Atheist misconceptions of Christianity

[Frozenwolf150]

The types of miracles mentioned in the Bible such as resurrections, healings, restoration of sight, turning of water to wine, walking on water, were observable by those present. The supposed transubstantiation miracle claim never was and still isn't.

Nice hamster wheel argument. The Bible is the source of the claim, therefore it can't be used as proof for its own claim. We already know the Bible mentions such miracles, but I'm pretty sure the question was about miracles that could be observed in the scientific sense of repeatable testing and experimentation. You're claiming special pleading for what amounts to a story in a book.

Anyone not liking my ignore modus operandi is as free to place me on the ignore list as I am in placing them on mine. So the playing field is very level here.

What, and give up an endless source of amusement?

Neither do I just place anyone on the list. Only those who consistently evade the subject matter and prefer to attack the person or are prone to heckle jeckle and in an effort to get a rise by all means possible. It should be no skin off anyone's nose since the heckler's are free to continue along the same line. The only difference being that I don't see it. Which should be of little importance as long as they can heckle an jeckle to their heart's content.

Wrong, you've ignored people who have simply disagreed with your beliefs or have had opinions and interpretations that differ from yours in the slightest. Also, attacking the arguer is against the Membership Agreement, so anyone who did this as often as you claim would have been suspended. I suggest you take a look at your own posting methods before hypocricially condemning others for offending you. Of course, those who are incapable of distinguishing between a disagreement and a personal attack are the ones who are most likely to use personal attacks to state disagreements themselves.

"Your arguments suck" =/= "You suck"

 

[Radrook]

Plus, I would imagine it was inferred that Jesus didn't want his disciples to dismember him and eat him on the spot.

Good point!

Also, he knew that his words would be offensive to certain people and expected them to reject him for it. It was a test of their sincerity in a way since all they had too do if indeed they were interested was to ask for an explanation as his disciples did. When asked if they too were going to abandon him they responded:

"Where would we go? You have sayings of everlasting life!"

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The types of miracles mentioned in the Bible such as resurrections, healings, restoration of sight, turning of water to wine, walking on water, were observable by those present.

No, you believe they were observable by those present, like the people who worship Kim il-Sung believe that people saw ten thousand cranes descend from the sky to retrieve his body upon his death, or that he walked onto a snowy plain and made all the snow melt by waving his hand.

And even if it is true that people saw Jesus walk on water, turn water into wine or feed people with limited amounts of bread... well, when I was little, I saw, on TV, David Copperfield do wondrous things in front of huge audiences. If conjuring tricks weren't a common part of our society, people might actually have been able to perform simple conjuring tricks, mind reading, cold reading or predictions on stage and have people believe they have psychic abiliti-- oh, wait.

Radrook - I, a perfectly regular, perfectly mundane homo sapien male of 23 years old with no supernatural abilities whatsoever, have a pretty good idea on how I could take a wine bottle, demonstrate how it was empty by turning it upside down, filling it with water, and turn it upside down again to produce wine. I further think that with some training, I could make it look very, very believable. Likewise with taking a basket of bread and giving enough food from it to feed a huge bunch of people.

As for walking on water, there's a dozen possible explanations for this, too. One is that the conditions of the area were such that there could have been a sheet of ice of some size floating just below the water surface, and that Jesus simply walked on it. The point of it all is, Radrook, that when you see someone do something extraordinary, do you think "wow, cool magic trick, how did you do that?" or do you immediately recognize him as a god?

Where's your burnt offering to Randi, 'rook?

The types of miracles mentioned in the Bible such as resurrections, healings, restoration of sight, turning of water to wine, walking on water, were observable by those present. The supposed transubstantiation miracle claim never was and still isn't.

"No, I'm not preventing debate by my childish and evasive stance because no one is preventing you from doing the same thing". How incredibly juvenile.

 

[The Drain]

1. leprechauns

• which of the above do you 'believe in'/reject?

Like every other believing Irish householder, I leave a saucer of milk outside the back door each night for the 'little people', and by morning it's been drunk. That's what I call convincing evidence.

