Video that shows why God is imaginary

[jimbo]

Stax,

I also note how jimbo isn't interacting with my answers any more. What's wrong, jimbo? Was, "Or god is imaginary" the only retort you had against them?

Uh, I think I responded to you within the last 12 hours, but here are a few things you might want to consider before you post similar types of comments in the future: If I don't respond to one of your posts in less than 24 hours, consider the possibility that maybe my whole life doesn't revolve around responding to some random, anonymous person on a Christian discussion board. Maybe I actually have better things to do with my time, like sleeping, eating and defecating. Maybe I work 72+ hours a week and find my time somewhat limited. Maybe I fnd it tiresome and pointless trying to converse with someone who is impolite and insulting. Maybe I never actually saw your post. Maybe I don't actually care what you think. Maybe a combination of things.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[jimbo]

Ty,

By the way, how many people whose severed limb grew back wouldn't think to mention it to anyone and would only bring the subject up once he or she was questioned by a scientist? "Yeah, Dr Smith, come to think of it, I DID have a limb grow back. Way back in '46 it was. I was missing a leg from a Kraut 88 shell and-wouldn't you know it-the whole new one just popped out of my pelvis and unfurled like an accordian after a particularly enthusiastic prayer session. Didn't think to mention it to anyone at the time since it didn't make much of an impression on me and, by gosh, no one else seemed to notice anyway!"

Jimbo

By this paragraph, you imply that if there was testimony of modern-day miraculous restorations of amputee's limbs, by God, then it would be mentioned. But you do qualify the statement by the 'need' that the healed person be "questioned by a scientist."

So, take away the scientist, and would you still say that such testimony was false or delusional?

There is recorded testimony of amputees healed, that is, arms re-grew, and fingers regrew, and a missing leg was restored during, in your words, "a particularly enthusiastic prayer session."

There is a book, called, "They Told Me Their Stories," subtitled, "The youth and children of Azusa Street tell their stories," retold by Tommy Welchel. Many other miraculous healings and supernatural manifestations of God are recorded.

The book refers to an historic outpouring of the Holy Spirit that happened over a three and a half year period between 1906 - 1910 in California.

Tommy Welchel, in 1966, interviewed dozens of survivors of those meetings. He still travels and speaks on these things that first-hand participants and witnesses related to him.

The book is available at www.Elijahlist.com, as a downloadable E-Book. It would be worth it for you to spend $8.99 to read the evidence.

Serenely,
TyRockwell

I appreciate this information. However, I am going to say right of the bat that I don't find this claim at all plausible. If this had happened-if a human limb had actually regenerated itself and there was good evidence for it-it would have been investigated and there would be widely available information on it in medical journals and scientific literature rather than some obscure Christian book on Christian miracles.

If a Muslim told you that he read in a Muslim book on Muslim miracles that a Muslim prayed for a limb to restore itself 100 years ago and it actually restored itself, but there wasn't any other information supporting this story, would you find this claim very believable?

Cheers,

Jimbo

[Darth Ovious]

I can't resist asking you this question. What are your thoughts on this video?

Steve,

You and me should know better than to ask The Muppet his thoughts on anything, nevermind a question like this.

[Darth Ovious]

Umm,

Exactly?

I can't think of a religious conversation someone told me about, or heck, even my own to christianity when I was younger, that wasn't a highly emotional deal for both me and those around me.

That stuff you listed is stuff that, from a factual perspective, should only be brought up after christianity is shown to be true, yet it is often brought up before.

Oh for goodness sake. Please go back and re-read the conversation leading to this. Maxvel was saying that it's a common marketing tactic to build people up and complement them in order to accept things. You know get them agreeing with you first and then sell, sell, sell.

On the other hand, telling people that they are sinners and are broken and need fixing isn't exactly a great way in order to get people on board. In fact, most people are skeptics because they don't weant to admit that there is something wrong with them, despite the fact that it's obvious we all do bad things.

[robertb]

Oh for goodness sake. Please go back and re-read the conversation leading to this. Maxvel was saying that it's a common marketing tactic to build people up and complement them in order to accept things. You know get them agreeing with you first and then sell, sell, sell.

On the other hand, telling people that they are sinners and are broken and need fixing isn't exactly a great way in order to get people on board. In fact, most people are skeptics because they don't weant to admit that there is something wrong with them, despite the fact that it's obvious we all do bad things.

Of course, for the sale of some things, it is important to convince the customer that they need your product in the first place.

[Seasanctuary]

"Religions rely on ambiguity" when it comes to "claims" by religious people that they have been supernaturally healed, an intervention by God. Ok.

Surely even a high percentage of refusals by God to heal persons, when He is prayed to and asked, doesn't predict and necessarily mean that God is not there. No.

I agree that a God could still be out there somewhere, which is why I'm an Agnostic and not a strong Atheist. However, it calls into question the existence of a benevolent God. At the very least, believers in such a God are forced to resort to the "very strange excuses" that video kept mentioning.

So definitive? Nope. But it does stack up well against similar non-definitive appeals to emotions and the way things ought to be that Theists put forward. From a purely rational standpoint, Atheists wouldn't need such soft arguments against Theistic soft arguments. But humans aren't purely rational beings so such arguments help us psychologically (on both sides).

[Pilgrim]

Looks around to see if Jimbo has anything new to say... nope.

[Darth Ovious]

Of course, for the sale of some things, it is important to convince the customer that they need your product in the first place.

Indeed, to do this you need to fashion it into a positive statement.

