Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pick your Pilot

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 10:51:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As much as I'm sure most theists would select option C, there is no option C. You have only A & B. Thank you for observing that.

You find it necessary to travel by air and when you purchase your ticket, you find that the airlines have taken to giving passengers a choice when they fly. They provide you with a choice of flight crews which you select on the following basis.

A. Secular Flight Crew

B. Theistic Flight Crew

If you choose the secular flight crew and an emergency occurs during your flight, neither the pilot nor the rest of the flight crew will engage in any prayers. All of their efforts will be focused on purely physical attempts to resolve the issue.

If you choose the theistic pilot, he and his crew will handle any emergency by releasing the auto-pilot, releasing all controls of the aircraft, and clasping their hands in intense, sincere and passionate prayer. They will demonstrate their devout faith in God by leaving he situation in God's hands.

Please choose either Flight Crew A, or Flight Crew B.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:16:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 10:51:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
As much as I'm sure most theists would select option C, there is no option C. You have only A & B. Thank you for observing that.

You find it necessary to travel by air and when you purchase your ticket, you find that the airlines have taken to giving passengers a choice when they fly. They provide you with a choice of flight crews which you select on the following basis.

A. Secular Flight Crew

B. Theistic Flight Crew

If you choose the secular flight crew and an emergency occurs during your flight, neither the pilot nor the rest of the flight crew will engage in any prayers. All of their efforts will be focused on purely physical attempts to resolve the issue.

If you choose the theistic pilot, he and his crew will handle any emergency by releasing the auto-pilot, releasing all controls of the aircraft, and clasping their hands in intense, sincere and passionate prayer. They will demonstrate their devout faith in God by leaving he situation in God's hands.

Please choose either Flight Crew A, or Flight Crew B.

If it's all the same to you Beastt, I'll walk. LOL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:23:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:16:03 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 10:51:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
As much as I'm sure most theists would select option C, there is no option C. You have only A & B. Thank you for observing that.

You find it necessary to travel by air and when you purchase your ticket, you find that the airlines have taken to giving passengers a choice when they fly. They provide you with a choice of flight crews which you select on the following basis.

A. Secular Flight Crew

B. Theistic Flight Crew

If you choose the secular flight crew and an emergency occurs during your flight, neither the pilot nor the rest of the flight crew will engage in any prayers. All of their efforts will be focused on purely physical attempts to resolve the issue.

If you choose the theistic pilot, he and his crew will handle any emergency by releasing the auto-pilot, releasing all controls of the aircraft, and clasping their hands in intense, sincere and passionate prayer. They will demonstrate their devout faith in God by leaving he situation in God's hands.

Please choose either Flight Crew A, or Flight Crew B.

If it's all the same to you Beastt, I'll walk. LOL

That's going to be inconvenient about 1,000 miles off the coast. (Perhaps even sooner.)

Do you have a particular reservation in regard to a flight crew who utilizes secular methods to resolve the issues?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, listen, I love the effort, but that's not how prayer works.

I love the evasion, but prayer DOESN'T work. Yet people still attempt to control dire situations through prayer. And you won't see any religious leaders telling them not to pray in such circumstances.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,218
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:25:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:23:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:16:03 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 10:51:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
As much as I'm sure most theists would select option C, there is no option C. You have only A & B. Thank you for observing that.

You find it necessary to travel by air and when you purchase your ticket, you find that the airlines have taken to giving passengers a choice when they fly. They provide you with a choice of flight crews which you select on the following basis.

A. Secular Flight Crew

B. Theistic Flight Crew

If you choose the secular flight crew and an emergency occurs during your flight, neither the pilot nor the rest of the flight crew will engage in any prayers. All of their efforts will be focused on purely physical attempts to resolve the issue.

If you choose the theistic pilot, he and his crew will handle any emergency by releasing the auto-pilot, releasing all controls of the aircraft, and clasping their hands in intense, sincere and passionate prayer. They will demonstrate their devout faith in God by leaving he situation in God's hands.

Please choose either Flight Crew A, or Flight Crew B.

If it's all the same to you Beastt, I'll walk. LOL

That's going to be inconvenient about 1,000 miles off the coast. (Perhaps even sooner.)

Do you have a particular reservation in regard to a flight crew who utilizes secular methods to resolve the issues?

Humour often falls flat in a textual context.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:28:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:25:18 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:23:23 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:16:03 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/19/2014 10:51:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
As much as I'm sure most theists would select option C, there is no option C. You have only A & B. Thank you for observing that.

You find it necessary to travel by air and when you purchase your ticket, you find that the airlines have taken to giving passengers a choice when they fly. They provide you with a choice of flight crews which you select on the following basis.

A. Secular Flight Crew

B. Theistic Flight Crew

If you choose the secular flight crew and an emergency occurs during your flight, neither the pilot nor the rest of the flight crew will engage in any prayers. All of their efforts will be focused on purely physical attempts to resolve the issue.

If you choose the theistic pilot, he and his crew will handle any emergency by releasing the auto-pilot, releasing all controls of the aircraft, and clasping their hands in intense, sincere and passionate prayer. They will demonstrate their devout faith in God by leaving he situation in God's hands.

Please choose either Flight Crew A, or Flight Crew B.

If it's all the same to you Beastt, I'll walk. LOL

That's going to be inconvenient about 1,000 miles off the coast. (Perhaps even sooner.)

Do you have a particular reservation in regard to a flight crew who utilizes secular methods to resolve the issues?

Humour often falls flat in a textual context.

Not nearly so completely as a question which demonstrates the true beliefs of people who claim to believe in "the power of prayer".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:32:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, listen, I love the effort, but that's not how prayer works.

I love the evasion, but prayer DOESN'T work. Yet people still attempt to control dire situations through prayer. And you won't see any religious leaders telling them not to pray in such circumstances.

No, it's because you're confusing necessity with sufficiency. In emergency situations -- indeed any situation -- piety, devotion, adoration, etc., of God should be present. Christ said that the first of the commandments was to love God. In other words, prayer is necessary. That said, God has also ordained that humans should have love for other humans as well as God. And thus Christ said that the second of the commandments was to love your neighbor. So, while praying, as a petition to God, is necessary for any given situation, it's not sufficient.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:49:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:32:31 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, listen, I love the effort, but that's not how prayer works.

I love the evasion, but prayer DOESN'T work. Yet people still attempt to control dire situations through prayer. And you won't see any religious leaders telling them not to pray in such circumstances.

No, it's because you're confusing necessity with sufficiency. In emergency situations -- indeed any situation -- piety, devotion, adoration, etc., of God should be present. Christ said that the first of the commandments was to love God. In other words, prayer is necessary. That said, God has also ordained that humans should have love for other humans as well as God. And thus Christ said that the second of the commandments was to love your neighbor. So, while praying, as a petition to God, is necessary for any given situation, it's not sufficient.

Firstly, you don't know what "Christ" said. The supposed quotations of the Bible were not written by people who knew him, and often reveal verse taken from the Old Testament.

Secondly, God hasn't ordained anything. The words in your Bible were not only selected by a council in the 4th century, but claimed by them to have been ordained by God. God has never rung in on any of it... for reasons it appears most atheists fully understand.

