Headache

* Scrambles to get some pop corn and a 6-pack before the show begins *

Johnny Skeptic

Imagine that today, you are an undecided skeptic who will go to hell, but would not have gone to hell if God has predicted when and where some natural disasters occurred, and had predicted that Alexander would defeat Tyre.

That is not likely. Consider the following from another thread:

But if the God of the Bible does not exist, that is exactly what we would expect to find. If he does not exist, we would expect that no one would ever hear about the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, which is exactly what the case is. If God exists, since he refuses to tell anyone about the Gospel message himself, this means that he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT people hear the Gospel message. That does not make any sense. No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby inviting dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and undermining his intent to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

We would also expect to find that the primary, if not the only factors that determine what people believe would be geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age, to which I would like add time period. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. If the God of the Bible exists, no one would be able predict what his success rates would be by sex. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against men by convincing a smaller percentage of them to become Christians.

We would also expect to find the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics, and mimics the way that things would be if he did not exist.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case.

We would also expect to find the following:

Food would be distributed entirely by humans. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person that his faith is dead, but God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

Now why do you suppose that God inspired James to write that if a man refuses to give food to hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead?

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist.

Yes, and you and everyone else too. If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and were raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in was predominantly Buddhist, what would the odds have been that you would have heard about the God of the Bible? The correct answer is "zero." Today, what are the odds that a devout, Southern Bible Belt, fundamentalist Christian couple's son will become a fundamentalist Christian as compared with the odds of a son who is raised by Muslim parents in a remote region of Afghanistan becoming a fundamentalist Christian?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, what are the odds that a much lower percentage of elderly skeptics would become Christians than younger skeptics, and that a much larger percentage of younger skeptics would become Christians than elderly skeptics, and that a much smaller percentage of elderly Christians would become skeptics than younger Christians, and that a much larger percentage of younger Christians would become skeptics, all of which are the case today? The correct answer is 100% because it is well-known that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are.

Minimalist

Why, if they were being so badly persecuted, did so many elect to remain in Babylon? That's a bit of a non sequitur you have there.

makerowner

So that God could rescue them. Duh!

Johnny Skeptic

Imagine you a Jew who has just become a quadriplegic or an amputee because God attacked you with a hurricane. It is an absurd notion that God would protect Jews from other humans but not from himself, but if he does not exist, that explains why Jews get injured and killed with hurricanes just like everyone else does.

If God had protected Jews from hurricanes and other natural disasters, that would have been much more convincing evidence than protecting them from other humans. That would have discouraged dissent instead of inviting dissent, but since the God of the Bible does not exist, the Bible writers had no choice except to invite dissent.

The necessary modus operandi of all religious writers is to never provide any indisputable evidence, an example being predicting when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month, day, and year.

arnoldo

Imagine you are drowning and God drops you a lifesaver yet you refuse to accept it because the lifesaver doesn't conform to your belief-system.

Headache

You mean like christians who refuse to take medicine and rather depends on prayers and then die?

Sheshonq

Then why did it fail?

On the contrary. 300 years ago many people believed that it was true, word for word. But with the advent of honest skeptical thinking, scientific advances, and unbiased archaeology, we now understand that large portions of the bible did not happen (at least, not in the literal reading).

That's certainly progress.

Johnny Skeptic

Imagine that today, you are an undecided skeptic who God refused to provide with the best possible lifesaver that would have saved him if God had given it to him?

How do you explain the fact that God's lifesavers usually mimic the ways that things would be if he does not exist? If the God of the Bible does not exist, that is exactly what we would expect to find. If he does not exist, we would expect that no one would ever hear about the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, which is exactly what the case is. If God exists, since he refuses to tell anyone about the Gospel message himself, this means that he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT people hear the Gospel message. That does not make any sense. No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby inviting dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and undermining his intent to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

We would also expect to find that the primary, if not the only factors that determine what people believe would be geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age, to which I would like add time period. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. If the God of the Bible exists, no one would be able predict what his success rates would be by sex. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against men by convincing a smaller percentage of them to become Christians.

We would also expect to find the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics, and mimics the way that things would be if he did not exist.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case.

We would also expect to find the following:

Food would be distributed entirely by humans. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person that his faith is dead, but God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

Now why do you suppose that God inspired James to write that if a man refuses to give food to hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead?

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo
Ok, geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age and time period determines why people believe what they believe. Does that also explain why YOU believe what you believe?

Yes, and you and everyone else too. If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and were raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in was predominantly Buddhist, what would the odds have been that you would have heard about the God of the Bible? The correct answer is "zero." Today, what are the odds that a devout, Southern Bible Belt, fundamentalist Christian couple's son will become a fundamentalist Christian as compared with the odds of a son who is raised by Muslim parents in a remote region of Afghanistan becoming a fundamentalist Christian?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, what are the odds that a much lower percentage of elderly skeptics would become Christians than younger skeptics, and that a much larger percentage of younger skeptics would become Christians than elderly skeptics, and that a much smaller percentage of elderly Christians would become skeptics than younger Christians, and that a much larger percentage of younger Christians would become skeptics, all of which are the case today? The correct answer is 100% because it is well-known that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are.

arnoldo

So is your theory that those Jews would look at historical events, such as Tyre being destroyed, forge a prophecy about it, and then show it to their fellow Jews and pretend that they wrote the prophecy before the event happened? That really doesn't make much sense. Would you be impressed if for example the day after 9/11 someone handed you a manuscript of the prediction of 9-11? I don't think so. Anyway since that Jewish manuscripts contain errors, according to your point of view, wouldn't that cause the Jews to totally disbelieve the prophecy. From the Tyre example I suppose your arguing that's where it was added “the many nations part” in order to cover up the mistake. Why wouldn't they have simply just put in the name of Alexander to give absolute proof the prophecy is correct? Do you have evidence of various revised prophecies of Ezekiel? If so can you list your sources?