Freethought & Rationalism Archive

badger3k · 06-22-2005, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

At the very least you could have asked it for one or two prohecies.

I hate to say this, and with all due respect, but you passed up a great opportunity.

I disagree. After 10 pages and several months, he's still arguing that Tyre is a fulfilled prophecy, that it sank, etc, etc. Asking Lee to try to prove his point on prophecy is an exercise in futility.

John A. Broussard · 06-22-2005, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

I disagree. After 10 pages and several months, he's still arguing that Tyre is a fulfilled prophecy, that it sank, etc, etc. Asking Lee to try to prove his point on prophecy is an exercise in futility.

You're confusing the references, but that's OK. Asking Lee to do anything but repeat the prophesies he sees in the bible is truly non-productive.

However, if you think lee's prophecies are meaningless, you should see what a Qu'ran believer came up with in this forum.

I guess, if you've seen one fundie, you've seen them all.

lee_merrill · 06-23-2005, 07:53 PM

Hi everyone,

Quote:

Therese: First of all, please define heart attitude; secondly, are you now talking about god changing what is in your 'heart', rather than his motive?

Well, an attitude "from the heart," an intent, a motive, as parents are expected (on a small scale, compared to this), to check their motive, and seek a good attitude, before administering some punishment to a child.

Quote:

Lee: Well, can you be still? No, you can't! Not with earth whirling through space. But we don't have to make these qualifiers in every instance

John: Can ANYONE explain to me what lee is talking about there?

Well (again), I meant that we speak in ways we know are not (pedantically) descriptive of physical reality. And people understand, and don't raise a fuss, when a scientist tells us the time of the sunrise, tomorrow.

Quote:

Bob: Have you ever observed or otherwise heard of a contemporary person prove he speaks a message from your god by causing a staff to turn into a snake?

Well! Well well well.

I meant this as an example of asking for supernatural confirmation. Really, folks, these points are not so tremendously obscure.

Quote:

Bob: You did not respond to my demand that you prove gods exist by (A) physical evidence, people/objects/evens comprised of matter/energy, (B) eyewitness reports from credible eyewitnesses corroborated by credible corroborators of physical evidence, or (C) logical arguments whose premises are verifiable/falsifiable/verified by physical evidence.

But you didn't demand that! The question was (as far as I understood) how we could tell if God was speaking, and now I know your answer! And I have given you mine...

Quote:

Bob: Any reasonably intelligent person can prophesize earthquakes, volcanic eruptions...

Certainly I would not consider a prophecy that the sun will, er, rise, tomorrow, to be evidence of a supernatural message.

Quote:

Bob: Similarly, if successful exorcisms have been conducted by non-Jws/non-Xns, then you cannot claim that only Jws/Xns can help people by conducting exorcisms...

Well, I actually don't claim that, I do claim that their fruits will be different, that the result will not turn out well, nor will their lives reflect a character with holiness, goodness, and a love of truth, and of others...

Quote:

Bob: Your claims that the Bable provides instructions inre proof of the existence of gods and verification that speeches of men were inspired by gods are therefore rejected.

But that wasn't what was at issue here...

Regards,
Lee

badger3k · 06-23-2005, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Hi everyone,
Well, an attitude "from the heart," an intent, a motive, as parents are expected (on a small scale, compared to this), to check their motive, and seek a good attitude, before administering some punishment to a child.

But, how does this relate to your God giving it to you? You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Quote:
Therese: So if god would have to show you a motive, then surely he would have to show a motive in all cases. He has not given a motive in the Moses situation.<end Therese>

Actually, I meant for God to give a heart attitude, to give me a heart attitude, that had no ill intent in it, I did not mean a requirement for him to demonstrate an abstract motive.

So, we're not talking about your motive (or God's) - we're (well, you are) talking about your God giving you this attitude. How do you tell the difference between your own feelings and those imposed upon you by your Lord? And would that make genocide or murder OK?

How can someone else prove to you that their "heart attitude" is not their own feelings but is caused by God? Or...

How can you prove that, as in the cases of Moses and Joshua, that the attitude they had was NOT caused by God? Are you claiming that they ordered those people killed with no "ill-intent"? Is it possible to commit genocide with Love?

If it comes from God, who are you to tell Him what an "ill-intent" is?

John A. Broussard · 06-23-2005, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John

Lee: Well, can you be still? No, you can't! Not with earth whirling through space. But we don't have to make these qualifiers in every instance

John: Can ANYONE explain to me what lee is talking about there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Well (again), I meant that we speak in ways we know are not (pedantically) descriptive of physical reality. And people understand, and don't raise a fuss, when a scientist tells us the time of the sunrise, tomorrow.

Can anyone explain to me what lee is talking about in his explanation?

Thanks.

Avatar · 06-24-2005, 01:00 AM

badger3k · 06-24-2005, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Can anyone explain to me what lee is talking about in his explanation?

Thanks.

It sounds like he is saying that we use descriptive terms all the time and do not raise objections normally. Thus nobody gets into arguments when the weatherman on TV says the sun will rise at 6:00am - even if we all know the sun does not rise, the Earth turns.

However, he misses the point that in ancient times, the people did believe that the sun rose into the sky (since we have myths and writings that indicate that). So when someone tries to say that an ancient myth is not literal, they have to prove that since the alternative (literal) is the standard, unlike today when most people know the "sun rises" is not literal.

That's my take on it.

John A. Broussard · 06-24-2005, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

It sounds like he is saying that we use descriptive terms all the time and do not raise objections normally. Thus nobody gets into arguments when the weatherman on TV says the sun will rise at 6:00am - even if we all know the sun does not rise, the Earth turns.

However, he misses the point that in ancient times, the people did believe that the sun rose into the sky (since we have myths and writings that indicate that). So when someone tries to say that an ancient myth is not literal, they have to prove that since the alternative (literal) is the standard, unlike today when most people know the "sun rises" is not literal.

That's my take on it.

So he's saying that when the ancient myth states that the sun stood still, it does not mean that it literally stood still. It just means that the myth makers perceived it as standing still.

If that's what he means, then we have a discussion point.

Can we get him to say that, do you think?

badger3k · 06-25-2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

So he's saying that when the ancient myth states that the sun stood still, it does not mean that it literally stood still. It just means that the myth makers perceived it as standing still.

If that's what he means, then we have a discussion point.

Can we get him to say that, do you think?

I don't know, but I'm sure he's still reading this, so maybe we can ask directly - Lee, do you agree with the above statement?

John A. Broussard · 06-25-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

I don't know, but I'm sure he's still reading this, so maybe we can ask directly - Lee, do you agree with the above statement?

Maybe we can lure him out by going back to the OP.

Moses did kill babies, of course, but he was only doing what god commanded, so technically--like Eichman--he was really not guilty of killing babies.

"I was only following orders," he would have said, if he'd been tried as a war crimininal.

Actually, I think the question deserves some modification--like how much did Moses enjoy killing those babies? Or, better yet, how much did god enjoy watching those babies being killed?

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

06-24-2005, 01:00 AM	#346
Avatar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Santa Rosa, CA Posts: 2,817

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.