btw, calling you a crackpot was me giving you the benefit of the doubt. You’re either a crackpot or a troll. Being a crackpot isn’t against the forum rules, being a troll is. So me accusing you of being a crackpot is kind of a good thing.
I’m not necessarily trying to convince you, because I don’t think I have that power. I just know that I was once someone that did not believe in the Bible at all.
I actually referred to it as the most famous not so good book that ever was.
But when I actually started trying to research the history with an open mind a lot of things became clear that weren’t before.
Approaching the history found in the Bible like I would any history, without any beginning bias helped me to see a lot of things that believers don’t seem to notice that helps authenticate certain stories.
it’s just bizarre it’s like the whole world has pieces to a puzzle and if we all got together we could solve it.
Instead it seems like everybody sits around and bickers with each other and says that the other is wrong and discounts their piece.
I’ve done that enough in my life. I think it is time for a global information Reformation.
Thank you for your patience and your time. I have a very busy life. I don’t have a lot of time for spell checks. Sometimes, I’m in route and don’t have time to look up citations.
Sometimes I’m saying things off the top of my head that I have read and will eventually memorize but haven’t yet.
Josh has me learning a whole lot of stuff right now.
You don’t think that I will take my son to a neuroscientist?
What sort of an empirical evidence would be proof enough for you. I’m not being snarky. I really want to know.
Also, if my son does choose to talk on this forum. Please be nice to him. He has rarely talked to anyone outside of our family and I would really hate for his first time doing that to be bombarded with unnecessarily defeating comments.
as I said before if you don’t want to read the things that I’m writing, you don’t have to.
If you can’t hold a civil and intelligent conversation between you and someone of differing perspectives without dissolving into name calling please just ignore me
Mkay. My bad I deserve a good birching. I’ll bring my own birch. 
Then you should prevent him from posting in the debate room.
I would like to be able to engage in an adult conversation with you and whoever else wants to. But if you can’t be at least civil I’m going to have to ignore you
I didn’t say that, and I went to the trouble to use a quote to make that clear. It would be best if you respond to what I said, instead of making something up.
OF course we will. As a group, the people here are more accepting and more compassionate than any comparable group of believers I’ve ever run across.
That you want him to post here implies he is not mentally challenged . If that is the case he will be treated the same as anyone else. He will be called out if he posts the same kind of nonsense you have been posting.
I for one do not support positive discrimination.
1 Like
Thoroughly agree. I will not withhold criticism, challenge nor argument. Should he be “tapped in” to a higher force (as I assume is the claim) this “higher force” should have no issue or problem with logical arguments and simple demonstrations of its “higher intelligence”.
Edited to add: if it cannot meet even close to the standard of Butterfly Boy 
hahahahaha well then, “it’ll” be a write-off.
1 Like
Go get your Nobel for History as the vast majority of bible stories have been found to be either forgeries, fantasies, archeologically untrue or much later additions to an already heavily edited transcript.
You have offered no proof, no links to respected sites such as the Archaeology dept at Tel Aviv University, the British Museum or , indeed anywhere where serious historians and archeologists leave access to their peer reviewed material.
Your process of authentication is suspect at best and utterly dishonest at worst. I shall give you the benefit of the doubt as it is obvious you have no idea how to authenticate anything.
Try this:
“Yes I am basing everything on possibilities and my personal bias” and basing those possibilities on the theories and dates of committed theists. That is NOT the historical method.
This is the Historical Method : “Depending on the degree of importance of knowing the truth of something we make sure we are being told the truth by checking such things as:
- Who is telling us this?
- How do I know if I can trust them?
- Can their claims be confirmed somehow?”
- How do I know if this document is genuine?
You are forming conclusions that are like wet paper towels. They hold a small amount of water then dissolve.
If you followed the Historical Method no one would bickere as your sources and conclusions and whatever evidence you offer will be clear. So don’t whinge at me because you don’t do your homework.
Probably the most accurate of your sentences.
2 Likes
I want to make a video of him, maybe a live video where he can talk to you. That way you could decide for yourself and he could hear your actual voices potentially. If we did videos back and forth then he could at least show you.
He would have questions to answer. Josh is dependent on me to do typing and things like that.
This is how we communicate pretty much. Sometimes he laughs at me more.