Thirdly, what you're saying essentially is to go ahead and pray, but it will fail to provide any sort of desired results. You have to save yourself, but somehow still give praise and credit to God. This is quite contrary to the Bible's claims on prayer. The Bible says,

Matthew 7:7; Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Matthew 21:22; And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 12:02:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:49:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:32:31 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, listen, I love the effort, but that's not how prayer works.

I love the evasion, but prayer DOESN'T work. Yet people still attempt to control dire situations through prayer. And you won't see any religious leaders telling them not to pray in such circumstances.

No, it's because you're confusing necessity with sufficiency. In emergency situations -- indeed any situation -- piety, devotion, adoration, etc., of God should be present. Christ said that the first of the commandments was to love God. In other words, prayer is necessary. That said, God has also ordained that humans should have love for other humans as well as God. And thus Christ said that the second of the commandments was to love your neighbor. So, while praying, as a petition to God, is necessary for any given situation, it's not sufficient.

Firstly, you don't know what "Christ" said. The supposed quotations of the Bible were not written by people who knew him, and often reveal verse taken from the Old Testament.

My citations of the Bible were meant to support, verbally and poetically, the reasons I typed out: not to constitute the argument. The historicity of Biblical canon is a separate matter entirely and irrespective of this supposed refutation of our confidence in prayer.

Secondly, God hasn't ordained anything. The words in your Bible were not only selected by a council in the 4th century, but claimed by them to have been ordained by God. God has never rung in on any of it... for reasons it appears most atheists fully understand.

Sorry, what?

Thirdly, what you're saying essentially is to go ahead and pray, but it will fail to provide any sort of desired results. You have to save yourself, but somehow still give praise and credit to God. This is quite contrary to the Bible's claims on prayer. The Bible says,

Matthew 7:7; Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:


Matthew 21:22; And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Christ definitely doesn't mean that you can petition God for every one of your problems, and you can expect all of them solved miraculously by Divine intervention. No Christian, two millennia ago or now, believes that. It's certain from the above passages that the work of God in our lives is a consequence of prayer. But is it a consequence which emerges from prayer by the sufficiency of prayer? Assuredly not: God is not going to grant wealth to everyone who selfishly asks for it. It's a matter of piety and humility, and that's what you seem to be forgetting. We ask God to assist in our lives by necessity, but God asks us to care for one another by necessity as well.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 12:13:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 12:02:38 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:49:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:32:31 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, listen, I love the effort, but that's not how prayer works.

I love the evasion, but prayer DOESN'T work. Yet people still attempt to control dire situations through prayer. And you won't see any religious leaders telling them not to pray in such circumstances.

No, it's because you're confusing necessity with sufficiency. In emergency situations -- indeed any situation -- piety, devotion, adoration, etc., of God should be present. Christ said that the first of the commandments was to love God. In other words, prayer is necessary. That said, God has also ordained that humans should have love for other humans as well as God. And thus Christ said that the second of the commandments was to love your neighbor. So, while praying, as a petition to God, is necessary for any given situation, it's not sufficient.

Firstly, you don't know what "Christ" said. The supposed quotations of the Bible were not written by people who knew him, and often reveal verse taken from the Old Testament.

My citations of the Bible were meant to support, verbally and poetically, the reasons I typed out: not to constitute the argument. The historicity of Biblical canon is a separate matter entirely and irrespective of this supposed refutation of our confidence in prayer.
I'll grant you that. But how is prayer "necessary" if it does nothing toward the desired outcome?

Secondly, God hasn't ordained anything. The words in your Bible were not only selected by a council in the 4th century, but claimed by them to have been ordained by God. God has never rung in on any of it... for reasons it appears most atheists fully understand.

Sorry, what?
When you make claims like "God ordained (whatever)", you're making a hugely false statement. I was simply pointing out that God has not ordained anything, nor has God weighed in on any of the text selected to represent him.

Thirdly, what you're saying essentially is to go ahead and pray, but it will fail to provide any sort of desired results. You have to save yourself, but somehow still give praise and credit to God. This is quite contrary to the Bible's claims on prayer. The Bible says,

Matthew 7:7; Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:


Matthew 21:22; And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Christ definitely doesn't mean that you can petition God for every one of your problems, and you can expect all of them solved miraculously by Divine intervention.
And yet that IS what it says, and it IS how most Christians apply prayer.

No Christian, two millennia ago or now, believes that.
And yet, they wrote it, and Christians 4-centuries later selected that as "God's word" and continue to promote it as such. But when we see how it fails, suddenly it doesn't mean what it says?

It's certain from the above passages that the work of God in our lives is a consequence of prayer.
But reality offers no such conclusion, and you just said that prayer is ineffective in providing beneficial outcomes to dire situations.

But is it a consequence which emerges from prayer by the sufficiency of prayer? Assuredly not: God is not going to grant wealth to everyone who selfishly asks for it.
Are you not able to see the disparity between asking for personal wealth, and asking not to be splattered against the planet in a fiery collision?

It's a matter of piety and humility, and that's what you seem to be forgetting. We ask God to assist in our lives by necessity, but God asks us to care for one another by necessity as well.
I'd say that heading toward the ground in an uncontrolled dive at 400 MPH is about as necessary as it gets. It comes down to this; which is more likely to save you; clear, level-headed and secular action by the flight crew, or abandoning the controls and clasping one's hands in prayer.

It's obvious that you believe in prayer, and at the same time, you're suggesting that prayer is ineffective in altering the outcome. It seems you're attempting to observe the reality, while hedging toward the fallacy.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 12:38:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 12:13:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:02:38 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:49:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:32:31 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, listen, I love the effort, but that's not how prayer works.

I love the evasion, but prayer DOESN'T work. Yet people still attempt to control dire situations through prayer. And you won't see any religious leaders telling them not to pray in such circumstances.

No, it's because you're confusing necessity with sufficiency. In emergency situations -- indeed any situation -- piety, devotion, adoration, etc., of God should be present. Christ said that the first of the commandments was to love God. In other words, prayer is necessary. That said, God has also ordained that humans should have love for other humans as well as God. And thus Christ said that the second of the commandments was to love your neighbor. So, while praying, as a petition to God, is necessary for any given situation, it's not sufficient.

Firstly, you don't know what "Christ" said. The supposed quotations of the Bible were not written by people who knew him, and often reveal verse taken from the Old Testament.

My citations of the Bible were meant to support, verbally and poetically, the reasons I typed out: not to constitute the argument. The historicity of Biblical canon is a separate matter entirely and irrespective of this supposed refutation of our confidence in prayer.
I'll grant you that. But how is prayer "necessary" if it does nothing toward the desired outcome?

Any cause, whether necessary, sufficient, or both, works toward effecting the outcome. The difference is in how the cause is conditionally related to the effect. Consider a door, which is locked by both the handle and a keypad. If you unlock both of these, you unlock the door: and as such, each is necessary. But, if you do not unlock the handle without the keypad, you do not unlock the door. As such, both are insufficient.

Secondly, God hasn't ordained anything. The words in your Bible were not only selected by a council in the 4th century, but claimed by them to have been ordained by God. God has never rung in on any of it... for reasons it appears most atheists fully understand.

Sorry, what?
When you make claims like "God ordained (whatever)", you're making a hugely false statement. I was simply pointing out that God has not ordained anything, nor has God weighed in on any of the text selected to represent him.

