Well, first, the bush burned, but was not consumed. I’m pretty sure you haven’t seen that and called it a forest fire. Second, that’s far from the most direct revelation in the Torah. At Sinai, Moses climbs the mountain and faces God face to face. The people hear the first commandment directly from God and see God on the mountain.
No, but growing up in I had one of these in my backyard:
One of the problems with the Torah (and Beowulf too) is that the stories were passed along orally before they were transcribed. bright-fiery-red may become fire. Changes may have been made and things may have been added or altered to make one family look better than another one. We really do not know what has changed in the storylines. Unless you are fluent in both Hebrew and Ancient Greek mistranslations may cause problems as well. I will give you a contemporary example. The Russian word krasnaya can mean either “red” or “beautiful”. Thus the name of a very famous square in that had a name that meant “” in Russian and came to be translated as “” in English. The English name stuck in part due to the Cold War and red being associated with Communism.
Silly you, death is when all bodily organs stop functioning.
Also, since you’re making a universal truth statement on biological phenomena, I hope you can back it up without empiricism (as that would just turn your statement into a historic claim and void it in this instance).
Well, that’s several whole different discussions, but all I was doing was pointing out that the burning bush was not the most direct example of prophecy given in the Torah. I don’t know Ancient Greek, but I’m fairly decent with Biblical Hebrew (although certainly I have a lot more to learn in that area) and, to me, the translation seems pretty clear by the burning bush, but there could be issues I don’t see due to ignorance.
Silly you, strawmen have no place in debate.
Oh, and you’re the one who has to back your claim that death isn’t final. That is: that there is something after death/that you can come back from death. You posit, you prove.
Hint: don’t EVER try to shift the burden of proof with me, for I will expose it.
Did I ever say this? No. I said “came back to life.” Essentially my grandfather was in a previous biological state of death and after roughly 30 minutes he was living again. He came back to life, I never said there is undeniable proof of an afterlife.
Two different claims. Infer what you will from it. I feel no reason to prove what I witnessed first hand, I was replying to your statement that people do not have personal instances that support their belief in God.
And you have to back up why God isn’t real, etc. etc.
I made no claim, you’re shifting the burden, as claiming universal truths by empericism is an appeal to history. Would you like to logically prove it [that death is an absolute biological final] or do you want to keep playing games? Are you prepared to do what no biologist has ever done? (see I can make historical irrelevancies too).
And as I said about 50 posts ago…the definition of ‘atheist’ isn’t a point of contention but this agrument that you ascribe to them. You know, the whole ‘they deny anything that doesn’t fit within their worldview’.
You do realize that ‘definition’ and ‘doctrine’ are two different words and have completely seperate meanings, right?
As I was saying about ‘doctrine’.
Do you deny that for thousands of years there were people who had ‘personal experiences’ that lead them to believe that there were spirits that possessed the trees and plants, pretty much all of nature. These people are still around today and still believe in a pantheistic system.
Do you also agree that all their ‘personal experiences’ in regards to the validity of this pantheism is incorrect and that there is only One True God, namely the christian god?
Do you also see where I’m going with this?
Your whole entire religion is based on the claim that all the other gods are false (as in can’t possibly exist) and denies the very same thing that you claim makes the athestists ‘irrational’.
Pot, Kettle, black.
So you’re saying that anytime a doctor brings someone back from Death that this is evidence of a supernatural being? Or are you saying that because you believe that a supernatural entity brought him back that this is evidence for the existence of said entity?
I was kind of wondering how this all fit in to the argument as a whole.
I kind of doubt that the doctors had anything to do with it since it isn’t their job or anything…
Yes. And I never said that people do not have “personal instances” to “support” their belief in god. I merely claim that those instances are falsely attributes to “god”, not that the instances do not happen. Strawman much?
No. That’s called “shifting the burden of proof”.
You did.
Lying does not help you.
So you say the definition matters and then I provide the definition (again) and now you say it doesn’t matter. As I said if your atheism does not include the traditional definition as outlined in the dictionary that God can not exist then this thread does not apply to you. That is at least the third time I have said it.
Nope I don’ t deny that people had those experiences nor do I say, like the atheists do, that all experiences of the supernatural are by definition false. That doesn’t mean I believe everything everybody says.
I have not said anything about my personal beliefs. I only used that as a well known common example for the purposes of discussion. Interesting how you try and attack me personally with no basis. This is what usually happens when the other side is losing the arguement based on the merits.
No, I have no idea where you are going. I haven’t made any claim about my religion or about others. I have simply stated that human observation and experience counts as evidence. Atheists deny this to be true with anything related to what might be considered supernatural but accept it in all other cases, such as criminal cases. That is not rational.
This is an excellent example of the atheist doctrine. You have universally ruled out a possibility without any knowledge of the event experienced. This is what makes the atheist ideology irrational. You have claimed knowledge of an event you neither witnessed or have any information on and declared that the people who did witness and experience it did not see or experience what they have described. Thank you for provding the example.
OK, this is getting somewhat annoying.
