Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 02-23-2002, 07:54 AM

Bill,

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:

As to your point that the question "why then?" could be raised at any point, it merely begs the question as to why He didn't stick around, and continue providing His message personally...

He did.

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]

Jayhawker Soule · 02-23-2002, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Queen,

What year is it?
Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Oh! Oh! Oh! Wait! I know that one! It's 2002 CE.

(What did I win?

)

Jayhawker Soule · 02-23-2002, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
This is completely counter to unbiased thought, which in this case (firsthand witness of miracles) delegates a most simple explanation of the facts: That forces unfamiliar to man (namely God's) are at play.

Thoughts and comments welcomed.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Why not select a specific miracle to defend? And be sure to let us know, along with your selection, if you'd be willing seriously re-evaluate your "unbiased thoughts" regarding Christianity if this defense falters.

lpetrich · 02-23-2002, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:


John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

However, that Holy Spook has not said a thing to me.

And an omnipotent being would have no trouble revealing Itself to me in some unmistakable way -- unless that was mathematically impossible, which i doubt.

GunnerJ · 02-23-2002, 11:26 AM

Quote:

However, that Holy Spook has not said a thing to me.

Oh, of course he has, but you're just not listening/Satan has deafened you to his words/you've hardened your heart against him.

Malaclypse the Younger · 02-23-2002, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
This is completely counter to unbiased thought, which in this case (firsthand witness of miracles) delegates a most simple explanation of the facts: That forces unfamiliar to man (namely God's) are at play.

I want you on my jury! Since I proclaim my innocence, the simplest explanation for that proclamation is my actual innocence, you will be obliged to find me not guilty.

Oh wait, since the prosecutor will proclaim my guilt, the simplest explanation is my actual guilt, therefore you must find me guilty.

Hmmm... a contradiction. It appears that coming to conclusions requires more than mere "simple-mindedness".

Perhaps it is necessary to consider all the evidence, and find the simplest explanation that accounts for all the evidence. Such a procedure, however, would seem to require intelligence, creativity and intellectual honesty.

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]

Bill Snedden · 02-23-2002, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Unfortunately all this does is beg the question...

Has He made any videos lately? Written any new books? Unequivocally demonstrated through currently available technology that He does, in fact, exist?

Unless you can point to the evidence, you'll have to forgive me for being a bit skeptical of your claim...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

hinduwoman · 02-23-2002, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
Forumers,

I recently had the pleasure of reading wordsmyths 'what it would take' post.

In it wordsmyth said that if some guy showed up today and performed miracles according to
these criteria:
1-context
2-repetition
3-results
4-publicity & documentation

that he would believe in God.

Here's the rub. What if this already happened 2000 years ago?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

In that case, it would be valid only for that generation, since no convincing evidence exists today.
If your God is really serious, then He can do it today before press and television crews and other eyewitnesses like Stephen Gould, or our very own Queen of Swords. After all, if He had done it once, then doing it again can be no problem, right?

HRG · 02-23-2002, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:
[QB]HRG,

It seems that a simple observation of the facts is far more rational, likely and unbiased than some dubious consipiracy amoung boogiemen. Free-thinkers have no need (or desire) to construct such paranoid machinations.

Note that you haven't answered my question: if supernatural explanations are permitted, why should they be restricted to the event itself, and not to its perception ? Freethinkers abhor restrictions, don't they ?

Quote:

Thus the atheistic viewpoint (here) dissolves to obscurity:

Nothing can be known. If you witness something it could just be an illusion...so you better not believe it.

Not at all. If you assume naturalism as a default, there are no intermeddling gods around which could create illusions. Photons will go in straight lines, won't be created in midair etc. Nerve cells in the retina will fire only when hit by photons etc. Thus the naturalist can argue that something really happened if it was observed.

Your remarks concern only the supernaturalist, since the last argument is not available to him.

Quote:

This is completely counter to unbiased thought, which in this case (firsthand witness of miracles) delegates a most simple explanation of the facts: That forces unfamiliar to man (namely God's) are at play.

Which god's - and where ? At the event or at its perception ?

Regards,
HRG.

hinduwoman · 02-23-2002, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Echo:
And I'm sure Hinduwoman could tell us lots of stories about the Hindu fakirs and their incredible supernatural powers. Too many people have seen Sai Baba materialize rose petals out of thin air for SOMMS not to believe it. Sure, a few cynical skeptics say he uses trickery, but it's because they just don't want to believe.

You bet I could.
One 'miracle' which converted many doubters into believers was that some pictures of Sai Baba would drip a honey like substance: clear proof that something supernatural was going on.! when they took the picture apart they found that there was a kind of gum in the frame that melted and dripped when it was sufficiently hot. I proudly inform everyone that it was my father who first came up with the explanation in our circle. But I guess it was simply because he did not want to submit to any authority and so devalued the mystic experience.

Sai Baba was also challenged by a magician. He performed every feat that Baba did and then challenged Sai Baba to produce a pumpkin from air. Previously Sai Baba had only produced small objects as proof of his powers, but obviously you cannot hide something as big as a pumpkin in your sleeves. So he rejected the challenge calling the magician names. However his believers went on insisting that what the magician did was trickery, what the Baba did was miracles. People simply don't want to give up their beliefs.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.