How can we debunk the miracle of Fatima?

ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
How can we debunk the miracle of Fatima?

The supposed miracle of Fatima on October 13th 1917 has been supported by some "evidences" as the testimonials fro people who got their clothes dry after the dance of the sun. It has been also supposed that the newspapers of those days reported this phenomenon. How can we debunk it? Are there some proofs against the miracle of the sun?

Thanks a lot!

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Debunk it for whom?  The

Debunk it for whom?  The Catholics?  They believe because the church tells them it is true, and in the Catholic world view that's a good enough reason to believe anything.

 

Most non-Catholics don't think there is such a miracle.

 

So, as far as I know, the only way to debunk it in the minds of believers would be to eliminate their belief.  Short of kidnapping them one by one when they are small children, I'm not sure how to do that reliably.  Smiling

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5877
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The 'dance of the Sun' was

The 'dance of the Sun' was not a movement of the Sun itself, since it was not reported or recorded anywhere else apart from that crowd of people, who had been primed to expect a 'miracle'. So it had to be a local phenomenon, either a psychological mass 'hysteria', or a local atmospheric effect, or even a combination of both.

Staring too much at the sun is going to cause all kinds of visual problems, including extra spots in your vision.

Not everyone reported seeing it.

There is a strong urge in a group of believers to not appear to be the 'odd one out' at such an event, so those who can't see it will assume they are not looking 'properly', or there eyes have been temporarily blinded by the sun, or they simply can't see it in the glare.

Here is a good skeptical account:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4110

Here is another account, not from a specifically skeptical site, but the major part of the article is based on an account in a book by Joe Nickell, a serious and widely respected investigator of the paranormal, who is definitely skeptically inclined.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Atheism-2724/Fatima.htm

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Gawdzilla
atheist
Posts: 69
Joined: 2011-01-01
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote:The

ManuAndres44 wrote:

The supposed miracle of Fatima on October 13th 1917 has been supported by some "evidences" as the testimonials fro people who got their clothes dry after the dance of the sun. It has been also supposed that the newspapers of those days reported this phenomenon. How can we debunk it? Are there some proofs against the miracle of the sun?

Thanks a lot!

As above, just cite all the objective evidence. To achieve this either the sun or the Earth would have to bounce around like mad. Everybody would notice. The fact that the only reporting parties were members of a local group suggests a bit of bias.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote:How can

ManuAndres44 wrote:
How can we debunk it? Are there some proofs against the miracle of the sun?

Well, we don't have to "prove" that it didn't happen. They to have provide evidence that it did happen, of course, burden of proof. The only real evidence seems to be the testimonies of the people that were there, which is a giant group of extremely religious people that were expecting something to happen and started staring at the sun for a long time. If I stared at the sun for a long time, it would look funny to me too.

In such a large group, there would be some formidable peer support and conformity involved. It would be even more effective in a group as gullible as this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Afterwards, their memories of the event will start to fade, and the details of the event will obviously be exaggerated more and more as well.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

ManuAndres44 wrote:
How can we debunk it? Are there some proofs against the miracle of the sun?

Well, we don't have to "prove" that it didn't happen. They to have provide evidence that it did happen, of course, burden of proof. The only real evidence seems to be the testimonies of the people that were there, which is a giant group of extremely religious people that were expecting something to happen and started staring at the sun for a long time. If I stared at the sun for a long time, it would look funny to me too.

In such a large group, there would be some formidable peer support and conformity involved. It would be even more effective in a group as gullible as this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

Afterwards, their memories of the event will start to fade, and the details of the event will obviously be exaggerated more and more as well.

 

I came back to post about conformity experiments.

 

All hail ButterBattle!  And by that I mean:

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Debunk it

mellestad wrote:

Debunk it for whom?  The Catholics?  They believe because the church tells them it is true, and in the Catholic world view that's a good enough reason to believe anything.

 

Most non-Catholics don't think there is such a miracle.

 

So, as far as I know, the only way to debunk it in the minds of believers would be to eliminate their belief.  Short of kidnapping them one by one when they are small children, I'm not sure how to do that reliably.  Smiling

 

Yeah you're right. It should be just for the Catholics. Anyway, if you could debunk their beliefs and open their eyes, you could start destroying the Roman Catholic Church. But that's a hard road to hoe if we consider how powerful a myth is in a non-skepticist mind.

At least we atheists can pick up the real info about this "miracle of the sun" and use it against the Catholics, when they try to debate with you.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The 'dance

BobSpence1 wrote:

The 'dance of the Sun' was not a movement of the Sun itself, since it was not reported or recorded anywhere else apart from that crowd of people, who had been primed to expect a 'miracle'. So it had to be a local phenomenon, either a psychological mass 'hysteria', or a local atmospheric effect, or even a combination of both.

Staring too much at the sun is going to cause all kinds of visual problems, including extra spots in your vision.

Not everyone reported seeing it.

There is a strong urge in a group of believers to not appear to be the 'odd one out' at such an event, so those who can't see it will assume they are not looking 'properly', or there eyes have been temporarily blinded by the sun, or they simply can't see it in the glare.

Here is a good skeptical account:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4110

Here is another account, not from a specifically skeptical site, but the major part of the article is based on an account in a book by Joe Nickell, a serious and widely respected investigator of the paranormal, who is definitely skeptically inclined.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Atheism-2724/Fatima.htm

 

I've already read the articles and they look so coherent and logic. If we consider the fact the "dance of the sun" would have been seen by all the world in the sun-side of the Earth, the testimonials of just 70 thousand people is not reliable. Furthermore, I knew the Miracle of Fatima was planned by the Roman Catholic Church in order to prepare the stage for making alliances with the future Third Reich and fight against the communism. That's the real reason why the Virgin told to the children Russia will spread the sin all over the world. And if we add the politic situation of those days, the governments and the Catholic Church were planning the next World War to take control of Europe and then the world, justifying their assesinations and destructions by "the sin of men and women"

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi O.P

Hi O.P,

It's very very easy to debunk the Fatima incident. It either was a scam or it was real via demons. I don't know. But the question you asked had to do with the term "Miracle."

