Why don't atheist and skeptics make a...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3415 Jan 1, 2013
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
<quoted text>It would appear reasonable that if they wish to believe a nobody like men like Tim Callahan who write books, then it would be easy for them to believe the Bible, if they thought it written by men.
The references Gillette has made to Tim Callahan aren't related to beliefs, they're related to arguments.

Gillette is asking you to respond to Tim Callahan's argument about prophecy, not believe some stories that Callahan is telling.

Why can't any of you do that?
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
If you ever want to know where satan is and is not, look at the religions not being attacked and then look at the one they attack.
In India, skeptics primarily face off against Hindus. In the Middle East, skeptics primarily face off against Muslims. In the US, skeptics primarily face off against Christians.

What does that have to do with your fictional demigod Satan?

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#3416 Jan 1, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Skeptic magazine Editor. Non credential in any relevant field. Copycat theorist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rq64qX7bNNUXX
That's about what I thought. Your typical anti-Christian alarmist. Kinda like the insurance commercial, if it's in print then it must be true.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3417 Jan 1, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Say that all you want, but I'm sure that people reading along, if they are intelligent and skeptical of religion (and even some of your own believers) are looking at Callahan's 4 Questions about so-called Bible prophecy and thinking about applying them in this or that case of "prophecy."
If he is going to write books on a subject then he should at least be taken seriously by scholars in relevant fields and he is not. He also should be credentialed. He is not quoted in scholary journals. Not even mentioned in Ehrman's book,''Did Jesus Exist?'' Jesus myth and copycat theory is modern myth in which writers only cite each other and never primary sources to validate any of their claims. Not good reasons to plop down 25 dollars to buy his book unless he has an audience who wants to read what he has to say.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#3418 Jan 1, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The references Gillette has made to Tim Callahan aren't related to beliefs, they're related to arguments.
Gillette is asking you to respond to Tim Callahan's argument about prophecy, not believe some stories that Callahan is telling.
Why can't any of you do that?
<quoted text>
In India, skeptics primarily face off against Hindus. In the Middle East, skeptics primarily face off against Muslims. In the US, skeptics primarily face off against Christians.
What does that have to do with your fictional demigod Satan?
A brief excerpt.

Tim Callahan's Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?: A Critique

Tim Callahan, author of the book Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?(Millennium Press: 1997), is in some ways a fair-minded and intelligent critique, but one still ill-informed. One cannot fail to be unimpressed with the source work: A mere seven encyclopedias, several Bibles, two Bible commentary sets (including one from 1929), and less than 20 total sources are used in support of the authors' own viewpoint.

In contrast, less than a dozen conservative works including McDowell's ETDAV and Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Callahan is apparently unaware that there are more capable warriors on the field for our side.(The fact that he uses the word "fundamentalist" throughout his work in a derisive manner - while never really defining it - suggests that he is a bit too inclined towards a desire to tweak the "religious right".)

http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.htm...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#3419 Jan 1, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> If he is going to write books on a subject then he should at least be taken seriously by scholars in relevant fields and he is not. He also should be credentialed. He is not quoted in scholary journals. Not even mentioned in Ehrman's book,''Did Jesus Exist?'' Jesus myth and copycat theory is modern myth in which writers only cite each other and never primary sources to validate any of their claims. Not good reasons to plop down 25 dollars to buy his book unless he has an audience who wants to read what he has to say.
Vague hand-waving and ducking the issue.

Lets' apply Callahan's four questions to tANY ONE of the Bible quotes you are sure is a prophecy of Jesus.

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#3420 Jan 1, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Vague hand-waving and ducking the issue.
Lets' apply Callahan's four questions to tANY ONE of the Bible quotes you are sure is a prophecy of Jesus.
What happened to his fifth "rule?"

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#3422 Jan 1, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless Matthew put the words into Jesus' mouth writing long AFTER the Fall of the Temple.
Most modern scholars are quite sure, for example, that Jesus' famous screed against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 was actually MATTHEW talking against the Pharisees of his day.
.
Bulk wrap.
.
In Jesus' day, the Pharisees were not that important, but after the fall of the Temple, it was against the Pharisees that the early Jewish-Christians contended -- often bitterly.
It would have helped make Matthew's point if he had put all these words in the mouth of Jesus,(supposedly) prophetically.
.
Credible, verifiable, historical evidence?
.
Read "Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?" by Tim Callahan
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Prophecy-Fulfillm...
From the Amazon description:
"Tim Callahan has done the rational thing and examined hundreds of verses from the Bible claimed to be "prophecy" to see if they meet four simple tests:
1) Is it true, false, or too vague to be specifically interpreted?
.
Some Bible prophecies are said to be vague. Some are claimed to be false.
.
2) If true, was it written before or after the fact?
.
All NT propehcies which cite OT scripture were written before the fact.
.
3) If written before the fact, was its fullfillment something that could be logically predicted based on the knowledge of the time?
.
None of the OT propehecies could be logically predicted.
.[
4) Was the prophecy directly or deliberately fulfilled by someone with knowledge of the prophecy?
There is not a single "Bible prophecy" that meets these four tests.
.
None of the OT propehcies fulfilled in the NT which involved people other than Jesus could have been "deliberately fulfilled by someone with knowledge of the prophecy."