. . . aren't we, like, presupposing that a God who answers prayers exists? Do we need to turn this into a "God exists" debate? Do we need to turn this into a "pantheism v. deism v. theism" debate? Sorry if I'm making a hugely false presupposition here.

Thirdly, what you're saying essentially is to go ahead and pray, but it will fail to provide any sort of desired results. You have to save yourself, but somehow still give praise and credit to God. This is quite contrary to the Bible's claims on prayer. The Bible says,

Matthew 7:7; Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:


Matthew 21:22; And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Christ definitely doesn't mean that you can petition God for every one of your problems, and you can expect all of them solved miraculously by Divine intervention.
And yet that IS what it says, and it IS how most Christians apply prayer.

That is not what it says. Do you really think that Saint Matthew (or whoever), when he penned that statement, meant that if you pray to God to receive a million pesos, the next day you'll find pesos raining from Heaven like manna (ask and you shall receive, folks)? Do you really think that's the most reasonable interpretation of that statement? Maybe there's an element of humility/virtue that's included in the proper interpretation.

No Christian, two millennia ago or now, believes that.
And yet, they wrote it, and Christians 4-centuries later selected that as "God's word" and continue to promote it as such. But when we see how it fails, suddenly it doesn't mean what it says?

. . . probably because they didn't promote the same immediately-verifiably-false-interpretation. Anyone can put such a broadly-generous interpretation to the test right now, and pray for a million pesos tomorrow. It's a wonder there are any Christians left if your interpretation is supposedly the most reasonable one.

It's certain from the above passages that the work of God in our lives is a consequence of prayer.
But reality offers no such conclusion, and you just said that prayer is ineffective in providing beneficial outcomes to dire situations.

I did not say that prayer is ineffective. I said that prayer is insufficient. If you're familiar with formal logic, then consider prayer as necessary but insufficient in terms of and/or statements.

But is it a consequence which emerges from prayer by the sufficiency of prayer? Assuredly not: God is not going to grant wealth to everyone who selfishly asks for it.
Are you not able to see the disparity between asking for personal wealth, and asking not to be splattered against the planet in a fiery collision?

This is going nowhere.

It's a matter of piety and humility, and that's what you seem to be forgetting. We ask God to assist in our lives by necessity, but God asks us to care for one another by necessity as well.
I'd say that heading toward the ground in an uncontrolled dive at 400 MPH is about as necessary as it gets. It comes down to this; which is more likely to save you; clear, level-headed and secular action by the flight crew, or abandoning the controls and clasping one's hands in prayer.

It's obvious that you believe in prayer, and at the same time, you're suggesting that prayer is ineffective in altering the outcome. It seems you're attempting to observe the reality, while hedging toward the fallacy.

Yep, it's going nowhere. If, in the next post, you still don't distinguish between necessary and sufficient causes, I'm just gonna leave.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 1:08:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 12:38:42 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:13:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:02:38 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:49:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:32:31 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, listen, I love the effort, but that's not how prayer works.

I love the evasion, but prayer DOESN'T work. Yet people still attempt to control dire situations through prayer. And you won't see any religious leaders telling them not to pray in such circumstances.

No, it's because you're confusing necessity with sufficiency. In emergency situations -- indeed any situation -- piety, devotion, adoration, etc., of God should be present. Christ said that the first of the commandments was to love God. In other words, prayer is necessary. That said, God has also ordained that humans should have love for other humans as well as God. And thus Christ said that the second of the commandments was to love your neighbor. So, while praying, as a petition to God, is necessary for any given situation, it's not sufficient.

Firstly, you don't know what "Christ" said. The supposed quotations of the Bible were not written by people who knew him, and often reveal verse taken from the Old Testament.

My citations of the Bible were meant to support, verbally and poetically, the reasons I typed out: not to constitute the argument. The historicity of Biblical canon is a separate matter entirely and irrespective of this supposed refutation of our confidence in prayer.
I'll grant you that. But how is prayer "necessary" if it does nothing toward the desired outcome?

Any cause, whether necessary, sufficient, or both, works toward effecting the outcome. The difference is in how the cause is conditionally related to the effect. Consider a door, which is locked by both the handle and a keypad. If you unlock both of these, you unlock the door: and as such, each is necessary. But, if you do not unlock the handle without the keypad, you do not unlock the door. As such, both are insufficient.

Except that we can show that purely secular pilots can regain control of the plane. We have never seen an instance where prayer by itself has altered an outcome.

Secondly, God hasn't ordained anything. The words in your Bible were not only selected by a council in the 4th century, but claimed by them to have been ordained by God. God has never rung in on any of it... for reasons it appears most atheists fully understand.

Sorry, what?
When you make claims like "God ordained (whatever)", you're making a hugely false statement. I was simply pointing out that God has not ordained anything, nor has God weighed in on any of the text selected to represent him.

. . . aren't we, like, presupposing that a God who answers prayers exists? Do we need to turn this into a "God exists" debate? Do we need to turn this into a "pantheism v. deism v. theism" debate? Sorry if I'm making a hugely false presupposition here.
If I accept the premise that a God exists, without objection, I'll have theists slamming me with "You just admitted you believe in God". So I have to re-state my position to avoid this.

Thirdly, what you're saying essentially is to go ahead and pray, but it will fail to provide any sort of desired results. You have to save yourself, but somehow still give praise and credit to God. This is quite contrary to the Bible's claims on prayer. The Bible says,

Matthew 7:7; Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:


Matthew 21:22; And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Christ definitely doesn't mean that you can petition God for every one of your problems, and you can expect all of them solved miraculously by Divine intervention.
And yet that IS what it says, and it IS how most Christians apply prayer.

That is not what it says.
Seriously... DON'T. Don't start this Christian crap where you look right at the verse I posted, and insist that it doesn't say what it does say, simply because you think what it says is absurd. OF COURSE it's absurd, but that IS what it says!

Do you really think that Saint Matthew (or whoever), when he penned that statement, meant that if you pray to God to receive a million pesos, the next day you'll find pesos raining from Heaven like manna (ask and you shall receive, folks)? Do you really think that's the most reasonable interpretation of that statement? Maybe there's an element of humility/virtue that's included in the proper interpretation.
If you're looking for "reasonable", you shouldn't be looking in the Bible. Almost nothing in that book is reasonable. It says what it says. And the fact that you realize it's not reasonable only shows that it's not reasonable. That doesn't change what it says.

(Continued)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 1:18:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 12:38:42 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:13:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:02:38 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:49:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:32:31 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:


No Christian, two millennia ago or now, believes that.
And yet, they wrote it, and Christians 4-centuries later selected that as "God's word" and continue to promote it as such. But when we see how it fails, suddenly it doesn't mean what it says?

. . . probably because they didn't promote the same immediately-verifiably-false-interpretation. Anyone can put such a broadly-generous interpretation to the test right now, and pray for a million pesos tomorrow. It's a wonder there are any Christians left if your interpretation is supposedly the most reasonable one.
Christians are not reasonable, nor do they seek reason. Look, prayer has been tested, over, and over, and over, and over... in objective studies with real lives hanging in the balance, and it has failed in every single methodologically appropriate test so far. Of course prayer fails. Of course you can't pray for million pesos and have them fall from the sky. Of course you can't pray for a harem of dancing girls and receive them. But by the same token, you can't pray for an aircraft to spontaneously happen, and expect your prayer to result in the recovery of flight control. NONE of that happens. Prayer DOES NOT alter outcomes.