Biblical speaking, miracles don't happen anymore AT ALL. Miracle is an anglo-saxon term. The Greek rendering for miracles in the New Testament is always "Signs and Wonders."

The reason why Jesus and others used Signs and Wonders (Miracles) was for the purpose of the Jewish people. It was a demonstration of the Power of God.

The Greeks did not need Signs and wonders but Wisdom. This is why we see wisdom in Acts 17 on Mars Hill in reference to the 4 gospels or Paul on his first missionary journey.

Thus miracles are no longer today.

_______________________

The 2nd way to debunk it is via I Corinthains 4:6. Paul says to not go beyond what is written (I Cor 13:10 also). Thus when the canon was complete in 98 AD. then the Revelation from God STOPPED (for a time being until heaven).

Fatima claims an additional revelation on top of the canon and is contradictory to Scripture. Thus violating Sola Scriptura via I Thess 2:15 and II Tim 3:16-17.

These are internal contradictions with Fatima. Roman Catholcisim is just as pagan as an atheist on the pot (Green Bud Pot).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi O.P,

It's very very easy to debunk the Fatima incident. It either was a scam or it was real via demons. I don't know. But the question you asked had to do with the term "Miracle."

Biblical speaking, miracles don't happen anymore AT ALL. Miracle is an anglo-saxon term. The Greek rendering for miracles in the New Testament is always "Signs and Wonders."

The reason why Jesus and others used Signs and Wonders (Miracles) was for the purpose of the Jewish people. It was a demonstration of the Power of God.

The Greeks did not need Signs and wonders but Wisdom. This is why we see wisdom in Acts 17 on Mars Hill in reference to the 4 gospels or Paul on his first missionary journey.

Thus miracles are no longer today.

_______________________

The 2nd way to debunk it is via I Corinthains 4:6. Paul says to not go beyond what is written (I Cor 13:10 also). Thus when the canon was complete in 98 AD. then the Revelation from God STOPPED (for a time being until heaven).

Fatima claims an additional revelation on top of the canon and is contradictory to Scripture. Thus violating Sola Scriptura via I Thess 2:15 and II Tim 3:16-17.

These are internal contradictions with Fatima. Roman Catholcisim is just as pagan as an atheist on the pot (Green Bud Pot).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

Hi Jean! It's good to have a debate not only with atheists.

The problem with your idea is a god stopping its own word and power for any mysterious reason contradicts himself. It turns his message to the mankind more complicated and dark to understand. Why a god first starts giving a lot of signs for disappearing like "nothing happened here" at the end? To give the chance to his mom to do the job he didn't wanted? If he really wanted to save the mankind through his message he would have done it clearly, without so many rounds and rounds. At least, to me the Sola Scriptura Via doesn't make sense. However, both of us agree the "miracle of Fatima" is a fraud.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Manu

Hi Manu,

God uses different ways to relate to different people. You should see my mother-in law. You have to be a Ph.d in everything to relate to her.

The fact that God uses different ways to relate to people is not contradictory. Do you talk to your mom like you talk to me? Maybe you do.

Regarding your statement about God trying to save mankind. What makes you think God is trying to save mankind? He is NOT.

Some will NEVER be saved ever (Romans 9:21-22).

And He doesn't try like how you try to tie your shoes. Those who God desires to save ALWAYS are saved. rada bang, rada boom.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Manu,

God uses different ways to relate to different people. You should see my mother-in law. You have to be a Ph.d in everything to relate to her.

The fact that God uses different ways to relate to people is not contradictory. Do you talk to your mom like you talk to me? Maybe you do.

Regarding your statement about God trying to save mankind. What makes you think God is trying to save mankind? He is NOT.

Some will NEVER be saved ever (Romans 9:21-22).

And He doesn't try like how you try to tie your shoes. Those who God desires to save ALWAYS are saved. rada bang, rada boom.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Hi there Jean!

There's a lot of contradictions for me because if he's always giving different messages in different ways then there's no a unique message for all the mankind as the churches claim. And regardless the message, why does God need to speak in different ways if he's almighty? Can't he use an effective way to communicate his real intentions without create confusion among humans? No. Because the confusion comes from the same mankind which created the religions in order to manipulate great masses of people.

Some will never saved. Yes, that's true according to your beliefs and your sacred book the bible. The funniest part in this is when the Christians are asked why God didn't save'em? they say: god didn't condemned them, they did it by themselves because they didn't understand God's message.

Now, how could they understand a message delivered in a very confusing way?!

At the end it seems like a non-sense thing to me.

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi O.P,

It's very very easy to debunk the Fatima incident. It either was a scam or it was real via demons. I don't know. But the question you asked had to do with the term "Miracle."

Biblical speaking, miracles don't happen anymore AT ALL. Miracle is an anglo-saxon term. The Greek rendering for miracles in the New Testament is always "Signs and Wonders."

The reason why Jesus and others used Signs and Wonders (Miracles) was for the purpose of the Jewish people. It was a demonstration of the Power of God.

The Greeks did not need Signs and wonders but Wisdom. This is why we see wisdom in Acts 17 on Mars Hill in reference to the 4 gospels or Paul on his first missionary journey.

Thus miracles are no longer today.

_______________________

The 2nd way to debunk it is via I Corinthains 4:6. Paul says to not go beyond what is written (I Cor 13:10 also). Thus when the canon was complete in 98 AD. then the Revelation from God STOPPED (for a time being until heaven).