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3425 Jan 1, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Vague hand-waving and ducking the issue.
Lets' apply Callahan's four questions to tANY ONE of the Bible quotes you are sure is a prophecy of Jesus.
I really don't have to. This is ancient literature and prophecies are sometimes vague. I have put forth case after case here and it all has been ignored. Not one response to the Daniel and Zechariah verses where Messiah comes in either one of two ways or both at different times.

Insufficient responses to the Isaiah 53 verses in which it is assumed the servant is Israel based in large part on Isaiah 49:3 and ignoring 49:5-6. Also 42:1-6, where the servant is distinct from both Israel and the nations.(Isaiah 42:6). If the case of the critics was strong then they should be able to respond. So far the responses have not carried any real weight. In Luke 22:37 Jesus quotes Isaiah 53:12 indicating He believed He fullfilled the prophecy of the servant. It takes more than conspiracy theories to discredit it.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#3426 Jan 1, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The references Gillette has made to Tim Callahan aren't related to beliefs, they're related to arguments.
Gillette is asking you to respond to Tim Callahan's argument about prophecy, not believe some stories that Callahan is telling.
Why can't any of you do that?
Biblical critics have the Bible down as guilty until proven innocent. Then set up near impossible standards to validate their skepticism. They seem to think they are not subject to anywhere near the skepticism they place on the Bible. What is their agenda? What are their qualifications? An honest evaluation would assume innocent until proven guilty with the burden of proof being on the skeptic. They have not met that standard. Christianity is falsified by disproving the bodily resurrection of Jesus. That is the standard Paul has set down. That burden has not been met. Naturalistic assumptions which exclude God from the get go does not cut it, in part because most in all of human history has believed in God. That adds weight. In othe words it is natural for humans to assume God is there. Atheism is the minority report and always has been. They can laugh and claim they are smarter than others but at the end of the day they are either right or they are wrong.

From Justin. 12.

We are in fact of all men your best helpers and allies in securing good order, convinced as we are that no wicked man, no covetous man or conspirator, or virtuous man either, can be hidden from God, and that everyone goes to eternal punishment or salvation in accordance with the character of his actions. If all men knew this, nobody would choose vice even for a little time, knowing that he was on his way to eternal punishment by fire;...there are some who merely try to conceal their wrongdoing because of the laws and punishments which you decree, knowing that, since you are only men it is possible for wrongdoers to escape you; if they learned and were convinced that our thoughts as well as our actions cannot be hidden from God they would certainly lead orderly lives, if only because of the consequences, as you must agree. But it seems as if you are afraid of having all men well behaved and nobody left for you to punish; this would be the conduct of public executioners, not of good rulers...but if like thoughtless men who prefer custom to truth then go ahead and do what you can. Rulers who respect reputation rather than truth have as much power as brigands in a desert.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3427 Jan 2, 2013
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you care what Gillette wants?
I don't; but your post was nonsense.
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
Why should we respond to Callahan's argument about prophecy, it is up to him and you to respond to the Bible and neither of you have.
We have.
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
Actually, you are lying, in India and the Middle East skeptics don't face off at all.
Of course they do.
For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_CSICOP
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
It is clear that sartan is your real life tormenter and your chosen daddy.
Give up your childish fantasies.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3428 Jan 2, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Biblical critics have the Bible down as guilty until proven innocent.
The proper cliche you're looking for is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Christianity makes extraordinary claims and doesn't back them up, so they should be rejected by any rational person.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Then set up near impossible standards to validate their skepticism.
Impossible standards? They're the same standards that YOU apply to everything other than your religion.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Christianity is falsified by disproving the bodily resurrection of Jesus. That is the standard Paul has set down. That burden has not been met.
The burden is on believers to prove such an event happened, not on skeptics to disprove it.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Naturalistic assumptions which exclude God from the get go does not cut it, in part because most in all of human history has believed in God.
Actually, naturalistic arguments are very effective because supernatural claims haven't been validated. They have the worst track record in the world.