BUT... the Bible DOES claim that it does. And no matter how much you show that to be untrue, all you're doing is demonstrating how fraudulent and false the statements in the Bible are! And when you insist "it doesn't say that because that would be unreasonable", you're simply looking right at the text, and protesting that it doesn't say what it says - NOT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY IT, but because it isn't true.

It's certain from the above passages that the work of God in our lives is a consequence of prayer.
But reality offers no such conclusion, and you just said that prayer is ineffective in providing beneficial outcomes to dire situations.

I did not say that prayer is ineffective. I said that prayer is insufficient. If you're familiar with formal logic, then consider prayer as necessary but insufficient in terms of and/or statements.
You're claiming that prayer alone can't save the plane. However, it has been shown numerous times that physical pilot input - BY ITSELF - can save the plane. So your protests aren't making much sense. If a secular flight crew by themselves can save the plane, and the flight crew who only prays cannot, then isn't the secular crew the better choice?

But is it a consequence which emerges from prayer by the sufficiency of prayer? Assuredly not: God is not going to grant wealth to everyone who selfishly asks for it.
Are you not able to see the disparity between asking for personal wealth, and asking not to be splattered against the planet in a fiery collision?

This is going nowhere.
That's because I'm waiting for you to start being reasonable. Let me know when you're ready.

It's a matter of piety and humility, and that's what you seem to be forgetting. We ask God to assist in our lives by necessity, but God asks us to care for one another by necessity as well.
I'd say that heading toward the ground in an uncontrolled dive at 400 MPH is about as necessary as it gets. It comes down to this; which is more likely to save you; clear, level-headed and secular action by the flight crew, or abandoning the controls and clasping one's hands in prayer.

It's obvious that you believe in prayer, and at the same time, you're suggesting that prayer is ineffective in altering the outcome. It seems you're attempting to observe the reality, while hedging toward the fallacy.

Yep, it's going nowhere. If, in the next post, you still don't distinguish between necessary and sufficient causes, I'm just gonna leave.
Which cause do you say is necessary, the secular inputs by the pilot, or the prayer?
Which cause do you claim is "sufficient"?

We know that secular inputs (if flight control CAN be recovered), is sufficient, and we know they are necessary.

As for prayer, it doesn't appear to be either one. It appears to be completely useless.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 1:21:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 1:08:42 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:38:42 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:13:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:02:38 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:49:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:32:31 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, listen, I love the effort, but that's not how prayer works.

I love the evasion, but prayer DOESN'T work. Yet people still attempt to control dire situations through prayer. And you won't see any religious leaders telling them not to pray in such circumstances.

No, it's because you're confusing necessity with sufficiency. In emergency situations -- indeed any situation -- piety, devotion, adoration, etc., of God should be present. Christ said that the first of the commandments was to love God. In other words, prayer is necessary. That said, God has also ordained that humans should have love for other humans as well as God. And thus Christ said that the second of the commandments was to love your neighbor. So, while praying, as a petition to God, is necessary for any given situation, it's not sufficient.

Firstly, you don't know what "Christ" said. The supposed quotations of the Bible were not written by people who knew him, and often reveal verse taken from the Old Testament.

My citations of the Bible were meant to support, verbally and poetically, the reasons I typed out: not to constitute the argument. The historicity of Biblical canon is a separate matter entirely and irrespective of this supposed refutation of our confidence in prayer.
I'll grant you that. But how is prayer "necessary" if it does nothing toward the desired outcome?

Any cause, whether necessary, sufficient, or both, works toward effecting the outcome. The difference is in how the cause is conditionally related to the effect. Consider a door, which is locked by both the handle and a keypad. If you unlock both of these, you unlock the door: and as such, each is necessary. But, if you do not unlock the handle without the keypad, you do not unlock the door. As such, both are insufficient.

Except that we can show that purely secular pilots can regain control of the plane. We have never seen an instance where prayer by itself has altered an outcome.

Whoa now, we're not discussing the causes of any action whatsoever, Beastt. We're discussing the causes of God's intervention in the world; namely, with relation to the cause of prayer.

Secondly, God hasn't ordained anything. The words in your Bible were not only selected by a council in the 4th century, but claimed by them to have been ordained by God. God has never rung in on any of it... for reasons it appears most atheists fully understand.

Sorry, what?
When you make claims like "God ordained (whatever)", you're making a hugely false statement. I was simply pointing out that God has not ordained anything, nor has God weighed in on any of the text selected to represent him.

. . . aren't we, like, presupposing that a God who answers prayers exists? Do we need to turn this into a "God exists" debate? Do we need to turn this into a "pantheism v. deism v. theism" debate? Sorry if I'm making a hugely false presupposition here.
If I accept the premise that a God exists, without objection, I'll have theists slamming me with "You just admitted you believe in God". So I have to re-state my position to avoid this.

You don't have to restate your position, Beastt, it's evident from the sincerity of your rebuttals that you're committed to the idea that prayer doesn't work and that you as such reject the idea of a personal deity. It's just superfluous to manipulate this into a debate over the existence of God.

Thirdly, what you're saying essentially is to go ahead and pray, but it will fail to provide any sort of desired results. You have to save yourself, but somehow still give praise and credit to God. This is quite contrary to the Bible's claims on prayer. The Bible says,

Matthew 7:7; Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:


Matthew 21:22; And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Christ definitely doesn't mean that you can petition God for every one of your problems, and you can expect all of them solved miraculously by Divine intervention.
And yet that IS what it says, and it IS how most Christians apply prayer.

That is not what it says.
Seriously... DON'T. Don't start this Christian crap where you look right at the verse I posted, and insist that it doesn't say what it does say, simply because you think what it says is absurd. OF COURSE it's absurd, but that IS what it says!

I suppose when Christ says, "I am the vine," we should interpret that as God becoming incarnate as a plant? You can't look a hair deeper into what the author might've actually meant? Do you really, actually, honestly think that the author would make such an immediately and visibly false statement: namely, that whatever we ask of God, we can expect that to be answered instantaneously, and unquestionably?

Do you really think that Saint Matthew (or whoever), when he penned that statement, meant that if you pray to God to receive a million pesos, the next day you'll find pesos raining from Heaven like manna (ask and you shall receive, folks)? Do you really think that's the most reasonable interpretation of that statement? Maybe there's an element of humility/virtue that's included in the proper interpretation.
If you're looking for "reasonable", you shouldn't be looking in the Bible. Almost nothing in that book is reasonable. It says what it says. And the fact that you realize it's not reasonable only shows that it's not reasonable. That doesn't change what it says.

(Continued)

. . . you have got to be kidding me. We should shove the interpretation of this verse for two millennia into the exegetical closet for the most objectionable, immanently verifiably false, interpretation. That way, it's easier to mock believers while sipping from my free-thinking wine glass.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 1:31:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 1:21:45 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 1:08:42 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:38:42 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:13:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:02:38 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:49:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:32:31 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, listen, I love the effort, but that's not how prayer works.