Fatima claims an additional revelation on top of the canon and is contradictory to Scripture. Thus violating Sola Scriptura via I Thess 2:15 and II Tim 3:16-17.

These are internal contradictions with Fatima. Roman Catholcisim is just as pagan as an atheist on the pot (Green Bud Pot).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you are saying when I thought I got a sign to turn back to god or like I was giong to hell. You can tell me without doubt that was just a coincidence?


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
HI Manu

Hi Manu,

You're one of the nicest atheists on here.

God doesn't reveal things anymore at this time. Everything that is revealed is in the Scriptures. So a person who has the Holy Spriit in them will be able to understand things.

God purposely makes some people not understanding (I Cor 1:14, I Thess 2:9). But since the Scripture is objective, everything for use to know now is there.

I know what some wimpy Christians say. But they are wrong. God DOES condemn SOME people. God condemned Esau in Romans 9:13 for example.

That's because Christians today is like going to a fitness club with free candy everywhere. Christians today are very stupid and are not trained in logic, theology or philosophy. Many of them are infilitrated and don't even know it by the liberals.

If you have a question about actual Biblical Christianity, ask me, I've done my homework and I'll give it to you straight.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Manu,

You're one of the nicest atheists on here.

God doesn't reveal things anymore at this time. Everything that is revealed is in the Scriptures. So a person who has the Holy Spriit in them will be able to understand things.

God purposely makes some people not understanding (I Cor 1:14, I Thess 2:9). But since the Scripture is objective, everything for use to know now is there.

I know what some wimpy Christians say. But they are wrong. God DOES condemn SOME people. God condemned Esau in Romans 9:13 for example.

That's because Christians today is like going to a fitness club with free candy everywhere. Christians today are very stupid and are not trained in logic, theology or philosophy. Many of them are infilitrated and don't even know it by the liberals.

If you have a question about actual Biblical Christianity, ask me, I've done my homework and I'll give it to you straight.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

Hey my question was serious, could you respond to it? Also why did he condemn Esau it was jacob's fault that issac gave the wrong blessing?


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi YALM

Hi YALM,

God doesn't use signs. He uses His Word. And God does cause His own to repent. You don't go away from God and then come back. This is absurd.

The Bible is a "sign" that you need to repent for you sins, and trust in the knowledge that Christ overcame death in His death burial and resurrection.

If you go a sign to join Roman Catholicism, that wasn't God since Roman Catholicism is pagan. Or you may have had heartburn.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi YALM

Hi YALM,

God doesn't use signs. He uses His Word. And God does cause His own to repent. You don't go away from God and then come back. This is absurd.

The Bible is a "sign" that you need to repent for you sins, and trust in the knowledge that Christ overcame death in His death burial and resurrection.

If you go a sign to join Roman Catholicism, that wasn't God since Roman Catholicism is pagan. Or you may have had heartburn.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi YALM,

God doesn't use signs. He uses His Word. And God does cause His own to repent. You don't go away from God and then come back. This is absurd.

The Bible is a "sign" that you need to repent for you sins, and trust in the knowledge that Christ overcame death in His death burial and resurrection.

If you go a sign to join Roman Catholicism, that wasn't God since Roman Catholicism is pagan. Or you may have had heartburn.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Well I was raised as a pentacostal. So you are saying when I told my grandma one time that god helped me get up the drive way and she started speaking in tounges from excitement , that wasnt real(I know it wasnt real I just want to know what you think)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi YALM,

God doesn't use signs. He uses His Word. And God does cause His own to repent. You don't go away from God and then come back. This is absurd.

The Bible is a "sign" that you need to repent for you sins, and trust in the knowledge that Christ overcame death in His death burial and resurrection.

If you go a sign to join Roman Catholicism, that wasn't God since Roman Catholicism is pagan. Or you may have had heartburn.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

hehe, I like equating God's message with heartburn, that would make the Devil Pepto Bismol.  Religion is a pain in the chest area... but have a shot of pepto bismol and you'll be A OfuckingK.  Join the dark side, HUAHHAHAHAHHAH, we've got PINK!.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Jean Chauvin

Ktulu wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi YALM,

God doesn't use signs. He uses His Word. And God does cause His own to repent. You don't go away from God and then come back. This is absurd.

The Bible is a "sign" that you need to repent for you sins, and trust in the knowledge that Christ overcame death in His death burial and resurrection.

If you go a sign to join Roman Catholicism, that wasn't God since Roman Catholicism is pagan. Or you may have had heartburn.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

hehe, I like equating God's message with heartburn, that would make the Devil Pepto Bismol.  Religion is a pain in the chest area... but have a shot of pepto bismol and you'll be A OfuckingK.  Join the dark side, HUAHHAHAHAHHAH, we've got PINK!.

Why does he say trust in the knowledge that christ overcame death? Christ overcoming death is kinda pointless. If you create the entire universe and life and death it means nothing to say you overcame death. But christians are so impressed with this.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Why does

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Why does he say trust in the knowledge that christ overcame death? Christ overcoming death is kinda pointless. If you create the entire universe and life and death it means nothing to say you overcame death. But christians are so impressed with this.

There is a Romanian poem, it's called 'Moartea lui Fulger' by George Cosbuc, translates as 'Lightning's Death'.  Lightning was a nobleman's son, and he died in battle.  His mother is mourning and asking God what the point of it all was, the bravery, the life, love everything.  It's a very powerful piece of poetry.  The last verses are

Quote:

 

Nu cerceta aceste legi,

Că eşti nebun când le-nţelegi!

Din codru rupi o rămurea,

Ce-i pasă codrului de ea!

Ce-i pasă unei lumi întregi

De moartea mea!