If I told you I could fly like Superman, you'd think that was BS until you saw some damn good evidence of it. Why? Because people don't fly like Superman.
lightbeamrider wrote:
That adds weight. In othe words it is natural for humans to assume God is there.
It doesn't add any weight; it's a cultural phenomenon that primitive peoples have used to explain the world. Why is there lightning? Angry god! Why do our crops grow? Happy goddess!
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3429 Jan 2, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The proper cliche you're looking for is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Christianity makes extraordinary claims and doesn't back them up, so they should be rejected by any rational person.
What is the nature of the "extraordinary evidence"? What exactly is this and who says this is "extraordinary evidence"?
After all if Christians need to produce "extraordinary evidence" we need to know exactly what it is and who says.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3430 Jan 2, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What is the nature of the "extraordinary evidence"? What exactly is this and who says this is "extraordinary evidence"?
After all if Christians need to produce "extraordinary evidence" we need to know exactly what it is and who says.
Extraordinary evidence would be a large amount of high quality evidence, such that it surpasses any counter evidence and unlikelyhood of the claim.

For example, if I were to tell you that I owned a car, that would be a completely unextraordinary claim. Cars exist. Many people own them.

You would probably accept that claim at my word.

But, if I said I owned a magic flying carpet, that would be another story. We don't know of any flying carpets that exist. We don't know of any magic flying spells that exist. They have no legitimate means of flight. That claim is extraordinary.

Would you accept that claim at my word? No way.

I might send you a picture of me in the sky on my flying carpet as evidence.

Would you accept the claim at this point? No. The likelyhood that I used Photoshop to make the picture is far higher than the likelyhood I actually have a magic flying carpet because Photoshop is known to exist and known to be capable of making fake pictures.

I might get my buddy to tell you he saw me flying around on it.

Would you accept the claim at this point? I doubt it. The likelyhood that my buddy would lie for me is far higher than the likelyhood I actually have a magic flying carpet because liars are known to exist.

You'd probably want to see it in person, or ride around on it, or at least see some documentation made by numerous independent news organizations or scientific groups.

Now apply the same reasoning to the Resurrection or prophecies or other claims made by your religion.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3431 Jan 2, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Extraordinary evidence would be a large amount of high quality evidence, such that it surpasses any counter evidence and unlikelyhood of the claim.
For example, if I were to tell you that I owned a car, that would be a completely unextraordinary claim. Cars exist. Many people own them.
You would probably accept that claim at my word.
But, if I said I owned a magic flying carpet, that would be another story. We don't know of any flying carpets that exist. We don't know of any magic flying spells that exist. They have no legitimate means of flight. That claim is extraordinary.
Would you accept that claim at my word? No way.
I might send you a picture of me in the sky on my flying carpet as evidence.
Would you accept the claim at this point? No. The likelyhood that I used Photoshop to make the picture is far higher than the likelyhood I actually have a magic flying carpet because Photoshop is known to exist and known to be capable of making fake pictures.
I might get my buddy to tell you he saw me flying around on it.
Would you accept the claim at this point? I doubt it. The likelyhood that my buddy would lie for me is far higher than the likelyhood I actually have a magic flying carpet because liars are known to exist.
You'd probably want to see it in person, or ride around on it, or at least see some documentation made by numerous independent news organizations or scientific groups.
Now apply the same reasoning to the Resurrection or prophecies or other claims made by your religion.
Lets apply this to science. Where is the extraordinary evidence for the beginning of the universe? Theories on a piece of paper is not proof and certainly not extraordinary evidence. We don't even have pictures of the bang itself. How about the origin of life? Where is the extraordinary evidence of one specie changing into a different specie?
Lets look at history. Where is the extraordinary evidence that Alexander the Great conquered the known world by the time he was around 30? What he did was impossible by military standards.

BTW- what qualifies as "high quality evidence" for a given issue? Who is the one that decides what this is?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#3432 Jan 2, 2013
Not a priest.
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets apply this to science. Where is the extraordinary evidence for the beginning of the universe? Theories on a piece of paper is not proof and certainly not extraordinary evidence. We don't even have pictures of the bang itself. How about the origin of life? Where is the extraordinary evidence of one specie changing into a different specie?
Lets look at history. Where is the extraordinary evidence that Alexander the Great conquered the known world by the time he was around 30? What he did was impossible by military standards.
BTW- what qualifies as "high quality evidence" for a given issue? Who is the one that decides what this is?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3433 Jan 2, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets apply this to science. Where is the extraordinary evidence for the beginning of the universe? Theories on a piece of paper is not proof and certainly not extraordinary evidence. We don't even have pictures of the bang itself.
Science works to provide the best possible explanation, not give you a single answer that you must accept no matter what.