I love the evasion, but prayer DOESN'T work. Yet people still attempt to control dire situations through prayer. And you won't see any religious leaders telling them not to pray in such circumstances.

No, it's because you're confusing necessity with sufficiency. In emergency situations -- indeed any situation -- piety, devotion, adoration, etc., of God should be present. Christ said that the first of the commandments was to love God. In other words, prayer is necessary. That said, God has also ordained that humans should have love for other humans as well as God. And thus Christ said that the second of the commandments was to love your neighbor. So, while praying, as a petition to God, is necessary for any given situation, it's not sufficient.

Firstly, you don't know what "Christ" said. The supposed quotations of the Bible were not written by people who knew him, and often reveal verse taken from the Old Testament.

My citations of the Bible were meant to support, verbally and poetically, the reasons I typed out: not to constitute the argument. The historicity of Biblical canon is a separate matter entirely and irrespective of this supposed refutation of our confidence in prayer.
I'll grant you that. But how is prayer "necessary" if it does nothing toward the desired outcome?

Any cause, whether necessary, sufficient, or both, works toward effecting the outcome. The difference is in how the cause is conditionally related to the effect. Consider a door, which is locked by both the handle and a keypad. If you unlock both of these, you unlock the door: and as such, each is necessary. But, if you do not unlock the handle without the keypad, you do not unlock the door. As such, both are insufficient.

Except that we can show that purely secular pilots can regain control of the plane. We have never seen an instance where prayer by itself has altered an outcome.

Whoa now, we're not discussing the causes of any action whatsoever, Beastt. We're discussing the causes of God's intervention in the world; namely, with relation to the cause of prayer.
I'm just trying to get you to be honest.

Secondly, God hasn't ordained anything. The words in your Bible were not only selected by a council in the 4th century, but claimed by them to have been ordained by God. God has never rung in on any of it... for reasons it appears most atheists fully understand.

Sorry, what?
When you make claims like "God ordained (whatever)", you're making a hugely false statement. I was simply pointing out that God has not ordained anything, nor has God weighed in on any of the text selected to represent him.

. . . aren't we, like, presupposing that a God who answers prayers exists? Do we need to turn this into a "God exists" debate? Do we need to turn this into a "pantheism v. deism v. theism" debate? Sorry if I'm making a hugely false presupposition here.
If I accept the premise that a God exists, without objection, I'll have theists slamming me with "You just admitted you believe in God". So I have to re-state my position to avoid this.

You don't have to restate your position, Beastt, it's evident from the sincerity of your rebuttals that you're committed to the idea that prayer doesn't work and that you as such reject the idea of a personal deity. It's just superfluous to manipulate this into a debate over the existence of God.
When you've debated from the atheist standpoint for a sufficient time, and have not experienced the explanation I provided, then you can suggest I'm being disingenuous. But I've seen it, I've experienced it, and it happens fairly regularly. My reasons are as given. Accept them or not, I don't really care.

Thirdly, what you're saying essentially is to go ahead and pray, but it will fail to provide any sort of desired results. You have to save yourself, but somehow still give praise and credit to God. This is quite contrary to the Bible's claims on prayer. The Bible says,

Matthew 7:7; Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:


Matthew 21:22; And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Christ definitely doesn't mean that you can petition God for every one of your problems, and you can expect all of them solved miraculously by Divine intervention.
And yet that IS what it says, and it IS how most Christians apply prayer.

That is not what it says.
Seriously... DON'T. Don't start this Christian crap where you look right at the verse I posted, and insist that it doesn't say what it does say, simply because you think what it says is absurd. OF COURSE it's absurd, but that IS what it says!

I suppose when Christ says, "I am the vine," we should interpret that as God becoming incarnate as a plant? You can't look a hair deeper into what the author might've actually meant?
Looking into what biblical authors meant, rather than what they've written has lead to more than 38,000 different version of Christianity. So honestly, how accurate do you suggest such a method to be?

Do you really, actually, honestly think that the author would make such an immediately and visibly false statement: namely, that whatever we ask of God, we can expect that to be answered instantaneously, and unquestionably?
Of course I do. We're talking about a person who claimed Saints emerged from their graves and wondered about the city after the crucifixion. Do you think that's not just as easily shown to be false?

Do you really think that Saint Matthew (or whoever), when he penned that statement, meant that if you pray to God to receive a million pesos, the next day you'll find pesos raining from Heaven like manna (ask and you shall receive, folks)? Do you really think that's the most reasonable interpretation of that statement? Maybe there's an element of humility/virtue that's included in the proper interpretation.
If you're looking for "reasonable", you shouldn't be looking in the Bible. Almost nothing in that book is reasonable. It says what it says. And the fact that you realize it's not reasonable only shows that it's not reasonable. That doesn't change what it says.

(Continued)

. . . you have got to be kidding me. We should shove the interpretation of this verse for two millennia into the exegetical closet for the most objectionable, immanently verifiably false, interpretation. That way, it's easier to mock believers while sipping from my free-thinking wine glass.
It says what it says. Left to interpretation, there is no limit to what can be claimed. But the Bible says this many, many times. So don't claim that it doesn't. That's simply dishonest. You might as well interpret it to mean that God will never respond to prayer at all. At least then it would be consistent with reality.

So pick a flight crew!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 1:33:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 1:18:26 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:38:42 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:13:03 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 12:02:38 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:49:45 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:32:31 PM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:25:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:


No Christian, two millennia ago or now, believes that.
And yet, they wrote it, and Christians 4-centuries later selected that as "God's word" and continue to promote it as such. But when we see how it fails, suddenly it doesn't mean what it says?

. . . probably because they didn't promote the same immediately-verifiably-false-interpretation. Anyone can put such a broadly-generous interpretation to the test right now, and pray for a million pesos tomorrow. It's a wonder there are any Christians left if your interpretation is supposedly the most reasonable one.
Christians are not reasonable, nor do they seek reason. Look, prayer has been tested, over, and over, and over, and over... in objective studies with real lives hanging in the balance, and it has failed in every single methodologically appropriate test so far. Of course prayer fails. Of course you can't pray for million pesos and have them fall from the sky. Of course you can't pray for a harem of dancing girls and receive them. But by the same token, you can't pray for an aircraft to spontaneously happen, and expect your prayer to result in the recovery of flight control. NONE of that happens. Prayer DOES NOT alter outcomes.

BUT... the Bible DOES claim that it does. And no matter how much you show that to be untrue, all you're doing is demonstrating how fraudulent and false the statements in the Bible are! And when you insist "it doesn't say that because that would be unreasonable", you're simply looking right at the text, and protesting that it doesn't say what it says - NOT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SAY IT, but because it isn't true.

I mean, you can claim Christians are unreasonable all you want, and feel free to cite statistic after statistic to oppose the power of prayer (I mean, I've decided to give up repeating myself about the causal power of prayer) , but I'm seriously just amazed at how absurdly laughable your interpretation of that verse is.

It's certain from the above passages that the work of God in our lives is a consequence of prayer.
But reality offers no such conclusion, and you just said that prayer is ineffective in providing beneficial outcomes to dire situations.