It translates as, and keep in mind that I'm no poet: Don't seek, those laws to understand, Only the mad can comprehend. One bough from forest you remove, What cares a forest for a bough! What cares the whole entire world Of my death!

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1248
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
I visited Fatima as a kid.

I visited Fatima as a kid.  There's nothing miraculous about it.  It's become a low-end tourist trap. 

Basic physics proves the dance of the sun could not have occurred.

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887 wrote:Why does

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
Why does he say trust in the knowledge that christ overcame death? Christ overcoming death is kinda pointless. If you create the entire universe and life and death it means nothing to say you overcame death. But christians are so impressed with this.

Ya, it's hardly the best demonstration of his power, but we humans want to overcome death more than almost anything. So, I think it's that he overcame death while we can't.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Manu,

You're one of the nicest atheists on here.

God doesn't reveal things anymore at this time. Everything that is revealed is in the Scriptures. So a person who has the Holy Spriit in them will be able to understand things.

God purposely makes some people not understanding (I Cor 1:14, I Thess 2:9). But since the Scripture is objective, everything for use to know now is there.

I know what some wimpy Christians say. But they are wrong. God DOES condemn SOME people. God condemned Esau in Romans 9:13 for example.

That's because Christians today is like going to a fitness club with free candy everywhere. Christians today are very stupid and are not trained in logic, theology or philosophy. Many of them are infilitrated and don't even know it by the liberals.

If you have a question about actual Biblical Christianity, ask me, I've done my homework and I'll give it to you straight.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

Hi Jean! I'll take your phrase "you're one of the nicest atheist here" as a compliment, at least I think it was addressed to me in that way, not like a sarcasm haha.

A God who revealed things in the past and now it's completly quiet watching his supposed sons killing each other seems as a weird one. I mean, first he "wrote" his word in a complex language with lots of metaphors and awesome symbols as the 666 beast and all that stuff just for deliver it to a "elite who hold the Holy Ghost in order to understand the real meanings of that message". If he was trying to save mankind he should give a clear message, but as you've stated he actually condemns people to hell. So, if he real purpuse was to save an elite people, he really went through the right path. If this is the case, why the Churches claims this god is an all-love one? Their priests should be trained on philosophy and theology too haha.

Every well-instructed person knows that The Bible is a collection of different tales, each one written in several literary styles. It is impossible to consider it as the word of one god because there are more religions with more gods and more holy books claiming they're the right one. And each of this cults claim you need to be illuminated to get the truth.

So everything you exposed is still like a big non-sense to me. And if I consider your claims about that god actually condemns people we get a great contradiction with the doctrines. So, I'm on the right side: the atheism.

 

 

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi YALM,

God doesn't use signs. He uses His Word. And God does cause His own to repent. You don't go away from God and then come back. This is absurd.

The Bible is a "sign" that you need to repent for you sins, and trust in the knowledge that Christ overcame death in His death burial and resurrection.

If you go a sign to join Roman Catholicism, that wasn't God since Roman Catholicism is pagan. Or you may have had heartburn.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

In another comment thread you claimed that "miracles are god signs" So if he doesn't use them why he intented to make his miracles as signs? It doesn't make sense once again. In order to use a word you need the capability to name things and create languages. And an inmaterial entity cannot do that.

Whoa! Hold on there! You said god didn't use signs and then you said "the bible is a sign". If god doesn't use them, is this a sign of another god or a men's sign? I think is a men's.

You cannot trust in the knowledge in the sense "trust" mean faith, that is to believe without seeing. We cannot trust int the "knowledge" of a man rose from the death because there's no evidence and nowadays all that places in the "holy land" are just tourism, not fact archeological places.

And finally, as the Roman Catholicism was the root for all the rest of kinds of christian denominations, we have here an "origin error" what is converted in all the Christianity has the same pagan roots. So it's useless.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Answers

Answers

YMA, regarding your grandmother in the drive way babbling, it could have been real, I don't know. But not from God. Either from Satan or perhaps she was having a seizure.

Hi Manu,

God didn't use a complex language for His Word. It was the common language of the day KOINE, common Greek. It's not as primitive as Brian since he talks below the apes especially since he hates labels, but the language was easy.

If God wanted to use complex langauge He would have used classical Greek.

Miracles WERE God's signs. He doesn't need these anymore because He has His Word. During the time of the gospels, the canon wasn't complete.

Couple of things. Jesus Christ the man is material forever. In theology we call this the hypostatic union.

2nd, God used man to write His word (I Peter 1:20-22). But God Himself could have done it. See the book of Daniel with the writing of the wall.

God did not dictate what to write but superintended. This way the writers kepts their own personalities under God's hand.

We see this for example with Luke in Acts. One of the most complex books in the New Testament. Verses Revelation which is somewhat sloppy. One theory regarding Revelation being sloppy is probably due to John's astonishment with the Revelation of Christ and/or because he was very old.

I never said the Bible is a sign. But in a way there are still signs. It's called General Revelation. The stars and the creation around you are a sign of His craftsmanship. This is why you don't have any excuse come judgement day (Romans 1:18-20, 2:15).

Trust doesn't mean faith. Faith is in three parts

1) Notitia (knowledge

2) Assensus (assent

3) Fiducia (Trust)

Satan has #1 and #2 but NOT #3. Since Satan does not have faith. To have faith, (which is the same as knowledge), you must trust in that which you know IS.

I argue that ALL non Chrisitans have #1 and #2 (Romans 1:18). Just not #3. Thus all atheists have something in common with Satan.

The evidence regarding the resurrection (court style evidence) is overwhelming. For example, the Talmud, the "Jewish" writtings mention Him. The Jews HATED Jesus, kind of like you. But in their works they mention His miralces and His resurrection (in a derogatory way). Thus giving evidence accidently of the fact.