How hard is it to understand the difference between doctrine and definition? If you were to read what you claim I said you would see that I requested the source of the doctrine that you ascribe to the atheists. Even your definition references this doctrine, “Here it is again, in particular part B I am referring to: 1archaic : ungodliness , wickedness2 a**:** a disbelief in the existence of deity b**:** the doctrine that there is no deity” but yet you seem unable to provide any evidence that this doctrine claims what you claim it says.
Assuming you aren’t just pulling this out of your ass how difficult is it to provide a link to these claims?
So it is rational for a group of people to deny all evidence that doesn’t prove the existence of their deity, as is the case of the Old Testament god believers, but if one doesn’t believe that there is a god due to lack of credible evidence then one is irrational?
Your entire argument is based on the claim that atheistic doctrine says that the evidence isn’t credible because a deity can’t possible exist (but can’t provide any proof of this) yet a ‘rational’ doctrine such as Christianity does the exact same thing with any evidence that is contrary to the belief that there is One True God.
How do you explain this apparent contradiction?
I know it’s difficult for you to understand but ‘the atheists’ don’t disbelieve in an all knowing deity for the reason you claim and your whole argument is a strawman for exactly this reason. Unless, of course, you can provide some proof to the contrary…like a link that supports your claim, maybe? That’s not too much to ask methinks.
You see, if the atheists didn’t believe in god for the reason you claim it would indeed be irrational but the thing you seem unable to grasp is that isn’t the reason for their ungodly wicknedness.
Other people have had religious experiences that have proven to them that Allah exists, or that the Taoist or Buddhist conception of life is true, or that Zeus was the supreme being with many lesser beings under him. I’ve even read in the National Enquirer that somebody claimed to see Elvis in a motel in North Dakota. Either you have to say that truth is multifaceted and subjective, in which case, the atheist claim is no less “true” than any of these others, or you have to deny the truth of all human observation and experience which discounts the Christian God in favor of any other religious truth (including the atheist position).
Thus, it is not the atheist who is being irrational, but you.
How can I make it any more clear to you. Atheism is the doctrine that there is no deity. Atheists are people who follow this doctrine. That is the definition I am discussing. The definition comes from the Websters dictionary and I think is one of the most common defintions of athesim. If that doesn’t apply to you then this thread is not for you.
I have said repeatedly that your above quote is in fact rational. What is not rational is to deny by defintion all evidence that God/supernatural exist. That is what we are discussing.
We are talking about atheists. If you want to start a separate thread about your perceptions of contradictions in other doctrines then please do so.
Yes, these are the people I am talking about and there is at least one in this thread. Thank you for finally conceding that these people are irrational.
Once again, I have not stated my personal beliefs in this thread. This is a discussion of atheism and the doctrine that they follow that it is not possible for God/supernatural to exist by definition and that all evidence of this is by definition false. It is really fascinating that in a discussion of atheism that the atheists keep wanting to discuss other beliefs. Why don’t you try and explain your position that human observations and experiences are by defintion not credible evidence?
If you are willing to say that human observation and experience are never acceptable as evidence, then just say so. I don’t think the truth is subjective. That doesn’t mean I know everything though. Unlike the atheists, I don’t claim universal knowledge of what is possible.
Atheism is not an all-encompassing doctrine or a positive claim, Max. All it denotes is a lack of belief in a deity, and anything beyond this an atheist can believe practically anything about, and the methods or processes by which one concludes atheism can vary widely. This is going in circles because you repeatedly misconstrue what atheism is, and you seem to have a fundamentally erroneous epistemological view. A truth claim made by someone as a “personal experience” cannot be proven empirically to others by definition; all you can do is ask others to “take it on faith”. Which is fine, if you would leave it at that, but you don’t. Furthermore, the fact that a phenomenon lacks a rational or naturalistic explaination does not mean that a supernatural explaination logically follows. Such a supernatural explaination must be taken on faith, and it is not sensible for you to shift the burden of proof onto others. The burden of proof is fully on your own shoulders to provide a rational explaination. If you cannot, that’s tough, and you’re left simply asking us to take it on faith. If we don’t, you’re SOL and should just deal with it.
What atheist doctrine? And you’ve ruled out a possibility (that I have experienced that there is no god) without any knowledge of the event experienced. You are a hypocrite. Thank you for annihilating your own position.
Now please: either show that there is a god or be quiet about it. If you say “people experience it”, then I say that I experience that there is no god. And you’ll have to believe me.
Please show that the supernatural exists and please demonstrate the ontology of “supernatural”.
Hypocrite.
It is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. It is NOT a doctrine.
a + theos + ism
lacking/without + god + belief
lacking god belief
How much more clear can that be?
I have already defined what the atheist doctrine I am discussing is. If you don’t like that defintion then start a new thread about what you think atheism means.
.
If you are willing to admit then by your definition that all eye-witness testimony is simply a matter of faith and can not be used as evidence. This would include in criminal matters as well as the supernatural. You can not rely on human evidence in one circumstance and find truth, if you will, and then in general completely disregard the same witness if he claims to experience something supernatural.
There is no burden to explain things you may not understand or have an explanation for. The fact that there is no known comparison to the event doesn’t by defintion make the event false. People provide lots of explanations for things that happen, what the atheist does is say that is impossible to have occurred.