But those are not the things we are testing. I have evidence I went to the lake. I have evidence of a sunburn. I even have the wrapper from the sandwich and the can from the beer I drank.Where's evidence of the fish? We have evidence of Cyrus, his tomb and his scroll (or roll, I don't remember which), there's evidence of the date of this conquest, there was even a city named "Babylon".
The failure of this silly analogy is that with the prophecy, several people are involved at the least -- the Bible writer, Cyrus, his army, the people of Babylon, etc... Oh, and God himself. Not to mention one other writer mention Cyrus by name, Jeremiah.
No one is involved with this "catch" other than you.
But those are not the things we are testing. I have evidence I went to the lake. I have evidence of a sunburn. I even have the wrapper from the sandwich and the can from the beer I drank.
There were dozens of people there. I don't know any of them, so you can't ask them. But
lots of people were there!
You need to go find those people, I guess. Or have them write down testimony, which your story, again lacks.
Nice try!
I bail on speculative claims because they can never be refuted - never. The nature of those claims have almost always no factual basis to attempt to rebut.
Secondly, if you have fixed in your mind something isn't real, you will never believe it no matter the evidence.
The only people I've come across that examine this sort of evidence is open minded skeptics. These type of people normally don't speculate and deny like some of you have done. They consider the evidence before them without a predetermined conclusion.
You guys seem to be doing the complete opposite.
You need to go find those people, I guess. Or have them write down testimony, which your story, again lacks.
Nice try!
I was there. Everything he said is 100% true. You should have seen that fish!
Where are the eye witnesses to what's in the bible?
Exactly. You need to have evidence of the fish, not the fishing. All the things you point out in the prophecy of Cyrus are evidence that the events happened, not that they were prophesied before hand. The Prophecy is what is contested, not the events.
I didn't make up the terms I am using; they are commonplace. This is a good overview, using slightly different but similar terminology.
There is indeed a difference between saying "I don't believe in gods because there's no evidence they exist" and saying "I believe gods do not exist".
lol
take out all the stuff about miracles etc. the bible is a collection of history and places. I am sure you understand that right?
lol
take out all the stuff about miracles etc. the bible is a collection of history and places. I am sure you understand that right?
I never said there wasn't a difference. I have ever only and repeatedly said that you definition of atheism is incorrect, popular as it may be. The first statement is agnostic.
Agnosticism is either not knowing if gods exist, or believing that it is unknowable. That is not the same as weak atheism. If you can provide me with references stating otherwise, I'll reconsider my terminology.
Rob, your use of the term "bible-denier" suggests to me that the time I've spent trying to discuss these issues with you reasonably has been a complete waste. I could as easily call you a "Koran denier" or "Zeus denier" or "invisible pink unicorn denier" -- it's pure nonsense.
I don't deny that the bible exists. I also don't deny that Dune exists. That doesn't mean I believe in Noah's ark any more than I believe in giant sandworms.
Agnosticism is either not knowing if gods exist, or believing that it is unknowable. That is not the same as weak atheism. If you can provide me with references stating otherwise, I'll reconsider my terminology.
Rob, your use of the term "bible-denier" suggests to me that the time I've spent trying to discuss these issues with you reasonably has been a complete waste. I could as easily call you a "Koran denier" or "Zeus denier" or "invisible pink unicorn denier" -- it's pure nonsense.
I don't deny that the bible exists. I also don't deny that Dune exists. That doesn't mean I believe in Noah's ark any more than I believe in giant sandworms.
Dear sir, you need only watch the documentary series "Tremors parts 1-4" to see them for yourself.
Seriously though, I don't even see how this is a discussion. It's ALWAYS on the person making a claim to prove that claim.
As my religious studies professor said in college "there is no proof for the existence of God, that's why it's called faith."
No, if I thought it was a waste, I would have never engaged you it.
It's been enlightening, forcing me to do research. Better term would be prophecy deniers?? ...or simply non-believers.
I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.
Is faith belief without proof now? The most inaccurate definition I've ever heard.
Finally, I have already pointed out that you are arguing against atheists when there are numerous theist groups we could list that would argue against the validity of the Bible, so clearly either atheists are not your problem, or your problem with them is not limited to their arguments against the Bible.
I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.
Is faith belief without proof now? The most inaccurate definition I've ever heard.
You don't have faith in the sun rising. Or if you do, you are pretty actively ignorant at this point.
You believe the Earth will continue to rotate and reveal the sun again tomorrow.
Science has no use for faith, only observation from the best perspective available.
No - I was helping you to realize how asinine it is to narrowly define a word to castigate a group of people.
Please share your definition.
Thus far, you haven't been much help to me, but I remain hopeful.
It's the beleif in the things unseen, or events not yet beheld. Well, that's how it's defined in the Bible.
We See the sun "rise" everyday. It is not unseen.
Of course, but we can't "see" tomorrow's events. That's the difference.
So you have nothing to argue against it, right?
Nothing hard, concrete. I didn't expect you to. All "ifs and "guesswork".