I did not say that prayer is ineffective. I said that prayer is insufficient. If you're familiar with formal logic, then consider prayer as necessary but insufficient in terms of and/or statements.
You're claiming that prayer alone can't save the plane. However, it has been shown numerous times that physical pilot input - BY ITSELF - can save the plane. So your protests aren't making much sense. If a secular flight crew by themselves can save the plane, and the flight crew who only prays cannot, then isn't the secular crew the better choice?

. . . so what you're saying is that when prayer is absent, God's interaction to save the plane is absent? Agreed! I'm arguing that when prayer is present, it's only as a necessary cause for God's interaction. Perhaps man's work alone (though by virtue, perhaps still calls upon assistance from God) can save a plane, as physical cause leads to physical effect: but prayer alone will not call upon God to save the plane; God's assistance mandates both prayer and work.

But is it a consequence which emerges from prayer by the sufficiency of prayer? Assuredly not: God is not going to grant wealth to everyone who selfishly asks for it.
Are you not able to see the disparity between asking for personal wealth, and asking not to be splattered against the planet in a fiery collision?

This is going nowhere.
That's because I'm waiting for you to start being reasonable. Let me know when you're ready.

I don't take this kind of nonsense seriously, Beastt. I, too, am a fan of one-liners.

It's a matter of piety and humility, and that's what you seem to be forgetting. We ask God to assist in our lives by necessity, but God asks us to care for one another by necessity as well.
I'd say that heading toward the ground in an uncontrolled dive at 400 MPH is about as necessary as it gets. It comes down to this; which is more likely to save you; clear, level-headed and secular action by the flight crew, or abandoning the controls and clasping one's hands in prayer.

It's obvious that you believe in prayer, and at the same time, you're suggesting that prayer is ineffective in altering the outcome. It seems you're attempting to observe the reality, while hedging toward the fallacy.

Yep, it's going nowhere. If, in the next post, you still don't distinguish between necessary and sufficient causes, I'm just gonna leave.
Which cause do you say is necessary, the secular inputs by the pilot, or the prayer?
Which cause do you claim is "sufficient"?

We know that secular inputs (if flight control CAN be recovered), is sufficient, and we know they are necessary.

As for prayer, it doesn't appear to be either one. It appears to be completely useless.

You're confusing so many things here, and it's making the distinctions more precise. We're discussing the necessity of prayer for God's petitioned interaction (as I should qualify), not for any Divine Interaction at all. There's nothing stopping God from willing something to happen irrespective of prayer. But when we call on God to act in some way, you can expect that He won't answer simply on the basis of our petition, and as such this is why I say that prayer is necessary but insufficient. Even as a secular pilot saves his plane, this does not prove that His divine interaction is absent; and, even if God's interaction is absent, it only shows that a physical cause leads to a physical effect.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 1:42:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 1:31:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
I'm just trying to get you to be honest.

Lol. Okay, Beastt.

When you've debated from the atheist standpoint for a sufficient time, and have not experienced the explanation I provided, then you can suggest I'm being disingenuous. But I've seen it, I've experienced it, and it happens fairly regularly. My reasons are as given. Accept them or not, I don't really care.

You got it.

Looking into what biblical authors meant, rather than what they've written has lead to more than 38,000 different version of Christianity. So honestly, how accurate do you suggest such a method to be?

Wherever there's a different denomination, there's a different interpretation: that much is a fact. There is, however, only one correct interpretation, and this is the interpretation that the author imbued into his work whenever he sat down to write it. And, as such, the search for that interpretation is not diminished by the multiplicity of interpretations. Call me when you find a single Christian who believes that God became incarnate as a plant; and call me when you find a single Christian who believes that God decisively and unabashedly answers every prayer that anyone petitions Him. When you think about it, that's essentially a plot point of the movie Bruce Almighty.

Of course I do. We're talking about a person who claimed Saints emerged from their graves and wondered about the city after the crucifixion. Do you think that's not just as easily shown to be false?

Of course it's not as easily shown to be false. The power of prayer conditioned simply on our petitions, and on no other factors, can be shown false simply by praying for a million pesos to fall into your lap right now.

It says what it says. Left to interpretation, there is no limit to what can be claimed. But the Bible says this many, many times. So don't claim that it doesn't. That's simply dishonest. You might as well interpret it to mean that God will never respond to prayer at all. At least then it would be consistent with reality.

So pick a flight crew!

I can't deal with this.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:11:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Beastt, I'm going to bed. Sleep well. I've decided that God really was a plant. After all:
(1) God is good (Psalm 136:1)
(2) God creates other good (Genesis 1:31)
(3) Therefore, God creates what is like Himself
(4) God creates plants (Genesis 1:12)
(5) Therefore, plants are like God
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:16:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
you have got to be kidding me. We should shove the interpretation of this verse for two millennia
Don't proclaim to know how the verse has been interpreted for two millennia. You don't know. The fact is that the number of different translations of the Bible within Christianity grows daily. In 2008 the official number had reached 38,000 different denominations, all based on a diversity of interpretation. That number was growing and was projected to hit 40,000 by the year 2010. Bible interpretation undergoes continual alteration.

That way, it's easier to mock believers while sipping from my free-thinking wine glass.
How can one not? You grind yourself into fodder for mocking when you suggest that the proper way to read the Bible is to first read what it says, and then when it becomes obvious that what it says isn't true, instead insist that it says something which seems somewhat more plausible, but clearly isn't what it says. When a book says something which isn't true, it's false. It's not the "wrong interpretation". It's just wrong.

But you insist we should read what it says, note that it's wrong, insist it can't be wrong, re-interpret it to say something it doesn't say which is more consistent (though not necessarily accurate) in regard to reality, and then insist that - which isn't what it says - is what it means.

And this entire exercise is simply to avoid admitting that you'd rather have a flight crew who flies, the plane, than one that attempts to pray the plane to safety.

And then we get this "necessity/sufficiency" garbage, which still doesn't save you, because the secular flight crew is doing what is both necessary and sufficient, while the theistic flight crew is totally, and hopelessly worthless.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:25:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 2:11:50 AM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, I'm going to bed. Sleep well. I've decided that God really was a plant. After all:
(1) God is good (Psalm 136:1)
Self-promotion. Hitler claimed he was good, too.

(2) God creates other good (Genesis 1:31)
More self-promotion. He created a planet where nearly ever species ever to live there will become extinct, some individuals must kill others to survive, the entire planet is destined for destruction, and stars regularly explode wiping out entire solar systems in the process...
... and claims he did good.

(3) Therefore, God creates what is like Himself
God is physical? The universe is infinite and eternal? What in this world do you suggest to actually be like God?
- Man is physical, God is not
- God is sinless, man can't avoid sin
- God is omnipotent, man is highly limited
- God is omniscient, man is of extremely limited knowledge
- God is timeless, man is temporal
In what way do you suggest that God created that which is like him?

(4) God creates plants (Genesis 1:12)
No, actually that's Genesis 1:11 and it was a bonehead move. If you'll check, you'll find that your great metaphysical farmboy "Clem" (AKA: God), forgot to provide his new plants with a source of heat (that doesn't come until the next "day", Gen 1:14-17). And with the mean temperature of space around -454 degrees Fahrenheit, that leaves the plants freezing almost instantly and dying. Except we do have plants, which means the story is fiction.

