Dark Jedi

This has failed to approach Biblical Criticism and Archaeology. Moving to Existance of gods.

Dark Jedi

But that fallacy works both ways. If I were to propose that I beleive in a Leprochaun god that sprung up when your god ceased to exist, you will simply accept that and stop worshipping your god?

NOGO

My take on miracles.

Have you noticed that Moses is claimed to have performed miracles although it is clearly stated that they were from God.

After that Joshua also performed some miracles (also from God) but much fewer.

After that God's interventions in human affairs were a matter of interpretation and not direct interference.

Jesus performed miracles. He told his disciples to go out and raise the dead, cure the sick etc.

The disciples did some miracles.

After that no more miracles. At least none which can be verified.

There is pattern here.
A pattern which is repeated with Islam, Buddhism and all religions in general. All the miracles have happened in the past and can't be verified.

Jesus said that faith can move mountains.
I guess nobody has enough faith today.

madmax2976

<strong> Assuming this is an argument from David, I would have to concur its a very poor one.

As an atheist I certainly allow for the "possibility" of miracles. However, practically anything is possible, I'm far more interested in what is more likely or probable than just what is possible.

If David wishes to claim that miracles likely occur then he'll have to support such a claim. He should start with a definition of what a miracle is and then proceed to present evidence for them.

I find other statements here as equally poor. I for one have not "dogmatically" accepted the position that God does not exist. Such statements are straw men and obvious attempts at character assassination. I have met very few, if any, atheists that "dogmatically" insisted no God exists.

I am also confused regarding what the argument is suggesting. It may be that the argument is that you can't believe in a God unless you first believe in miracles. Or it may be that you can't believe in miracles unless you first believe in a God. Course either way, one of these will have to be supported independent of the other. If Dave thinks he needs to start with supporting his claim that miracles do happen, then thats just fine. I'm happy to listen to whatever evidence he has for them.

Echo

David,

If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that you have evaluated the evidence for the existence of a god and for the truth of Christian claims in particular and found them sufficient to warrant belief; but you also can also understand, as much as is possible, why the atheist is unconvinced. I can respect this and identify with it. It's like disagreeing with the jury's verdict in a case while still understanding why they reached whatever conclusion they reached.

What gnaws at me then is the Christian idea of Hell. Do you, personally, believe that an atheist who has evaluated the claims for Christianity and found them insufficient will suffer some type of punishment for having been unconvinced?

Echo

Buffman

Welcome to the discussions, David. (Hello Florida neighbor.)

I have rather enjoyed watching you answer most questions with questions. That technique has suddenly enjoyed increased popularity among some of the newer posters to these forums. It seems to be used when someone does not wish to be held accountable for their opinions/statements. Here is an example you gave to madmax2976:

You do know that people who believe in God are not obligated to provide scientific proof of that belief?

Let me see how well your technique works for me. "You do know, don't you, that a belief in the supernatural allows you to rationalize reality (the natural world) and provides an insanity defense in our courts?" (i.e.: "God/Satan spoke to me and directed me to kill all prostitutes, homosexuals and CofC followers.")

I don't believe that a person who believes in a god is obligated to do anything, much less prove the claim. I also don't believe that anyone is obligated to believe that claim is true.

Are you saying that someone who believes in the Christian/Muslim/Jewish god(s) is not obligated to do anything because of that supernatural belief? If so, how interesting! Perhaps you will be so kind and explain why, if that is the case, anyone needs a belief in supernatural god(s).

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

David Mathews

David: We should keep in mind that a majority of people in this world have concluded that a god, gods or God exists. The jury in this case is strongly in favor of theism.

David: I don't believe that atheists will be sent to hell because of their atheism. I am confident that God can and will save atheists. I think that God is merciful enough, loving enough and unpredictable enough to save atheists.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Goliath

David Mathews,

The number of people that believe a claim has nothing whatsoever to do with whether said claim is true or not.

It would make no difference if an infinite number of people believed that the Earth is flat (and you can make that infinite cardinal as uncountable as you'd like). That does not change the fact that the earth is not flat (only locally flat ).

Sincerely,

Goliath

David Mathews

David: What is the relevance of your point, Buffman? I suppose that insane and violent behavior has characterized humanity as a whole since the beginning of time, and that such acts are not limited to Christians, theists or religious people.

David: A Christian, Jew or Moslem is not obligated to prove God's existence. That is what I was speaking about. Not only are these people exempt from proving God's existence to an atheist, they are also exempt from proving it to their own self.

Individuals make their own choices about what they believe. No one is obligated to answer to anyone else for those choices.

It works both ways -- atheists don't have to answer to Christians, and Christians don't answer to atheists. In the final analysis you have to live with yourself, therefore no one is obligated to satisfy the demands of anyone else.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Autonemesis

They are if they want to convince me of it.

If they do not want to convince me of it, then you are right: there is no obligation to prove it.