might get upset if no-one will talk to them, while they are trying to dictate the conversation -- or at least bored and start looking for some other reason to exist.


spin

sugarhitman

It looks like spin does not want to tell me what he believes in....I'm still waiting...spin.

spin

"[N]ot want"? Naaa.

I don't believe in anything at all. In fact, believing in things is the ultimate act of irresponsibility.

I believe a lot of things though, but they're just about how the world or society works, like the sun will "rise" tomorrow (this is fundamentally uniformity). And those aren't really material for this forum.


spin

sugarhitman

In other words you only believe what your eyes can touch. Somehow I dont believe that Spin. Do you believe in Evolution? Do you believe in UFO'S? Are you a Buddist? Or perhaps a Deist? Atheists only believes what they can see, but yet they believe in Evolution, and many believe in alien lifeforms on other planets. Is this you spin? I dont buy that "I don't believe in nothing" because a person who does not believe in nothing....is not a person with a brain...nor human nature.