 

[bpesta22]

I think atheists underestimate just how many xtians believe in YEC.

According to a Pew survey (2008) 32.9% of Americans believe the bible is literally true; 24.2% believe that theirs is the one true faith.

Slightly different questions from flat out asking about belief in YEC, but to me, these numbers are staggering.

 

[six7s]

The types of miracles mentioned in the Bible such as resurrections, healings, restoration of sight, turning of water to wine, walking on water, were observable by those present.

Ahhh... the sort of 'other biblical miracles that can't be observed and detected'...

Fairy Nuff

 

[SirPhilip]

No, you believe they were observable by those present, like the people who worship Kim il-Sung believe that people saw ten thousand cranes descend from the sky to retrieve his body upon his death..

That must have been one hell of a ride.

 

[Radrook]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper
No, you believe they were observable by those present, like the people who worship Kim il-Sung believe that people saw ten thousand cranes descend from the sky to retrieve his body upon his death..

No, I am referring to the nature of the claimed miracle in question. You are shifting to whether the miracles I offer as counterexamples happened or not-which is an entirely different subject. For example, no one can say that he saw the bread and wine turn to flesh and blood. While people can say they saw the other miracles occur.

In a court of law testimonies, whether written or verbally delivered in person are admissible as evidence. So there is nothing unusual in giving credence, especially when those giving the testimony have proven trustworthy and have a high moral standard in reference to honesty. Furthermore, the existence of UFOs is an established fact based totally on such testimonies.

In contrast, your accusations that there is no ID in all reality has no basis in observation. It's merely wishful thinking. Why? Well, because the statement that there is no God assumes omniscience-something that physicists clearly are not since they are still trying to figure out if multiple universes or multiple dimensions exist or not and freely admit that they don't know what lies beyond what they are able to detect with their frail instruments. You on the other hand already know that there are no other dimensions, know what lies beyond the observable, and don't need all the instruments, such as a Hadron collider which will soon reveal whether there are other dimensions or not, to be sure. Neither are you in a quandary as they are about the existence of multiple universes whether they be branes or spherical structures or occupying our same universe but beyond our present ability to reach. You already know it all because-umm, there is no God in all existence whether detectable or not because you say so. I find that kind of reasoning tantamount to magical chanting.

BTW
Unlike the biblical source the sources for all the wild claims in reference to Sung have a well-known reputation for lying via political propaganda. So the analogy is false.


Sung
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geum.../ac2/wp-dyn/A40505-2003May10?language=printer

 

[Frozenwolf150]

No, I am referring to the nature of the claimed miracle in question. You are shifting to whether the miracles I offer as counterexamples happened or not-which is an entirely different subject. For example, no one can say that he saw the bread and wine turn to flesh and blood. While people can say they saw the other miracles occur.

No, you're using miracles the story claims people observed in order to prove that all other miracles are true. It's still circular logic.

In a court of law testimonies, whether written or verbally delivered in person are admissible as evidence. So there is nothing unusual in giving credence, especially when those giving the testimony have proven trustworthy and have a high moral standard in reference to honesty. Furthermore, the existence of UFOs is an established fact based totally on such testimonies.

When it comes to investigating a crime, eyewitnesses tend to be the least reliable source of evidence, because in the midst of a traumatic event people can get emotional, forget things, or make stuff up. Ten people can witness the same crime and give ten different stories. Forensic evidence trumps eyewitness testimony in every court of law. In addition, you have yet to establish the trustworthiness of these witnesses that you're relying so heavily on, at least not without making yet another circular argument.

I'm not sure what the comment about UFOs was supposed to prove, unless it was to shoot the legs out from under your own argument. You're welcome to argue that UFOs exist based solely on what eyewitnesses have said, but you're not going to get very far.

In contrast, your accusations that there is no ID in all reality has no basis in observation. It's merely wishful thinking. Why? Well, because the statement that there is no God assumes omniscience-something that physicists clearly are not since they are still trying to figure out if multiple universes or multiple dimensions exist or not and freely admit that they don't know what lies beyond what they are able to detect with their frail instruments. You on the other hand already know that there are no other dimensions, know what lies beyond the observable, and don't need all the instruments, such as a Hadron collider which will soon reveal whether there are other dimensions or not, to be sure. Neither are you in a quandary as they are about the existence of multiple universes whether they be branes or spherical structures or occupying our same universe but beyond our present ability to reach. You already know it all because-umm, there is no God in all existence whether detectable or not because you say so. I find that kind of reasoning tantamount to magical chanting.