(5) Therefore, plants are like God
Physical, biological, finite, and brainless.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:26:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 2:16:28 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:20:29 PM, Cassius wrote:
you have got to be kidding me. We should shove the interpretation of this verse for two millennia
Don't proclaim to know how the verse has been interpreted for two millennia. You don't know. The fact is that the number of different translations of the Bible within Christianity grows daily. In 2008 the official number had reached 38,000 different denominations, all based on a diversity of interpretation. That number was growing and was projected to hit 40,000 by the year 2010. Bible interpretation undergoes continual alteration.

I can assure you of two things: first, I'll pompously say that I've read far more of the Church fathers, the theologians, and the religious philosophers than you have; and second, that no one in the history of Christianity, hell theism, believes that God answers all prayers without qualification. Anyone with the mental power to believe in a deity has the mental power to disprove that kind of BS claim right now, by calling for pesos to fall into his lap. It doesn't matter how many denominations or interpretations there are; the fact of the matter is that there is a correct interpretation. You insist that it's the one incredibly easy to trivially refute with as little effort as possible, and I insist that's a dumb idea.

That way, it's easier to mock believers while sipping from my free-thinking wine glass.
How can one not? You grind yourself into fodder for mocking when you suggest that the proper way to read the Bible is to first read what it says, and then when it becomes obvious that what it says isn't true, instead insist that it says something which seems somewhat more plausible, but clearly isn't what it says. When a book says something which isn't true, it's false. It's not the "wrong interpretation". It's just wrong.

But you insist we should read what it says, note that it's wrong, insist it can't be wrong, re-interpret it to say something it doesn't say which is more consistent (though not necessarily accurate) in regard to reality, and then insist that - which isn't what it says - is what it means.

Okay, let's read that Christ says He's a vine. I'm noting that Christ definitely wasn't a vine. But... Christ can't be wrong that He's a vine. I'm going to re-interpret that to mean that Christ is saying He gives the fruit of life to those who branch off of Him which is more consistent in regard to reality, which is that Christ is human. I'm going to insist that's what that means.

And this entire exercise is simply to avoid admitting that you'd rather have a flight crew who flies, the plane, than one that attempts to pray the plane to safety.

This entire exercise is to shove down your throat what prayer actually is, rather than a half-assed caricature designed to attack Christianity with as little thought as possible.

And then we get this "necessity/sufficiency" garbage, which still doesn't save you, because the secular flight crew is doing what is both necessary and sufficient, while the theistic flight crew is totally, and hopelessly worthless.

Because now you're conflating effects: the effect of the plane's salvation, which can be brought about in multiple ways, whether God interacts/assists/saves or not, and the effect of God's petitioned interaction, to which we assign more particular causation.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:29:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 2:25:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 2:11:50 AM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, I'm going to bed. Sleep well. I've decided that God really was a plant. After all:
(1) God is good (Psalm 136:1)
Self-promotion. Hitler claimed he was good, too.

(2) God creates other good (Genesis 1:31)
More self-promotion. He created a planet where nearly ever species ever to live there will become extinct, some individuals must kill others to survive, the entire planet is destined for destruction, and stars regularly explode wiping out entire solar systems in the process...
... and claims he did good.

(3) Therefore, God creates what is like Himself
God is physical? The universe is infinite and eternal? What in this world do you suggest to actually be like God?
- Man is physical, God is not
- God is sinless, man can't avoid sin
- God is omnipotent, man is highly limited
- God is omniscient, man is of extremely limited knowledge
- God is timeless, man is temporal
In what way do you suggest that God created that which is like him?

(4) God creates plants (Genesis 1:12)
No, actually that's Genesis 1:11 and it was a bonehead move. If you'll check, you'll find that your great metaphysical farmboy "Clem" (AKA: God), forgot to provide his new plants with a source of heat (that doesn't come until the next "day", Gen 1:14-17). And with the mean temperature of space around -454 degrees Fahrenheit, that leaves the plants freezing almost instantly and dying. Except we do have plants, which means the story is fiction.

(5) Therefore, plants are like God
Physical, biological, finite, and brainless.

Did you really write this, Beastt? You must be really fun to talk to in person.

(By the way, Gen. 1:11 is where He commands the production of plants, and Gen. 1:12 is where plants are produced, so technically the Creation is encompassed by both days).
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:33:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 2:29:51 AM, Cassius wrote:
(By the way, Gen. 1:11 is where He commands the production of plants, and Gen. 1:12 is where plants are produced, so technically the Creation is encompassed by both verses).

Typo: they were both on the third day.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:42:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 2:33:10 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 2:29:51 AM, Cassius wrote:
(By the way, Gen. 1:11 is where He commands the production of plants, and Gen. 1:12 is where plants are produced, so technically the Creation is encompassed by both verses).

Typo: they were both on the third day.

Have you ever actually READ the Bible?

GENESIS
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Plants on Day-3, the Sun on Day-4.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:48:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 2:29:51 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 2:25:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 2:11:50 AM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, I'm going to bed. Sleep well. I've decided that God really was a plant. After all:
(1) God is good (Psalm 136:1)
Self-promotion. Hitler claimed he was good, too.

(2) God creates other good (Genesis 1:31)
More self-promotion. He created a planet where nearly ever species ever to live there will become extinct, some individuals must kill others to survive, the entire planet is destined for destruction, and stars regularly explode wiping out entire solar systems in the process...
... and claims he did good.

(3) Therefore, God creates what is like Himself
God is physical? The universe is infinite and eternal? What in this world do you suggest to actually be like God?
- Man is physical, God is not
- God is sinless, man can't avoid sin
- God is omnipotent, man is highly limited
- God is omniscient, man is of extremely limited knowledge
- God is timeless, man is temporal
In what way do you suggest that God created that which is like him?

(4) God creates plants (Genesis 1:12)
No, actually that's Genesis 1:11 and it was a bonehead move. If you'll check, you'll find that your great metaphysical farmboy "Clem" (AKA: God), forgot to provide his new plants with a source of heat (that doesn't come until the next "day", Gen 1:14-17). And with the mean temperature of space around -454 degrees Fahrenheit, that leaves the plants freezing almost instantly and dying. Except we do have plants, which means the story is fiction.

(5) Therefore, plants are like God
Physical, biological, finite, and brainless.

Did you really write this, Beastt? You must be really fun to talk to in person.
That depends. If you like making false statements and expect everyone to agree with you, then no, I'm not fun to talk to. But if you value integrity, honesty and accuracy, then yeah, I'm a blast!

(By the way, Gen. 1:11 is where He commands the production of plants, and Gen. 1:12 is where plants are produced, so technically the Creation is encompassed by both days).

Nope, The end of Day-3 is noted in Genesis 1:13. The end of day four is at Genesis 1:19. So plants are not grouped within the same "day" as the sun, moon and stars. Of course, stars had to exist before Earth could exist anyway, so it's already obvious that Genesis is pure fantasy.

Plants - Genesis 1:11-12
End Day 3 - Genesis 1:13
Sun, Moon and Stars - Genesis 1:14-17
End Day 4 - Genesis 1:19
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:50:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 2:42:02 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 2:33:10 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 2:29:51 AM, Cassius wrote:
(By the way, Gen. 1:11 is where He commands the production of plants, and Gen. 1:12 is where plants are produced, so technically the Creation is encompassed by both verses).