There's much more, but these evidences will NEVER allow anybody to be a Christian. Only if God wants them to be a Christian will they be.

The "Holy Land" today is just tourism, you'll right. I'm not interested in going there ever. So what.

Roman Catholicism was NOT the root of all other denominations. They lie about their history. Technically speaking, Rome is a protestant church. They broke away from Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054 and in the 4 century over Easter. LOL.

Roman Catholicism as it is today was not in play until around 1074 during the rule of Pope Gregory VII. Around the 4th century and earlier, there were popes across the known world according to their region. A Pope was like the head bishop of their area.

Even if for the sake of argument you adhere to their fake history, Jude 3 says there has always been believers throughout all of paganism.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I never

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I never said the Bible is a sign.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The Bible is a "sign"

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
Why does he say trust in the knowledge that christ overcame death? Christ overcoming death is kinda pointless. If you create the entire universe and life and death it means nothing to say you overcame death. But christians are so impressed with this.

Ya, it's hardly the best demonstration of his power, but we humans want to overcome death more than almost anything. So, I think it's that he overcame death while we can't.

 

not following you or ktulu?


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Answers

YMA, regarding your grandmother in the drive way babbling, it could have been real, I don't know. But not from God. Either from Satan or perhaps she was having a seizure.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

Didnt you say speaking in tounges wasnt real. What I was meaning by that was that I cant take things like that as signs from god? I don't anyway since they can also be explained by conicidence. She was basically getting into a euphoric state at the fact that god was working at that moment. But after a few days I used my truck which was harder to get up the drive way(its a big drive way) in the snow then the car from previoulsy and I was able to get up it anyway and was like that wasnt a miracle.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi

Hi

They USE to be a sign from God. That is not needed anymore since the canon is complete.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: I never

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I never said the Bible is a sign.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The Bible is a "sign" 

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
They USE to be a sign from God.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:HiThey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi

They USE to be a sign from God. That is not needed anymore since the canon is complete.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

What canon?


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Manu,

God didn't use a complex language for His Word. It was the common language of the day KOINE, common Greek. It's not as primitive as Brian since he talks below the apes especially since he hates labels, but the language was easy.

If God wanted to use complex langauge He would have used classical Greek.

Hi Jean! Thanks for your respectful manner to have a discussion. I'll take each part of your post in order to do it step by step.

As I've understood, you are part of the Orthodox Christian Greek Church. If I'm wrong tell me which Church you belong to. Saying Greek was a complex language is to start an argument from a very small viewpoint. There are more languages that are more complex than classical Greek. What would have happened if God addressed his message in Japanese, Arabian, Celtic or even the Native-American languages? With "complex" I meant the obvious confusion that message has. For example, compare Mark 16, 15:16 and Romans 10, 9:10. The gospel claims you just need to believe and then to recieve the baptism. But Paul claims you just need to open your mouth and say "Jesus is the lord" without anything else. Is not that a contradiction? Furthermore, first the god of the old testament is cruel and tyranic, then the god in the new testament is an "all-love one". Wasn't the same god? Or something happened in his mind that changed it? According to the bible this is impossible. Check it out in Luke 21, 32:33

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Miracles WERE God's signs. He doesn't need these anymore because He has His Word. During the time of the gospels, the canon wasn't complete.

If he's almighty why he didn't rely just in his very word during the time the bible was being written? He always could persuade mankind just through his word only right? The canon was an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. They selected the gospels they wanted in order to brainwash the people. Why didn't they select the gospel of Judas or the Virgin Mary or Philip's? They selected the four we know according to a symbolic system of the four cardinal points, the four seasons and those things. It wasn't made by a logic pattern.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Couple of things. Jesus Christ the man is material forever. In theology we call this the hypostatic union.

2nd, God used man to write His word (I Peter 1:20-22). But God Himself could have done it. See the book of Daniel with the writing of the wall.

God did not dictate what to write but superintended. This way the writers kepts their own personalities under God's hand.

We see this for example with Luke in Acts. One of the most complex books in the New Testament. Verses Revelation which is somewhat sloppy. One theory regarding Revelation being sloppy is probably due to John's astonishment with the Revelation of Christ and/or because he was very old.

I'd be pleased if you comment in my thread titled "the double more life of Christian religion". I explain there that the figure of a hybrid as Jesus that is considered a man and a god at the same time allows the people -priests and believers- to behave in two different ways: On Sundays they're saints, during the rest of the week they're common humans, without god and without any sense but to survive in this world no matter if their actions are "sins". The Church needed to justify that their founder was god and man at the same time in order to have a double moral behavior. You can find the same thing in the Greek gods and in the King Arthur's myth in which Arthur wasn't really worth of the crown due to his origins.

Ok. God himself could do it. Why he didn't do it at the end? You can say "to give the honor to his creatures to write his word" but that's useless. It would be more surprising a god writting his message as in Daniel's tale. But remember that tale was written during the exodus to Babylon. That does mean Jewish priest took inspiration not from god, but from the myths of Babylon in order to give unity to the Jews. If the writers kept their own personalities at the moment of writing, that wasn't by God hand, but by the character of the writing activity, an artistic creation at the end.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I never said the Bible is a sign. But in a way there are still signs. It's called General Revelation. The stars and the creation around you are a sign of His craftsmanship. This is why you don't have any excuse come judgement day (Romans 1:18-20, 2:15).

We've already discussed this point and it's been hardly demonstrated you claimed the bible was a sign of god. The revelation through the nature isn't revelation. You are based in the creationism and as science has proved the evolution and the big bang are true, we cannot consider the natural elements as revelations of a "Watchmaker"

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Trust doesn't mean faith. Faith is in three parts

1) Notitia (knowledge

2) Assensus (assent

3) Fiducia (Trust)

Satan has #1 and #2 but NOT #3. Since Satan does not have faith. To have faith, (which is the same as knowledge), you must trust in that which you know IS.

