Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwell if it made you smile i am glad, but i do think its both illogical (how can that which is
“...its nonsense to try to rationalise ...”
LOL.
Don't you see anything wrong with that statement fragment? -it is clearly a contradiction.
“...Once you agree
that yes, its possible that there was divine intervention, there is no need to concoct
elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations. ...”
how could the concoction of a d ...[text shortened]... tories to address hypothetical situations” but reason-based; based on the reasons I just gave.
supernatural be subject to rationality) and unreasonable to limit your search of truth to
unintelligent agencies and thus concoct a whole series of hypothetical events in an
attempt to rationalise a supernatural event.
Originally posted by Agergrejecting it an then supplying your own twinkle toes and fairy dust stories is even more
Rejecting twinkle dust 'theories' is not "illogical"; you haven't answered my second query.
illogical, as you have not even tried to ascertain the validity of the Biblical text. Its
pathetic!
Originally posted by Agergi dont need to eliminate it, i have examined the text and to me its sound, have you?
You haven't successfully eliminated the proposition that the Bible isn't a true historical account of what happened 2000 years ago. There is no valid reason to *deduce* it must have been a supernatural event.
noooo!
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell we all know
i dont need to eliminate it, i have examined the text and to me its sound, have you?
noooo!
Bible implies God implies Bible implies God implies Bible implies ... implies God
or
assuming the Bible is true implies what the Bible says happened, actually happened, corroberates your asumption the Bible is true implies ... implies what the Bible says happened, actually happened
is sufficient argument for you but for us we need a little less circularity ;]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTruer words were never spoken: There is no need to concoct elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations.
yes its nonsense to try to rationalise the event and then proceed to explain it away in
pure speculative terms, simply because you deny the divine element. Once you agree
that yes, its possible that there was divine intervention, there is no need to concoct
elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations.
3 edits
Originally posted by JS357Well it's not treated so much a hypothetical situation given that the vast majority of Christians buy into the Jesus myth. Secondly if you're hit with such an account you have a number of choices:
Truer words were never spoken: There is no need to concoct elaborate stories to address hypothetical situations.
1) Accept it without question
2) Reject it, and shrug your shoulders when asked to provide an account for what could have happened were it not true.
3) Shrug your shoulders in ambivalence and carry on with the rest of your day
4) Reject it and find a rational alternative explanation.
Atheists that post on these boards tend to opt for (4), and fundies opt for (1). What Andrew Hamilton posted is perhaps a bit too elaborate for my liking yes, but it's still far more plausible than the Biblical account. - No appeals to magic.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobienot my claim!!! mine was post 2 that suggests someone, perhaps a wise charismatic feller did get crucified, did die, and the garbage about Jesus was attributed to that bloke - nothing out of the ordinary, no appeals to magic! Just an appeal to human nature 😵
that Christ survived after having been publicly executed by the Romans, stabbed in the
side with a spear and flogged prior to his execution. If that is not magic then what is it?
Originally posted by Agergmmm, grumble grumble.
not my claim!!! mine was post 2 that suggests someone, perhaps a wise charismatic feller did get crucified, did die, and the garbage about Jesus was attributed to that bloke - nothing out of the ordinary, no appeals to magic! Just an appeal to human nature 😵