I used to sell Sky TV on incoming calls. I had to convince those calling in that they needed Sky TV for their enjoyment. I didn't say to them your life is boring and your dull, buy Sky TV now. I would need to give it a psoitive spin and lose the negative language.

The Bible isn't like this. It doesn't try to sell you it through positive spin. It tells you the bad things as well. The fact that sin is a burden and the partaking of some plesures being sin means we don't exactly get the full monty.

[TyRockwell]

Ty,



I appreciate this information. However, I am going to say right of the bat that I don't find this claim at all plausible. If this had happened-if a human limb had actually regenerated itself and there was good evidence for it-it would have been investigated and there would be widely available information on it in medical journals and scientific literature rather than some obscure Christian book on Christian miracles.

If a Muslim told you that he read in a Muslim book on Muslim miracles that a Muslim prayed for a limb to restore itself 100 years ago and it actually restored itself, but there wasn't any other information supporting this story, would you find this claim very believable?

Cheers,

Jimbo

The Azusa Street revival was not as obscure as you seem to imagine. From your post it is clear you have not investigated it, at all.
The secular media reported on it, and Christian theologians have debated it. It has generally been considered the 'catalyst' of the Pentecostal denominations.
You can do a search online for the facts related to it, and its claims. It took place in L. A., California over a period of several years. Look it up. It is a well-known event, not at all obscure. It was attended by people across denominational lines, from all over America, and around the world.

Services took place nearly around the clock. There are online articles and pictures of the participants.

[robertb]

I agree that a God could still be out there somewhere, which is why I'm an Agnostic and not a strong Atheist.

Just a sidenote regarding this comment as it always confuses me.

When I say I am an Atheist, I mean to say that I do not believe in gods.

Regarding the possible existence of gods, I have no specific knowledge one way or another, in other words, though I doubt that gods exist, I must remain agnostic regarding the existence of gods as a possibility, how ever unlikely. Of course, this applies to alot of things, I guess.

By strong Atheist, do you mean a Gnostic Atheist, for lack of a better term, as in one who claims that gods absolutely do not exist and who, of course, does not have a belief in gods?

Sorry for the derail.

[robertb]

Indeed, to do this you need to fashion it into a positive statement.

I used to sell Sky TV on incoming calls. I had to convince those calling in that they needed Sky TV for their enjoyment. I didn't say to them your life is boring and your dull, buy Sky TV now. I would need to give it a psoitive spin and lose the negative language.

The Bible isn't like this. It doesn't try to sell you it through positive spin. It tells you the bad things as well. The fact that sin is a burden and the partaking of some plesures being sin means we don't exactly get the full monty.

Not if I am selling Life Insurance, or something similar, I guess.

[Seasanctuary]

There's a lot of argument to unpack there. None of it supports the irrationalism that accompanies the desperate search for naturalistic explanation above all else.

One thing natural explanations have in their favor is that we seem capable of advancing in that direction. This is why even many Theists are fine with naturalism as an operating assumption within the natural realm. It gets results which are unambiguously more than psychological results. I agree we can't assume all things will eventually yield to natural examination, but I do have very good reason to believe more things will be explicable if we keep looking.

If someone demonstrably rose from the dead tomorrow, skeptics would still seek a naturalistic explanation. What proof would completely rule out naturalistic explanation? Your own resurrection? Face it, no matter what you see with your own two eyes, delusion must still be a more compelling explanation no matter how supposedly undeniable the evidence.

I don't believe poor evidence today, therefore I would never believe much stronger evidence? I suppose I can understand that perspective if you think the evidence is clear today.

Here's an example: suppose members of one religion could restore amputated limbs. No one else can. Converts to the religion do, however, gain this power. People who leave the religion lose it. That would set up a very strong correlation between a particular religious belief and miracle power.

Today what we have is ambiguous miracle power and no correlation to a particular belief.

[Seasanctuary]

By strong Atheist, do you mean a Gnostic Atheist, for lack of a better term, as in one who claims that gods absolutely do not exist and who, of course, does not have a belief in gods?

Yes. The two are synonyms. I've barely heard "Gnostic Atheist" in use, probably because "Gnostic" applied to anything has extra baggage which makes it sound like more than the opposite of "Agnostic." Oh language.

[robertb]

Yes. The two are synonyms. I've barely heard "Gnostic Atheist" in use, probably because "Gnostic" applied to anything has extra baggage which makes it sound like more than the opposite of "Agnostic." Oh language.

I don't really agree.

Gnosis would imply knowledge

Theism implies belief in gods.

So Agnostic can mean without knowledge of gods, in this example, while Atheist means without a belief in gods.

Not necessarily the same thing.

[Darth Ovious]

Not if I am selling Life Insurance, or something similar, I guess.

The question then becomes who's life insurance is better? You still need to put a positive spin on it. It's not enough for a guy to say, do you have life insurance? If no, then do you realize that you could die tomorrow? You could be run over by a bus, Fall off a 20 foot building or stabbed by a mugger.

The guy is left thinking, "well why would your health insurance help if I'm going to die anyway"?

Companies selling life insurance try to focus on the positives. You need customers to be in a good mood in order to buy. So they keep the negative down to a minimum and try to focus life insurance as a positive means of looking after your family after you're gone. Otherwise life insurance is actually no use, because afterall that is what life insurance is generally for.

In saying that though I guess Christianity does offer us a way out and does give us something positive. It offers us a way out as long as we accept God and Jesus Christ into our hearts, however this in no way indicates that our belief is false and the fact that it requires effort on our behalf is not a good selling point. People generally like things to be easy and if it's not easy, then they are less likely to to accept it.