Pure idiocy. The burden of proof is on the one claiming God exists to provide evidence that he exists. Saying that God must exist because no one has proven otherwise is the logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. Do you fail to realize that literally anything fanciful or imaginary could exist out there, by your reasoning? All of the deities from every religion must exist, because you have yet to rule them out. Before you object, by your logic you must be omniscient in order to rule out these competing gods. Since you aren't, you can't, therefore they exist.

You have provided zero evidence for intelligent design. All you've come up with are strawman attacks on evolution and cosmology. Attacking what you perceive to be the opposing viewpoint does not prove your claims true, and it's the same line of reasoning conspiracy theorists use. Again, what forces does God use? What types of matter and energy are involved? What is the process or mechanism God uses to intervene? How do you propose we experimentally test this? Unless you can answer those, you've got nothing.

 

[articulett]

The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Frank Kotsonis

Yet for every believer of woo it's solid evidence of whatever it is they've been brainwashed to believe in.

 

[cj.23]

*sigh*

When will there be a thread about Christian misconceptions about atheism?

Actually, scratch that. There already have been several.

I was actually just about to start one, based on my experience of hanging out on a very popular atheist forum, and watching some of the bizarre things a few of my co-religionists say! Oh well!


cj x

 

[Radrook]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare.

BTW
Please don't attempt to elucidate me by describing the different grades of atheism. It should be more than obvious that I am referring to the type whose assertions of certainty require omniscience whether they admit it or not.

 

[cj.23]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare.

BTW
Please don't attempt to elucidate me by describing the different grades of atheism. It should be more than obvious that I am referring to the type whose assertions of certainty require omniscience whether they admit it or not.

Dawkins type 7? Sure, agreed. Only an omniscient being can know absolutely there is no God, as in any other case God can be outside of their knowledge.

cj x

 

[temporalillusion]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare.

BTW
Please don't attempt to elucidate me by describing the different grades of atheism. It should be more than obvious that I am referring to the type whose assertions of certainty require omniscience whether they admit it or not.

That's why even Dawkins qualifies his atheism depending on which God you are talking about.

If there was a god who's holy writings said if you said "Pudding please" there would always be pudding, then it'd be pretty easy to be an atheist about that god because it'd be easy to disprove the claim.

Any atheist would adjust their degree of atheism if you proposed a god that was just there but never directly interacted with anything from strong to more weak.

 

[articulett]

Dawkins type 7? Sure, agreed. Only an omniscient being can know absolutely there is no God, as in any other case God can be outside of their knowledge.

cj x

Sure, and only an omniscient being can know there are no fairies or no demons or whether a real Zeus ever existed. Only an omniscient being can know if the reincarnation of Buddha or Jesus walks amongst us or if anyone really has experienced alien abductions.

But...

 

[cj.23]

Sure, and only an omniscient being can know there are no fairies or no demons or whether a real Zeus ever existed. Only an omniscient being can know if the reincarnation of Buddha or Jesus walks amongst us or if anyone really has experienced alien abductions.

But...

Yes. I remain cautiously agnostic on these matters.

cj x

 

[articulett]

"Cautiously agnostic" --why not?
"cautiously optimistic"-- I don't think so.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare.

I already addressed this. If you didn't like my reply to you, feel free to tell me why. I don't like to be ignored.

Again, Radrook: have you searched every cubic meter of Norwegian mountain? If no, are you still 100% certain that there are no trolls?

 

[arthwollipot]

Strange that you don't find the atheist claim to omniscience bizzare.

There's an atheist claim to omniscience? Please, who makes this claim and why?

 

[Mashuna]

There's an atheist claim to omniscience? Please, who makes this claim and why?

Radrook makes the claim that atheists make this claim.