Typo: they were both on the third day.

Have you ever actually READ the Bible?

GENESIS
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Plants on Day-3, the Sun on Day-4.

Uhm, what?

In my original post, I cited Gen. 1:12 as the Creation of plants. That's the verse where plants are produced. You corrected me and said that was actually Gen. 1:11 which is where God commands that plants are produced. Fine. I'll agree that both Gen. 1:11 and Gen. 1:12 encompass the production of plants. Hence why I said: "By the way, Gen. 1:11 is where He commands the production of plants, and Gen. 1:12 is where plants are produced, so technically the Creation is encompassed by both verses"

You can read above, I never said the Sun was created on the third day. I'm fully aware the Sun was created on the fourth day. Interpreting the Genesis narrative is a matter I should've expected we would trainwreck into when I wrote that sarcastic post.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Cassius
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 2:55:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 2:48:06 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 2:29:51 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 2:25:44 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/20/2014 2:11:50 AM, Cassius wrote:
Beastt, I'm going to bed. Sleep well. I've decided that God really was a plant. After all:
(1) God is good (Psalm 136:1)
Self-promotion. Hitler claimed he was good, too.

(2) God creates other good (Genesis 1:31)
More self-promotion. He created a planet where nearly ever species ever to live there will become extinct, some individuals must kill others to survive, the entire planet is destined for destruction, and stars regularly explode wiping out entire solar systems in the process...
... and claims he did good.

(3) Therefore, God creates what is like Himself
God is physical? The universe is infinite and eternal? What in this world do you suggest to actually be like God?
- Man is physical, God is not
- God is sinless, man can't avoid sin
- God is omnipotent, man is highly limited
- God is omniscient, man is of extremely limited knowledge
- God is timeless, man is temporal
In what way do you suggest that God created that which is like him?

(4) God creates plants (Genesis 1:12)
No, actually that's Genesis 1:11 and it was a bonehead move. If you'll check, you'll find that your great metaphysical farmboy "Clem" (AKA: God), forgot to provide his new plants with a source of heat (that doesn't come until the next "day", Gen 1:14-17). And with the mean temperature of space around -454 degrees Fahrenheit, that leaves the plants freezing almost instantly and dying. Except we do have plants, which means the story is fiction.

(5) Therefore, plants are like God
Physical, biological, finite, and brainless.

Did you really write this, Beastt? You must be really fun to talk to in person.
That depends. If you like making false statements and expect everyone to agree with you, then no, I'm not fun to talk to. But if you value integrity, honesty and accuracy, then yeah, I'm a blast!

(By the way, Gen. 1:11 is where He commands the production of plants, and Gen. 1:12 is where plants are produced, so technically the Creation is encompassed by both days).

Nope, The end of Day-3 is noted in Genesis 1:13. The end of day four is at Genesis 1:19. So plants are not grouped within the same "day" as the sun, moon and stars. Of course, stars had to exist before Earth could exist anyway, so it's already obvious that Genesis is pure fantasy.

Plants - Genesis 1:11-12
End Day 3 - Genesis 1:13
Sun, Moon and Stars - Genesis 1:14-17
End Day 4 - Genesis 1:19

What the hell are you going on about? I never said anything about the sun, moon, or stars. I am completely aware they were created after plants. The dispute was over two verses which describe the production of plants: Gen. 1:11 and Gen. 1:12, both of which occur on the third day, and we have now agreed that the two verses considered holistically account for the production of plants. Go back and read my posts, Beastt, I never mentioned the sun, moon, or stars.
I used to be Nur-Ab-Sal.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 3:10:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/20/2014 2:55:26 AM, Cassius wrote:
At 8/20/2014 2:48:06 AM, Beastt wrote:
(By the way, Gen. 1:11 is where He commands the production of plants, and Gen. 1:12 is where plants are produced, so technically the Creation is encompassed by both days).

Nope, The end of Day-3 is noted in Genesis 1:13. The end of day four is at Genesis 1:19. So plants are not grouped within the same "day" as the sun, moon and stars. Of course, stars had to exist before Earth could exist anyway, so it's already obvious that Genesis is pure fantasy.

Plants - Genesis 1:11-12
End Day 3 - Genesis 1:13
Sun, Moon and Stars - Genesis 1:14-17
End Day 4 - Genesis 1:19

What the hell are you going on about? I never said anything about the sun, moon, or stars. I am completely aware they were created after plants. The dispute was over two verses which describe the production of plants: Gen. 1:11 and Gen. 1:12, both of which occur on the third day, and we have now agreed that the two verses considered holistically account for the production of plants. Go back and read my posts, Beastt, I never mentioned the sun, moon, or stars.

Okay... do you actually understand ANYTHING that you're reading? I didn't say ANYTHING about sun, moon and stars being created after plants. I said (here, I'll quote it) "stars had to exist before Earth could exist".

Do you see? Genesis claims Earth existed for 3-days before the sun, moon and stars were created (on Day 4). But the Earth is composed of elements which weren't created in big-bang, they were fused in the deaths of stars. And since stars produced the elements of which Earth is composed,, Earth couldn't have existed before stars (as Genesis claims).

As for the verses regarding plants, try to remember my original point; Genesis has plants thriving on Earth on Day 3, and yet the sun (which provides warmth for Earth), wasn't created until Day-4. That leaves God's little fruit trees out in the cold (approx. 450 degrees BELOW ZERO), for the whole day. A few seconds would be enough to kill them. If you want to grow plants and your garden is in the sub-cryogenic zone, you have to provide a heat source before you plant your garden. Otherwise, your garden will die in a matter of minutes.

Understand?

And as long as we're looking at Genesis 1; it claims that Earth was formed covered in water (Gen 1:2), but without an atmosphere. We know this because the atmosphere ("firmament") is created in Genesis 1:6-7. But that can't be true because if you remove atmospheric pressure from water, it vaporizes at an explosive rate. By the time God got around to creating an atmosphere (the following day), the water would have been long gone.

So that's just 17-verses of Genesis, and already we've found three glaring impossibilities (four if you count liquid water at -450 degrees). It's fiction, Cassius... just fiction.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2014 6:45:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 10:51:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
As much as I'm sure most theists would select option C, there is no option C. You have only A & B. Thank you for observing that.

You find it necessary to travel by air and when you purchase your ticket, you find that the airlines have taken to giving passengers a choice when they fly. They provide you with a choice of flight crews which you select on the following basis.

A. Secular Flight Crew

B. Theistic Flight Crew

If you choose the secular flight crew and an emergency occurs during your flight, neither the pilot nor the rest of the flight crew will engage in any prayers. All of their efforts will be focused on purely physical attempts to resolve the issue.

If you choose the theistic pilot, he and his crew will handle any emergency by releasing the auto-pilot, releasing all controls of the aircraft, and clasping their hands in intense, sincere and passionate prayer. They will demonstrate their devout faith in God by leaving he situation in God's hands.

Please choose either Flight Crew A, or Flight Crew B.

The selection of choices is stupid and does not reflect actual real circumstances, it is set up for the theist to fail.

I wonder if this experiment was set up with a bias, or even by an atheist perhaps.