The available evidence shows us that the universe is ever-expanding. If you go back in time, the universe was once very small.
Jeff wrote:
How about the origin of life?
What about it? Theories involving the formation of complex chemicals are the best explanations we have.
Jeff wrote:
Where is the extraordinary evidence of one specie changing into a different specie?
We don't need extraordinary evidence for that. We've seen it directly.
Jeff wrote:
Lets look at history. Where is the extraordinary evidence that Alexander the Great conquered the known world by the time he was around 30? What he did was impossible by military standards.
Why was it impossible?
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#3434 Jan 2, 2013
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Science works to provide the best possible explanation, not give you a single answer that you must accept no matter what.
The available evidence shows us that the universe is ever-expanding. If you go back in time, the universe was once very small.
<quoted text>
What about it? Theories involving the formation of complex chemicals are the best explanations we have.
<quoted text>
We don't need extraordinary evidence for that. We've seen it directly.
<quoted text>
Why was it impossible?
The claim that the "universe is ever-expanding" is a claim that requires extraordinary proof since it something that is never observed in our world. You didnt give any evidence for it. By your criteria you are not justified in believing because it fails the “extraordinary evidence” principle.
Science tries to give an explanation for something. No way to ultimately if it’s the best possible explanation. For that claim to be true science would have to know that the claim made is absolutely true.
The origin of life will require also “extraordinary evidence” since it’s never been observed and so much is at stake. Must not have happened since we have no “extraordinary evidence”.
What has been observed by the human eye one specie changing into another?
Alexander was outnumbered in many of his battles. He should not have been able to win like he did.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3435 Jan 2, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim that the "universe is ever-expanding" is a claim that requires extraordinary proof since it something that is never observed in our world.
That's not true. It is observed, via the red shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion...
Jeff wrote:
Science tries to give an explanation for something. No way to ultimately if it’s the best possible explanation.
We can determine the best possible available explanation through testing.
Jeff wrote:
The origin of life will require also “extraordinary evidence” since it’s never been observed and so much is at stake. Must not have happened since we have no “extraordinary evidence”.
I agree that it would take a significant amount of evidence to bolster any particular theory of abiogenesis.
Jeff wrote:
What has been observed by the human eye one specie changing into another?
Many new species have been created in labs or seen arising in nature.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciatio...
Jeff wrote:
Alexander was outnumbered in many of his battles. He should not have been able to win like he did.
Being outnumbered does not make a victory impossible. Numbers are only one factor in a battle. There is also leadership, military tactics, quality of troop equipment, quality of troop training, environment, morale, supplies, etc.

So explain again what was impossible.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#3436 Jan 2, 2013
Mirror Mirror Face wrote:
<quoted text>So, bud, who is Callahan, is he your demon? If not, then what is the logic behind your application of any of his questions? In the end, all you have is your garbage in and garbage out reality. The only thing that Callahan figured out is that you would be coming and that is all he needs is another fool who uses no reasoning.
Aside from posing as a really distasteful and repulsive person, you tend to say a lot of unintelligent, illogical things.

I gave you Callahan's completely logical and rational questions one should ask (or CAN ask) when evaluating so-called "Bible Prophecies." The reason for their application in such a discussion as this should be rather OBVIOUS, don't you think?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#3437 Jan 2, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Biblical critics have the Bible down as guilty until proven innocent. Then set up near impossible standards to validate their skepticism.
C'mon, you are smarter than this.

Take the Documentary Hypothesis, for example. Modern translating and text analysis skills of the last century have now given scholars the ability to pull apart the 4 strands of different author's stories in the Pentateuch, plus the later anachronisms, which would seem to argue against one author of that time, i.e. Moses.

So what does academia do with this knowledge? Ignore, it? Sit on it? Say, no this is different from what our parents and pastors taught us, do it must be wrong?

Scholars follow the textual and historical clues wherever they lead. Christian apologists work another agenda and will say pretty much anything to defend the received truth or interpretation that has been passed to them.

As far as Bible prophecies, what is wrong with making the intelligent observation that many of the scriptures that have Jesus fulfilling prophecies or foreshadowings were written AFTER Jesus by men working a positive agenda to promote Jesus and his Messiahship or divinity -- i.e. people who WANTED TO SHOW JESUS fulfilling prophecy?

Why should that not be taken into consideration? How is that setting an "impossible standard' for prophecy?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The teaching God is a trinity is a lie! 1 hr Taranis 3
Poll The Greatest Threat to America's Security (Sep '15) 2 hr GarytheHOMO 4,815
IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS Gospel 3 hr truth 506
Early Christianity 4 hr Taranis 900
Intelligent People Question Everything 4 hr scientist 1,909
News Abortion law reform in Northern Ireland 'unfini... 8 hr Big Al 11
If you see demons or angels you have schizophre... (Nov '09) 12 hr McGee 81
More from around the web