God’s Love

[bluehillside Retd.]

NM,

Except, of course, Outrider knows better.

Finally you got something right!

Bravo Sir!

[Shaker]

It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities.  Why risk your life for a hoax?  Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie?   It does not ring true.

Oh no, not again 

[BashfulAnthony]

Oh no, not again 

But yes!  Make an argument against what I have said, not merely a refutation.

[Shaker]

What, yet again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I do not see why the miracles have to be denied;

Because they don't fit with anything we know about the way the Universe actually works, because there are any number of alternative - but non-miraculous - explanations for the stories, and because you set the evidence bar for them so low that any other miracle story would have to be taken just as seriously.

...but to fabricate them is not an option for me.

No doubt, but it is nonetheless an option. As are honest mistake, errors in the re-relling, conjuring tricks that weren't recognised as such at a time when miracle stories were commonplace etc etc

It needs to be borne in mind that all the writings about Jesus were put down when many of His followers were in grave danger from both the Roman and Jewish Authorities.  Why risk your life for a hoax?  Why would so many risk their life to "witness" a lie?

Ask the Paris terrorists.

It does not ring true.

Only to the the credulous BA, only to the credulous.

[BashfulAnthony]

What, yet again?

Why not? I say the same to atheists when they repeat themselves;  and they are always ready to do so:  over a period of years!

[Shaker]

Why not? Because the same elementary point or points has/have been made each and every time this issue is raised (which is often, by multiple individuals) with no sign that it's ever taken on board - hence the fact that the same tedious question crops up so regularly and the same obvious response is completely ignored. The far-fetched and implausible always seems to be preferred over the rational and the plausible.

[NicholasMarks]

But yes!  Make an argument against what I have said, not merely a refutation.

They are devoid of arguments...Its not much fun being an atheist in a world that is in the state of collapse... when their only hope is the very authority they have slandered and ridiculed for a very long time. But there is hope, even for them. God says he is holding back so that all can repent...but there is a cut off point. When this planet sees the stars falling to the Earth and the moon doesn't give off its light...oh, and the sun becomes dimmed...it can only mean one thing...and this is where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth because the chance of repentance will be lost. 

All any of us have to do is follow Jesus accurately and I have tried to give you a small insight as to why that is our wisest move.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NM,

They are devoid of arguments...

You seem very confused here. So far as I'm aware you've never once posted an argument of your own have you? Your posts consist entirely of assertions about your personal beliefs, but you have no interest - or no ability - actually to construct an argument that would lead anyone else to think you to be right in your opinions.

By contrast, it's precisely because atheists do make arguments that are not rebutted that we are - well - atheists.

If you think about it, this post for example is a type of argument: I've explained that just because you assert something to be true with no supporting logic or evidence does not make it true, so the rest of us are safe in dismissing your claims as crankery.

Now there are various ways you could attempt to rebut that - you could for example attempt a counter-argument of your own, or perhaps show me to be wrong by citing examples of arguments you've made in the past - but just responding with further assertions as you inevitable will doesn't even get its trousers off as an argument of any kind.
 

[BashfulAnthony]

Why not? Because the same elementary point or points has/have been made each and every time this issue is raised (which is often, by multiple individuals) with no sign that it's ever taken on board. The far-fetched and implausible always seems to be preferred over the rational and the plausible.

What appears to be far-fetched is only so because we have not, as yet, explained it.  History is littered with the doings and inventions, and theories, of people who were viewed with derision by people such as you:  ie, closed-minded and unimaginative, in the sense that they did not possess "the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses." I'm not talking of your beloved fairy tales here:  I trust we can rise above that kind of "rhetoric."

Anyway, could you address my points, rather than dismiss them with the usual put-down.  In fact, can you?

[Shaker]

What appears to be far-fetched is only so because we have not, as yet, explained it.

If something is unexplained, it's unexplained. That's all you can say of it.

History is littered with the doings and inventions, and theories, of people who were viewed with derision by people such as you:  ie, closed-minded and unimaginative, in the sense that they did not possess "the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses." I'm not talking of your beloved fairy tales here:  I trust we can rise above that kind of "rhetoric."

Imagination is a great attribute for the novelist, but it's never been a reliable guide as to determining what's actually the case in the real world. All those examples with which history is littered to which you allude were shown to be true (where they were) by the marshalling of evidence, not by imagination.

Anyway, could you address my points, rather than dismiss them with the usual put-down.  In fact, can you?

I not only can, I've done so each and every time this point has been raised, which is a lot. That's why it's such a bore to have to do it yet again.

Nevertheless, since it seems necessary to repeat myself, here goes. I think I'm on safe ground in saying that no, nobody is in the habit of putting themselves in danger - perhaps even of death - for what they know to be a lie or a hoax. The trouble with this simple-minded picture is that it assumes that all human beings have beliefs which are true, when we know that this is very far indeed from the case. It denies, or ignores, human psychology utterly. People are sincerely and honestly mistaken about all sorts of things a great deal of the time all over the place - not liars in any way, but credulous, or poor reasoners. The strength and sincerity of their belief is not in question; but then, that's not the issue, because mere strength and sincerity never made a belief true, did it? People can be staunch, sincere and wrong, wrong, wrong - I can adduce many millions of examples from around seventy or so years ago if you like, not to mention many more both older and more recent. Including some extremely recent.

People don't put their lives at risk for what they know to be false; on the other hand people can, and have, and do, put their lives at risk for what they believe to be true but which is nevertheless false.

[Outrider]

The thing about Jesus Christ's miracles is that they were all done by electric energy and remote control.

