Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bfniii · 06-26-2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherMithras

We've proved it didn't happen as much as is logicaly possible,

:rolling:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherMithras

We don't have to "prove" it didn't happen, BECAUSE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

translated: i have to rely on someone else to step forward first because i don't have a case of my own.

if the skeptical case is so strong, it should be able to field an objection that can stave off any potential probabilities without any apologist even trying to field a defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherMithras

Yet it's us who are folding our hands and refusing to discuss the issue.

that is clearly the behavior that spin exhibited. it's quite common, actually.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-26-2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

And what do you think that I have avoided? I have addressed every point directed at me that I know of. Instead of trying to make a vague assertion, why didn't you cite examples of posts that I missed?

Good grief! I have been in this thread for several hundred posts! where have you been? I have responded to several different alternatives regarding the numbers.

I made a point; someone responded with an article; I responded to the article. If I hadn't responded to it, I wouuld have been raked across the coals!

This is more of the customary distraction and obfuscation that is prevalent here. I went to the trouble of responding to a lengthy article and you don't even address my response. You, typically of people at infidels, engage in personal comments. Is that a sign that your case can't withstand debate? It's disappointing that regulars can't see that this type of behavior diminishes the intellectual reputation of the forums.

Actually, you just gave an adequate descripture of yourself. As I expected, you did not reply to my post #377. Is that a sign that you can't withstand debating my post?

You are not really interested in evidence unless it appeals to your own self-interest. First of all, it was your own self-interest that led you to Christianity, most certainly not the quality of the evidence. If the evidence were just as good that God will send everyone to hell, out of your own self-interest you would surely argue against the very same evidence that you argue for now. Hypothetical arguments are excellent means of revealing inconsistent and fallacious arguments. They are frequently used in court trials. If you claim that hypothetical arguments are not appropriate in debates, I will be happy to debate that issue with you.

Second of all, if it turns out that God sends you to hell, if you were able to resist him, out of your own self-interest you would resist him. Otherwise stated, only a mentally incompetent person would willingly endure eternal torment.

bfniii · 06-26-2006, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherMithras

BUGS DO NOT HAVE FOUR LEGS and there ain't a firmament in the sky. You lose.

verses? before you start with the firmament crap, i have already dealt with that in another thread. save us all some time by not repeating the same old, tired jack-isms.

bfniii · 06-26-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why did people explore the frontier after Daniel Boone?

thank you for reinforcing my point.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-26-2006, 07:24 PM

Bfniii claims that he is not evasive, but I have proven otherwise. He refuses to reply to my post #377 because he doesn't want to embarrass himself. He frequently asks skeptics what would be proof for them, but he seldom if ever states why the Bible is acceptable proof for him. As as agnostic, I have never claimed how the universe got here, but the Bible does, and yet bfniii doesn't have any historical evidence at all the God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth. Part of bfniii's evidence is personal experience, but he always refuses to debate it. He is one of the most evasive Christians that I have ever come across, and yet he has the audacity to accuse skeptics of being evasive. This thread is about the Exodus and the ten plagues, but bfniii has not offered any historical evidence at all that the ten plagues occurred.

I will repost my post #377 from time to time in order to show readers how evasive bfniii is.

EthnAlln · 06-26-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bfniii

i assume that you are referring to defense of the bible when you say "ad hoc". if that is your implication, then which particular ones do you consider ad hoc?

I gave a couple of examples in Post # 321. Does anybody else here see the irony in bfniii being puzzled about ad hoc hypotheses, considering the number of said hypotheses bfnii has introduced on this thread?

Quote:

and just exactly which apologists are inflexible? that statement, along with the one prior is sweeping and not very helpful.

Well, I try not to get too personal, but since you asked, you are the perfect example of inflexibility. The case against your position is established, but I don't expect that you are ever going to admit that. I've even lost interest in pointing out your mistakes.

Quote:

got any specifics? what about the creation story? what about the cosmogony? which history are you talking about?

The Biblical absurdities have already been pointed out, for several centuries now, and in at least a dozen places on this board every week. I see no point in repeating them one more time. If you truly have never heard of them, or don't recognize them for the absurdities that they are, you and I simply can't communicate in any meaningful way, and I'm not going to try.

Quote:

your sweeping statements pick and choose certain elements of history in the attempt to misrepresent all of christianity. the texts of the bible are not analogous to the mormon situation. we have many ancient, very ancient documents that have almost no disagreement between them. the disagreements that do exist are few, nearly inconsequential and not difficult to decipher. it is an unparalleled situation. you then include the tired cliche "christians who do bad things" as evidence that christianity is bad.