I argue that ALL non Chrisitans have #1 and #2 (Romans 1:18). Just not #3. Thus all atheists have something in common with Satan.

The evidence regarding the resurrection (court style evidence) is overwhelming. For example, the Talmud, the "Jewish" writtings mention Him. The Jews HATED Jesus, kind of like you. But in their works they mention His miralces and His resurrection (in a derogatory way). Thus giving evidence accidently of the fact.

OK. Nice try. This knowledge is not given by a rational process. It's planted in your mind through figures of authority: the pope, the priests, your religious family and bla bla bla when you are a kid. The real knowledge comes from a process in which you understand the reality through a dialectic analysis. So, the following parts of Assensus and Fiducia are wrong because you have an "origin error" since the very beginning. After this explanation you wrote "to have faith (which is the same as knowledge)" you write a contradiction because faith is believing without thinking, without asking. You get knowledge through a rational process.

And c'mon! To affirm we atheist have something in common with Satan is an statement based on a religious thinking. We atheist don't want to destroy and to kill as Satan does according to religions. We atheists want to be happy and discover the answers and the solutions to our problems and to world's.

Jewish can affirm those things done by a man called Jesus as Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius did. But that's no evidence because they're just written records that cannot be compared with an archeological fact.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

There's much more, but these evidences will NEVER allow anybody to be a Christian. Only if God wants them to be a Christian will they be.

This mean no matter the efforts a good-willing person can do, if he/she is not a Christian because God didnt' want, he/she will burn to hell. That implies God isn't an all love God as I've mentioned before. I don't think is fair to condemn a person just because he/she didn't follow a specific criterium of mine. If he/she did the good to the world is it fair to condemn him/her? If you think is right, then I'll be atheist forever.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The "Holy Land" today is just tourism, you'll right. I'm not interested in going there ever. So what.

So what?! Churches are gaining money through a big lie! Do they really help to the poors with that money? I don't think so. And if they do so, they do it after governments gave to Churches the chance to make propaganda.

Jean Chavin wrote:

Roman Catholicism was NOT the root of all other denominations. They lie about their history. Technically speaking, Rome is a protestant church. They broke away from Eastern Orthodoxy in 1054 and in the 4 century over Easter. LOL.

Roman Catholicism as it is today was not in play until around 1074 during the rule of Pope Gregory VII. Around the 4th century and earlier, there were popes across the known world according to their region. A Pope was like the head bishop of their area.

Is Roman Catholicism a protestant church? Of course it is, if you start thinking from the side of the Orthodox. If you think from the Catholic side, Orthodox are protestants. Who has the reason and the complete truth? None of them form me. I know all that historical facts you explained, but it doesn't make sense when you start to figure out where you can find the absolute truth if all of those churches claim they're the right one.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Even if for the sake of argument you adhere to their fake history, Jude 3 says there has always been believers throughout all of paganism.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Who's Jude 3?

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Manu

Hi Manu,

I like discussions that are respectful and an attempt at discussion. It is rare, so I this is nice.

Yes there are more complex languages then Classical Greek. but I was merely making a historical reference. God allowed Alaxander the Great to conquer the known world thus making the known world speak koine Greek. This was done for simplicity verses having the known world speak classical Greek (much harder then Koine) or SL (Old Latin).

God specifically set up the world to speak a simple language for the coming of Jesus Christ.

I am NOT or the Eastern Orthodox Church of any kind. I am a protestant Christian. I tend to lean as a Reformed Baptist, however not as legalistic. I recognize liberty in Christianity (e.g. drinking beer).

There is no confusion when you rightly divide (II Timothy 2:15). Not sure what you have against Romans 10, but Mark 16 by many textual critics think that was not part of the canon (not cannon). But I believe it was and I have no problem with it. More could be said on this.

The God of the Old Testament shows justice since He was setting up His people. But His kindness is also shown on countless occasions. When Elijah met God on the Mountain, He did not appear vicious but soft as the wind (See I Kings 18 or 19).

His Word was not complete. The canon was not complete until 98 AD. Since the canon or the Bible was NOT complete, these things were used to REVEAL since they at that time were yet to be revealed.

_______________

The canon was NOT an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. The canon was formally addressed in 497-498 in a very small regional council in Carthage. This was because heretics and gnostics wanted to add and remove books already known to be of the canon. Thus the council was to avoid any more heresy.

Part of the miracles was to demonstrate the power of God.

_____________

I have a very rare copy of the Mishnah and the psuedopigraphy. I have read parts of the Gemera, but do not possess a copy of that yet. However, the Mishnah is oldest which applies.

______

I will try to respond to that thread of yours.

____________

If I missed points, I'll try to respond to it soon enough. Your complaints are old 19th century arguments that have been addressed and refuted. It's the 21st century, so you may need to update your arguments.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Manu,

I like discussions that are respectful and an attempt at discussion. It is rare, so I this is nice.

Yes there are more complex languages then Classical Greek. but I was merely making a historical reference. God allowed Alaxander the Great to conquer the known world thus making the known world speak koine Greek. This was done for simplicity verses having the known world speak classical Greek (much harder then Koine) or SL (Old Latin).

God specifically set up the world to speak a simple language for the coming of Jesus Christ.

I am NOT or the Eastern Orthodox Church of any kind. I am a protestant Christian. I tend to lean as a Reformed Baptist, however not as legalistic. I recognize liberty in Christianity (e.g. drinking beer).

There is no confusion when you rightly divide (II Timothy 2:15). Not sure what you have against Romans 10, but Mark 16 by many textual critics think that was not part of the canon (not cannon). But I believe it was and I have no problem with it. More could be said on this.