How do you turn water into wine by 'remote control electricity'? How do use electricity to walk on water without shorting your source?

Something we are all very familiar with nowadays.

Which we is this, Batman?

So...how can we say that a far superior people working with a far superior science couldn't achieve the things Jesus requested...and who is to say that Jesus Christ didn't leave the foundation of that science for us to find..

We aren't saying that. We're saying that you manifestly don't have the capacity to determine what they might or might not be capable, and that you have an equal ineptitude when it comes to giving any sort of reason why we should think that the stories of Jesus are an attempt to understand an alien/advanced science encounter.

and here is the key to it all...that via God's Love, we can harness that force that Jesus harnessed and achieve its very best fruits, which must be that regardless of how we stand today...

Even if you think this is science, you are confusing fields - psychology (emotional responses) and biology (life functions) and remote control of electricity is somewhere between physics and alchemy...

regardless of what illness and damage we have sustained to date...we can follow Jesus Christ accurately and survive into a new heavens and new Earth where all our problems will be cancelled out because we will be following the science that can achieve that end...the science that built atoms and life and which is therefore a far superior starting point than any other science can be.

But only if you shower regularly in pixie dust and rainbow-scented unicorn farts.

Except, of course, Outrider knows better.

That's hardly boasting, is it?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

What appears to be far-fetched is only so because we have not, as yet, explained it.  History is littered with the doings and inventions, and theories, of people who were viewed with derision by people such as you:  ie, closed-minded and unimaginative, in the sense that they did not possess "the faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses." I'm not talking of your beloved fairy tales here:  I trust we can rise above that kind of "rhetoric."

Anyway, could you address my points, rather than dismiss them with the usual put-down.  In fact, can you?

You can be as open-minded and imaginative as you like. Indeed these things are essential for the development of new hypotheses - but your problem though is in figuring out a way to get from your open-minded and imaginative hypotheses about the miracle claims of the Bible (though not presumably about the miracle claims of other "holy" texts) to these stories being factually true.

Good luck with it though!

[BashfulAnthony]

If something is unexplained, it's unexplained. That's all you can say of it.Imagination is a great attribute for the novelist, but it's never been a reliable guide as to determining what's actually the case in the real world. All those examples with which history is littered to which you allude were shown to be true (where they were) by the marshalling of evidence, not by imagination.

You still fail to address my arguments.  Just making generalisations is no argument: answer some of the things I said.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

You still fail to address my arguments.

What argument exactly do you think you have made that has not been addressed?

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

What argument exactly do you think you have made that has not been addressed?

I'm referring in particular to M99.

[NicholasMarks]

bluehillside:

Perhaps that's because I'm not an argumentative sort...bluehillside...or perhaps seeing the overwhelming science that created the universe and got Jesus Christ crucified I am not too impressed with your counter arguments...even so, in order to save you and give all your fellow atheists a fighting chance...

The universe is the product of a simple, superabundant, 'dynamic energy' which modern science has just latched on to and which the Holy Bible was telling us about at least 5000 years ago telling us then that it is what all the stars are made from. I just shove in gravity, the Higgs, electromagnetic force and life because...well...it might have a bearing on the subject...and all the ufos, which are well recorded about and which are constantly flying over our heads give confirmation to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I'm referring in particular to M99.

See Reply 104.

[Rhiannon]

'It must be true because people were prepared to die because of it'. So presumably history will judge Islam as being true, BA?

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

You can be as open-minded and imaginative as you like. Indeed these things are essential for the development of new hypotheses - but your problem though is in figuring out a way to get from your open-minded and imaginative hypotheses about the miracle claims of the Bible (though not presumably about the miracle claims of other "holy" texts) to these stories being factually true.

Good luck with it though!

It's the kind of problem the likes of Galileo faced.

[Shaker]

'It must be true because people were prepared to die because of it'. So presumably history will judge Islam as being true, BA?

Somebody always comes up with the short version 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NM,

Perhaps that's because I'm not an argumentative sort...bluehillside...or perhaps seeing the overwhelming science that created the universe and got Jesus Christ crucified I am not too impressed with your counter arguments...even so, in order to save you and all your fellow atheists a fighting chance...

The universe is the product of a simple, superabundant, 'dynamic energy' which modern science has just latched on to and which the Holy Bible was telling us about at least 5000 years ago telling us then that it is what the all stars are made from. I just shove in gravity, the Higgs, electromagnetic force and life because...well...it might have a bearing on the subject...and all the ufos, which are well recorded about and which are constantly flying over our heads give confirmation to.

Where exactly do you think you've made an argument here rather than an un-reasoned and un-evidenced set of assertions based on a profound misunderstanding of what science actually tells us?

[BashfulAnthony]

Somebody always comes up with the short version 

What particular aspects of Islam is Rhiannon referring to?  If she is referring to Daesh, then it is a spurious argument: there are a few thousand followers of Daesh, out of billions of Muslims.  What else could she mean?

It also gets you out of answering my post  (M99).  Like to give it a try?

[Shaker]

What particular aspects of Islam is Rhiannon referring to?  If she is referring to Daesh, then it is a spurious argument: there are a few thousand followers of Daesh, out of billions of Muslims.

The same as me by the look of it. You do realise you're committing a fallacy here, don't you?

It also gets you out of answering my post  (M99).  Like to give it a try?

I've done so, as has bluey.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

See Reply 104.

It is a spurious argument to quote the Paris murderers:  they are/were homicidal maniacs, and to equate their actions with the beliefs and actions of those early Christians is both absurd and offensive.  The early Christians risked their lives to relate the events of Jesus' life:  they were not in the business of forcing people to accept their story, or kill them!!