Excuse me!! I haven't said that Christianity is bad. Please don't put words into my mouth. In many places on this board I have expressed my belief that the mainstream Christian churches are a great force for good in the modern world. Why is it a "tired cliche" to say that some Christians have done bad things? Are we supposed to forget about the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, the hanging of Quakers on Boston Common, the last-ditch defense of slavery, the symbiotic relationship between the Ku Klux Klan and churches all over America, etc., etc.?

aa5874 · 06-26-2006, 08:51 PM

Bfniii, the 10 plagues are fiction. No magician can turn a rod into a real snake. No sorcerer can turn all the water of the rivers into blood.
No agent of witchcraft can create frogs to infest an entire country. No magician, sorcerer, or agents of witchcraft has been known to do those acts. Those magic tricks are unheard of, outrageous and unbelievable.

The author of Exodus is a blatant liar. There was no such showdown between Moses, Aaron and the Magicians. No wonder, the archaeological findings support no 'exodus'.

bfniii · 06-27-2006, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

bfniii, so your best explanation to the number of people participating in the alleged exodus is - it may be a literary exageration?

that is an alternative but i don't know if it's the best one. as i have said before, we may never know the answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

I can understand 600,000 as such a number. But not a list of 12 non-round numbers accumulating to a non-round number.
I understand someone saying 'I told you a million times' but does anyone say: "On Sunday I told you 156,800 times, on Monday 134,700 times, on Tuesday 182,150 times, on Wednesday 114,350 times, on Thursday 93,600 times, on Friday 174,200 times, on Saturday 147,500 times, and in total 1,003,300 times!!?"

i addressed this point specifically. numbers in ancient times were often exaggerated and sometimes numbers were used symbolically. that is one of the theories regarding the numbers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Regarding the water question - you know what, I don't believe a family could carry its own water for even one year.

not that they had to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

And besides, if they had several months' supply with them, why the urgency to find water in the early phases of the journey?

they were thirsty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

And no, you do not seem to understand the realities of obtaining water at an oasis: only a few people can stand at the well at any given time, there is a limit to how much they can lift and it takes them time. thus there is an upper limit to the people that can be supplied by such a well, even without considering the amount of available growndwater.

as i have said before, the oases were just one of the proposed ways they got water

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Your best response to the question of camp hygiene is that they must have done it some other way than the one specified by God if the latter doesn't seem to work. Which brings to question what God had in mind when he gave them bad hygiene instructions.

that is not what i said. when i made that comment it was in response to someone who didn't have time to make it out to the designated area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Oh, you didn't solve the problem of how could all the required individual sacrifices have possibly been scheduled (in addition to the regular ones) on just 2 altars.

i did; they were assisted by many

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

The method seems to be - the story must be taken as true, but if something doesn't seem to make sense then either that one detail shouldn't be taken literally or some unmentioned miracle took care of it. Which all amounts to 'the story exists, therefore it must have taken place, and if it doesn't make sense that isn't my problem'. You would have accepted any story as long as it was contained in your hly book.

that has not been my method. but it is a textbook strawman.

Anat · 06-27-2006, 07:02 AM

bfniii do you actually believe what you write?

Doug Shaver · 06-27-2006, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Bfniii claims that he is not evasive

Right. Like Nixon claimed he was not a crook. And like Clinton claimed he never had sex with Monica.

06-26-2006, 07:24 PM	#385
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	The Ten Plagues and the Exodus Bfniii claims that he is not evasive, but I have proven otherwise. He refuses to reply to my post #377 because he doesn't want to embarrass himself. He frequently asks skeptics what would be proof for them, but he seldom if ever states why the Bible is acceptable proof for him. As as agnostic, I have never claimed how the universe got here, but the Bible does, and yet bfniii doesn't have any historical evidence at all the God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth. Part of bfniii's evidence is personal experience, but he always refuses to debate it. He is one of the most evasive Christians that I have ever come across, and yet he has the audacity to accuse skeptics of being evasive. This thread is about the Exodus and the ten plagues, but bfniii has not offered any historical evidence at all that the ten plagues occurred. I will repost my post #377 from time to time in order to show readers how evasive bfniii is.

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

06-26-2006, 08:51 PM	#387
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Bfniii, the 10 plagues are fiction. No magician can turn a rod into a real snake. No sorcerer can turn all the water of the rivers into blood. No agent of witchcraft can create frogs to infest an entire country. No magician, sorcerer, or agents of witchcraft has been known to do those acts. Those magic tricks are unheard of, outrageous and unbelievable. The author of Exodus is a blatant liar. There was no such showdown between Moses, Aaron and the Magicians. No wonder, the archaeological findings support no 'exodus'.

06-27-2006, 07:02 AM	#389
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	bfniii do you actually believe what you write?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.