Counterfeits.

[Sea of red]

Wow.



It's almost funny how you accuse me of making up a straw-man...



...while managing to actually build a straw-man out of what I wrote (notice how I never once used to word "prove"*, or anything that comes even close to that word?)...



...and then in the very next breath you even admit that you do think "God not answering 'sincere' prayer points to His non-existence" (Which is equivalent to the claim "the unreliability of prayer [is] an absence of evidence that is consistent with God not existing").


*

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

I specifically used the phrase points to instead of a stronger word to be clear I expected no such thing, but apparently that wasn't enough.

Good grief, you're impossible.

Thanks for wasting my time yesterday.

[Tassman]

When you reject any evidence, even God standing in front of you and proving he exists, there can't be anything that you would consider "credible" and no arguments left to present. You are a close-minded fool who is an atheist purely because you want to be, not because of evidence or lack of it. You've shown that over and over. You have what in the bible is called a reprobate mind.

Romans 1:18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

[Tassman]

I already said I was wrong about Olympus. sue me.

And yes, if Thor actually exists and Valhalla and Odin, I would have to admit that I was wrong about Jesus, because I don't think those two concepts of gods can exist in the same universe.

Not with Jesus certainly, because his father is a jealous god. But for the Olympian and Nordic deities, the more the merrier.

I also already said if someone could reliably show that Jesus did not rise from the dead I would admit that I am wrong in my faith and stop being a Christian.

Would you believe it, whatever the evidence? Really?

I am at least honest in my beliefs. You apparently are not. You are a determined to be an atheist even in the face of actual proof as you have already admitted.

My beliefs are honest, so stop being so judgemental. AFAIK there is no logically coherent alternative to materialism. Thus any seemingly miraculous, supernatural occurrences would have a natural explanation, which sooner or later will be understood...as has been the case so often in the past.

[JonathanL]

Good grief, you're impossible.

Thanks for wasting my time yesterday.

You know what? You're right. I wasn't in the best mood when I logged on to TWeb yesterday due to unrelated issues, and responded to you in a way I wouldn't have otherwise done if I had been a little calmer.

I apologize for that; you haven't done anything yet to earn that sort of snark from me and I shouldn't have taken out my frustrations on you.
And I also apologize for straw-manning your argument, which I can see that I did now that I went back and looked at our discussion again without being pissed off.

That being said, I do think you made your own straw-man out of what I said (the whole prove vs points to issue). And I still think that the two phrases "the unreliability of prayer [is] an absence of evidence that is consistent with God not existing" and "God not answering 'sincere' prayer points to His non-existence" are pretty much equivalent.

[Sea of red]

You know what? You're right. I wasn't in the best mood when I logged on to TWeb yesterday due to unrelated issues, and responded to you in a way I wouldn't have otherwise done if I had been a little calmer.

I apologize for that; you haven't done anything yet to earn that sort of snark from me and I shouldn't have taken out my frustrations on you.
And I also apologize for straw-manning your argument, which I can see that I did now that I went back and looked at our discussion again without being pissed off.

That being said, I do think you made your own straw-man out of what I said (the whole prove vs points to issue). And I still think that the two phrases "the unreliability of prayer [is] an absence of evidence that is consistent with God not existing" and "God not answering 'sincere' prayer points to His non-existence" are pretty much equivalent.

Damn...

I don't think I've ever received an apology like that before on here from someone. Most people stick to their guns no matter what, so this is really rare on here. Needless to say, I accept your apology, and congratulate you in showing integrity like a true man.

[Sparko]

No threat. Just irony. basically the bible warned us about people like you 2000 years ago. You are not unique, Tassman, you are exactly as expected. You are without excuse.

[Sparko]

Not with Jesus certainly, because his father is a jealous god. But for the Olympian and Nordic deities, the more the merrier.



Would you believe it, whatever the evidence? Really?

I would investigate the evidence, of course. But yes, if it were good, I would believe it. If Christ was not raised then it is all for nothing. The bible even tells me so.

1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

My beliefs are honest, so stop being so judgemental. AFAIK there is no logically coherent alternative to materialism. Thus any seemingly miraculous, supernatural occurrences would have a natural explanation, which sooner or later will be understood...as has been the case so often in the past.

You have eliminated any chance from your consideration that you could ever be wrong. That is the very definition of being "close-minded" Tassman.


Dictionary.com

Close-Minded
adjective
1. having a mind firmly unreceptive to new ideas or arguments:
It's hard to argue with, much less convince, a closed-minded person.

[Doug Shaver]

If God answered your sincere prayers reliably (gave you what you asked for) would you believe in him then?

I would believe in a god, but I would know it was not the Christian God.

[JonathanL]

I would believe in a god, but I would know it was not the Christian God.

How would you know it was not the Christian God?

[Tassman]

I would investigate the evidence, of course. But yes, if it were good, I would believe it. If Christ was not raised then it is all for nothing. The bible even tells me so.

1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Oh well then......

You have eliminated any chance from your consideration that you could ever be wrong. That is the very definition of being "close-minded" Tassman.

What I have eliminated is the notion of supernaturalism. Many supernatural claims can be studied using the scientific method and eliminated as not true. Hence the logical leap is that none of them are true and that naturalism, not supernaturalism, is reality.

Dictionary.com

Close-Minded
adjective
1. having a mind firmly unreceptive to new ideas or arguments:
It's hard to argue with, much less convince, a closed-minded person.

No threat. Just irony. basically the bible warned us about people like you 2000 years ago. You are not unique, Tassman, you are exactly as expected. You are without excuse.

OK!

[Doug Shaver]

How would you know it was not the Christian God?

The question was: "If God answered your sincere prayers reliably (gave you what you asked for) would you believe in him then?" Christians have told me, over and over again, that I cannot expect their God to reliably give me whatever I ask for.

[tabibito]

The question was: "If God answered your sincere prayers reliably (gave you what you asked for) would you believe in him then?" Christians have told me, over and over again, that I cannot expect their God to reliably give me whatever I ask for.

The promise does have caveats, to be sure. It is unfortunate that (to the best of my knowledge, ayway) no-one now living has so positioned himself as to be able to consistently receive positive responses to prayer. (Consistently being just a little short of invariably.)

[JonathanL]

What I have eliminated is the notion of supernaturalism. Many supernatural claims can be studied using the scientific method and eliminated as not true. Hence the logical leap is that none of them are true and that naturalism, not supernaturalism, is reality.

It's a leap alright, but there's nothing logical about it.

[Tassman]

It's a leap alright, but there's nothing logical about it.

scenario.

[37818]

scenario.

What was the observation or experiment used to do this? Please give the example. What was the hypothesis tested.