The God of the Old Testament shows justice since He was setting up His people. But His kindness is also shown on countless occasions. When Elijah met God on the Mountain, He did not appear vicious but soft as the wind (See I Kings 18 or 19).

His Word was not complete. The canon was not complete until 98 AD. Since the canon or the Bible was NOT complete, these things were used to REVEAL since they at that time were yet to be revealed.

_______________

The canon was NOT an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. The canon was formally addressed in 497-498 in a very small regional council in Carthage. This was because heretics and gnostics wanted to add and remove books already known to be of the canon. Thus the council was to avoid any more heresy.

Part of the miracles was to demonstrate the power of God.

_____________

I have a very rare copy of the Mishnah and the psuedopigraphy. I have read parts of the Gemera, but do not possess a copy of that yet. However, the Mishnah is oldest which applies.

______

I will try to respond to that thread of yours.

____________

If I missed points, I'll try to respond to it soon enough. Your complaints are old 19th century arguments that have been addressed and refuted. It's the 21st century, so you may need to update your arguments.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

 

Hi Jean! At last I had a chance to answer to your comment.

I knew the biblical books were written not only in Greek, but in hebrew and aramean too. If Greek was the most popular those days that wasn't due the power of God allowing Alexander the Great to conquer the old world known till then. I mean how many deaths and destruction this God allowed just for prepare the scenario for his only child? I don't understand why do you persist in the idea of thinking men's actions are God's. We the mankind have the power to create or destroy, not a God.

Ok. If Mark 16 is not part of the first canon is because men added it at the end of the gospel. This couldn't be allowed by God because he's perfect in theory. If he had done all the writtings perfectly through his servants, he wouldn't have needed to tell to them to add that extra ending after writting the gospel. Thus, this missing part was added by men focused on the domination of people through fear.

It's true: sometimes, but as isolated cases, God seems kind. We can remember the Genesis, when he gave a round during the afternoon in his garden, or in this case of Elijah. But this primitive idea comes from an stage in which jews thought in a powerful god but similar to their human conditions, for instance, being craftsmen or peasants. After the contact with Babylon during their exodus, their enhanced the power of their deity making it greater and terrible. After the jewish priests started to collect through writtings all their oral tradition they put this God's kind manners as isolated episodes, because they made a weak God. Although you can argue he's not a tyranic God, most of the episodes in the Bible give this idea, rather than a kind God. And even though you can tell me I'm wrong, if God were the same all the time in all ages, he wouldn't have changed anything. This implies man modifies God, because is a man's creation.

Once again you insist in an incomplete word and a mystic revelation that make things easier. This argument is based in your beliefs, not in facts. Then you continue arguing the canon and the council helped the Christianity to fight against the heretics and to present the revelation to the world, and that canon wasn't an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. As far as I know, this was the first Church interested in fight against gnostics and those things because their power was threatened. What I cannot consider as true is the idea of a God moving his pieces in order to give a revelation, because the history of the Christianity shows you the Catholic Church planned their movements without God, because their movements were mean, not fair and focused on the poor people. If their decisions were moved by God, if we start from the idea that God is just, the Church's decisions would have been right. But they were wrong due to their thirst of politic power.

I don't think my arguments are from 19th Century. Most of the atheism forums in which I debate use those arguments you consider off-beat. If you ask for "modern arguments" come on! There are tons of them through the science, the humanities and the scientific results in which you can demonstrate god doesn't exist.

And once again who is Jude 3?

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

ymalmsteen887 wrote:
Why does he say trust in the knowledge that christ overcame death? Christ overcoming death is kinda pointless. If you create the entire universe and life and death it means nothing to say you overcame death. But christians are so impressed with this.

Ya, it's hardly the best demonstration of his power, but we humans want to overcome death more than almost anything. So, I think it's that he overcame death while we can't.

 

not following you or ktulu?

It was a joke, I meant you have to be crazy to understand.  Meaning it makes no sense, but if you're mental, it makes perfect sense.  I've actually put that in my Sig now because it's so true regarding religion.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Manu

Hi Manu,

I don't insist that they God controls the lives of men, I know. I'm not Kantian. I'm Chrisitan. I know what I believe and I believe what I know. You've got to admit, Koine Greek made the language way more easier for Christianity since the entire world at that time spoke it. Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

While some say Mark 16 is not of the canon, I Do.

God is kind and angry via mercy and justice. God constantly gave Israel many many chances, and the kept over and over again screwing up. Worshipping Baal, and all sorts of things. So while God was upset, He did not give up on them. He stuck with Him. One has to admit, He kept His promise to Abraham and will also in the future.

Not sure what you mean by mystic. You mean via intuition. No, that wasn't it at all. God directly spoke with these people. He supernaturally influenced their minds.

Mysticism is the absense of thinking and reason. God used reason and allowed the men He chose to also use reason via His normative.

Also, You cannot say what is fact or not since you have yet to justify your epistemology in the realm of knowing anything. Since your knowledge is based on probability, then all your claims result in a big guess. Or to fancy it up, a Theory.

While I don't know what you mean by facts (several definitions), my argument I know is based on truth.

Your arguments are 19th century. But you can use them if you want. Since the 19th atheist lost so bad, the new atheists don't know history, so they recycle them. But this generation is to stupid to know anything, so they get away with it.

If you wish to recycle old arguments, I don't mind.

I think KTULA has lost his mind.