Thank you! I will definitely use the historical method to make what I’m thinking of more accessible to everybody.
I wasn’t talking about just atheists when I said everyone is figuring with each other. I’m talking about everybody.
I came here because a lot of the believers that I talk to are limited by superstition when it comes to subjects such as evolution. I also could not discuss historical information for varying reasons. A friend also said something shocking that I wanted to get some clarity on. Another factor is that the atheist friends that I do have do not have a lot of the same limitations that my believer friends have.
Or at least I thought not.
Again, thank you for the tip.
This is precisely why a route of NOT exposing him to a debate forum AND have him with neurological specialists for testing is advisable.
For one - straight up - a) your typing and translating “for Josh” will automatically discredit and bring into question “anything he says”. I will not accept this. I have no way of knowing what is truly from Josh compared to what is from you. B) my second time watching this short video and after the first, I linked an article on “leading questions”. You have asked at least two (I lean toward 3) leading questions and you influence his response. Under lab/scientific conditions there would be no leading questions nor influence on his responses.
To be clear this is not an attack on you per say. It is my observation only and a standard I have set for myself.
You set your own standards for evidence or belief. I am not attacking that. But I can, in debate raise questions as to why and request information that would meet my standard if you wish to convince me.
I do believe that you believe everything you claim about Josh. This I do not question. Whether it meshes with what is real or as close to “what is true as humanly possible” is another issue.
For myself, I accept reality with all its brutal truths.
I can respect that . I wasn’t saying that I would type for Josh. That’s not how we communicate. I’m just saying I would have to type for Josh because he does not do those kind of activities yet.
I really appreciate your honesty and candor. He’s never really shown an interest in talking to people outside of our family.
He usually just stays quiet until people dismiss him. It is a defense strategy that works pretty well.
Don’t worry my children are the most important things in the world to me. I don’t want to exploit him.
I want to support his interest.
Absolutely correct Whitefire. You may inscribe a gold star on your rolling pin.
Actually the sentence can be shorter, viz: believers are limited by superstition
And what facts can we glean from this information? All one can state is that a text was authored c.800BCE. It does not confirm the actors, or if anything divine was in play.
The thing is, a large part of the Jewish history as decribed in the Old testament was pure made-up. The Jews were not slave to the Egyptians,neither did they take part on the journey of Moses. So if that part of the bible is so false, why should I accept anything in that book at face value?
It is just a collection of stories, written over an unknown number of years by unknown authors. Even Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
4 Likes
As I explained previously empirical evidence for an occurrence that is contrary to current medical opinion, and for which medical science has no explanation, is not evidence for a miracle, or anything supernatural.
I feel you are still not taking this on board. However, this a known common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
If we can’t explain something, then we cannot rationally make any assertions about it.
Most theists I’ve engaged with on such claims, also seem to be starting with the rationale that the supernatural exists, therefore if we don’t have a natural explanation (note here the assumption there is any other kind), then the explanation must be supernatural. This is using another known common logical fallacy called a false dichotomy fallacy. Where an argument is limited to two explanations, one of which is assumed correct, and the other is often a straw man argument so that it’s easy to refute. Namely that your son’s remarkably change is in direct contradiction of medical science, which of course it may be, but that would easily be explained by medical science being wrong on this occasion. We know doctors are fallible, and we know the opinions of experts can be wrong, or mistaken.
I’m not saying they have here, I merely point out, that we know for an objective fact that this is possible. Whereas there is no objective evidence that a supernatural cause is even possible.
No matter how unlikely an outcome, or how bizarre a set of occurrences seem, these are based on subjective perception. They do not represent objective evidence.
1 Like
Why wouldn’t the bible contain some historically accurate information? If its origins were entirely human I’d still expect them to get ome facts right.
This doesn’t evidence a deity, or anything supernatural, or validate the claim the bible’s divinely inspired, why would it?
As someone pointed out, the Spiderman film contains accurate facts about NY, that doesn’t make Spiderman real.
I have to say I agree with Nyarl here, I think it would be a bad idea for anyone to come to a debate forum if criticisms of their claims and ideas might upset them. Respecting people is very different from respecting ideas and beliefs.
I still don’t understand why you think your son’s changed condition is evidence for a miracle or anything supernatural, contradicting the prognosis of expert medical opinion doesn’t remotely evidence anything supernatural.
2 Likes