The book of Jude is the 2nd to the last book of the New Testament. He was the brother of James.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:God is

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God is kind and angry via mercy and justice. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God does not have emotions.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So while God was upset 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God does not have emotions.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The axioms regarding God aren't based on something, they are self evident truths. The axioms of Christiansity are:

1) God Is

2) His Word is True 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God is kind and angry via mercy and justice. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God does not have emotions.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God is not a limited Being. He does not limits. God Can't:

lie

grow

learn

go against His nature 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God is kind and angry via mercy and justice. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God does not have emotions.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

He did not give up on them

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God does not have emotions.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God is not a limited Being. He does not limits. God Can't:

lie

grow

learn

go against His nature 

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So while God was upset 

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God does not have emotions.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So while God was upset, He did not give up on them. He stuck with Him. One has to admit, He kept His promise to Abraham and will also in the future.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

God does not have emotions.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Readead

Hi Readead,

Figures of speech, anthropomorphism. (LOL). You're like a spoiled teenager that simply wants to rebel because he wants a mo hawk and blue hair.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Figures

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Figures of speech, anthropomorphism.

There's always 1 in the crowd that simply disagrees...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Jean Chauvin

redneF wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Figures of speech, anthropomorphism.

There's always 1 in the crowd that simply disagrees...

 

 

LMAO, love that picture!

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I think

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I think KTULA has lost his mind.

If I had, you would start making sense... Since you still make no sense what so ever, I would have to conclude that I'm in full control of my mental faculties, limited as they may be.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi Manu,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Manu,

I don't insist that they God controls the lives of men, I know. I'm not Kantian. I'm Chrisitan. I know what I believe and I believe what I know. You've got to admit, Koine Greek made the language way more easier for Christianity since the entire world at that time spoke it. Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

Hi Jean:

If you don't believe that God controls the lives of men then why did you write "He allowed Alexander the Great to spread the Greek language"? Even though we know it was through war? You can say anything you want. But you look like if you're avoiding that specific point. Anyway, we cannot deny Greek make things easier. But we cannot affirm it was God's will. It was men's.

Quote:

While some say Mark 16 is not of the canon, I Do.

I don't care if it was in the canon since the very beginning or if was added afterwards. The thing is its objective is to control people.

Quote:

God is kind and angry via mercy and justice. God constantly gave Israel many many chances, and the kept over and over again screwing up. Worshipping Baal, and all sorts of things. So while God was upset, He did not give up on them. He stuck with Him. One has to admit, He kept His promise to Abraham and will also in the future.

One more time you start arguments based on your beliefs. We know Israel had lots of problems in the past due to its poor economic development. This poverty was caused by the idea of a God planted in the minds of the people by their rulers. Remember the tale of Solomon: He was "blessed by God with wisdom" and "Israel grew as a nation". The true is Solomon increased taxes arguing that was God's will and Israel rose up its economics. There's no God's actions in any part of the real history of Israel and the rest of the mankind.

Quote:

Not sure what you mean by mystic. You mean via intuition. No, that wasn't it at all. God directly spoke with these people. He supernaturally influenced their minds.

Mysticism is the absense of thinking and reason. God used reason and allowed the men He chose to also use reason via His normative.

I never quoted the word "intuition" or even the idea of "intuition" in my post. Read your line once again: "God directly spoke with these people" If I ask you "why he doesn't speak to people today as in past?" you will say: "because the truth has already been revealed" This is anything but circle arguments. You cannot demonstrate through factual evidence that a God named YHWH or whatever spoke to a man called Moses or whoever. God never used reason. Neither the future christianism will use it. You just must believe. Remember that quote from Exodus in which God affirms to Moses that if he would see his face, he'll die. Why? There's no logic in that statement. Will God use reason throughout the whole Bible? No. You just must have faith: believe without seeing, without thinking. That's not reason

Quote:

Also, You cannot say what is fact or not since you have yet to justify your epistemology in the realm of knowing anything. Since your knowledge is based on probability, then all your claims result in a big guess. Or to fancy it up, a Theory.

While I don't know what you mean by facts (several definitions), my argument I know is based on truth.

Did I wrote in any part of my comment "my knowledge is based on probability? Never. Please do not affirm things that I never stated. First of all, I mean with fact a thing or phenomenon that can be verified through the senses, or with the help of scientific devices as computers, programs, lab instruments for instance. When I say we cannot verify as a fact that God spoke to Moses is because we don't have any visible proof or testimonials out of the Bible or archeological records that can confirm it. A theory is a group of evidences, laws and proofs that support a fact in science. Even though people think a theory is a hypothesis, the true is a theory is based on verified hypotheses which become laws.

You cannot say that your arguments are based on truth due to your "circular arguments". For Christians, Jesus is the Truth, for Muslims, Mohammed is the Truth, for Buddists, Nirvana is the Truth. So, none of them is right because this claims are circular. "Jesus is the truth because the Bible says so and the Bible is the word of God" That doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

Your arguments are 19th century. But you can use them if you want. Since the 19th atheist lost so bad, the new atheists don't know history, so they recycle them. But this generation is to stupid to know anything, so they get away with it.

If you wish to recycle old arguments, I don't mind.

I think KTULA has lost his mind.

The book of Jude is the 2nd to the last book of the New Testament. He was the brother of James.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The origin of species is a base for atheism since the 19th century and if this hadn't reinforced the atheism ideology, neither atheism nor Darwin would have succeded. So, no matter if you don't mind 19th century arguments, if you consider them as obsolete and whatever: if they were useless, Darwinism and atheism wouldn't have succeded till today. You can think we 21st century atheists don't know those arguments and we're repeating a non-sense history to you, but atheism is still here and is unconverting more people. Will do that something obsolete and defeated in the past? I don't think so

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


PhilM (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
fatima

We know it can't be true so how do we debunk it? lol

Fascinating that the atheist editor of the Portuguese Daily newspaper, O Seculo, who was on the scene with the intention of writing about the non-occurrence of the prophesied miracle ended up writing about what actually occurred.

His name was Avelino de Almeida.

You can go here and download a copy of the report.