Going to ask again, if Leviticus outlines gods cure, and these are gods words, why is the cure still not being used, from that day to this? Is it that god is ineffective?

Or is it that this was a man made cure simply attributed to god?

Why did you post about current antibiotics? Trying to divert the subject yet again?

I was thinking about this this morning on the way to the job site. What Whateverist was saying, or asking. Is there any type of evidence that I think would count as adequate justification for his believing in God. And I had told him that I don't know what type of evidence would suffice for that.
But then I thought about it this way. If someone were to try to convince me that Santa Claus was real, and they took me to the mall at Christmas time and said, "See? Look over there on that big chair. It's Santa Claus!" That wouldn't do a single thing toward convincing me that Santa Claus is real. I already know he's fake. So since I'm already convinced in my mind that he isn't real, it wouldn't matter what kind of evidence were brought to me, or how much of it, it wouldn't convince me in the least. I would either laugh, feel sorry for them, or get annoyed.
So I'm thinking that trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in God that God is real is kind of like taking them to the mall at Christmas time to show them Santa Claus. If it's already in the person's mind that God isn't real, it really doesn't matter what evidence is shown, it won't convince you in the least. A completely neutral mind may be able to at least accept the possibility, but a mind already convinced otherwise is not going to be persuaded, just like I couldn't be persuaded about Santa Claus.
I don't know. What does anybody else think of this?

(January 3, 2018 at 8:20 pm)Dan Brooks Wrote: What does anybody else think of this?

Unless you're trying to make our point for us, Santa Claus is the worst example ever.

---

If you took me outside pointed to a man in a sled with 8 tiny reindeer and then I saw him take off into the sky shouting "Merry Christmas!" I would begin to reevaluate my position on Santa's existence.

The thing is, most of the arguments from theists are of the "mall Santa" type.

(January 3, 2018 at 8:24 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(January 3, 2018 at 8:20 pm)Dan Brooks Wrote: What does anybody else think of this?

Unless you're trying to make our point for us, Santa Claus is the worst example ever.

---

If you took me outside pointed to a man in a sled with 8 tiny reindeer and then I saw him take off into the sky shouting "Merry Christmas!" I would begin to reevaluate my position on Santa's existence.

The thing is, most of the arguments from theists are of the "mall Santa" type.

Yeah the example given about mall santa was quite strange. It should be obvious that giving false proof (guy dressed up as santa in a mall) would not persuade a rational person.

Does not push the point of "atheists are not open minded so they won't accept actual proof" at all. It shows that atheists won't accept false or poor attempts at proof (as in fake mall santa)... I don't think that was intended though

(January 3, 2018 at 7:41 pm)Dan Brooks Wrote: So all three of these antibiotics cause skin problems and digestive problems, and cedarwood and hyssop don't. In fact, they actually have both skin and digestive health benefits.

(Those results are from various sources, none of which are Christian sources.)
This was a very interesting study for me. If the question weren't asked, I never would have known this. It looks like God did know what He was talking about.

No, it looks more like one or more herbalists knew what they were talking about.  No gods are required in order to determine via trial and error the benefits of various plants.

(January 3, 2018 at 8:20 pm)Dan Brooks Wrote: I was thinking about this this morning on the way to the job site. What Whateverist was saying, or asking. Is there any type of evidence that I think would count as adequate justification for his believing in God. And I had told him that I don't know what type of evidence would suffice for that.
But then I thought about it this way. If someone were to try to convince me that Santa Claus was real, and they took me to the mall at Christmas time and said, "See? Look over there on that big chair. It's Santa Claus!" That wouldn't do a single thing toward convincing me that Santa Claus is real. 

See, I'm in a similar boat with gods - for different reasons, but I think you'll understand.  Like The Real Santa™, people take me to see their Real Gods™.  In both cases, I wouldn't need to comment on or from any notions of whether or not there is a santa or a god to know that the broken wretch they're pointing at is neither.

Quote:So I'm thinking that trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in God that God is real is kind of like taking them to the mall at Christmas time to show them Santa Claus. If it's already in the person's mind that God isn't real, it really doesn't matter what evidence is shown, it won't convince you in the least. A completely neutral mind may be able to at least accept the possibility, but a mind already convinced otherwise is not going to be persuaded, just like I couldn't be persuaded about Santa Claus.

That's certainly not what the fishers of men and all the "I used to be an atheist but now I know the truth" stories we see peddled here day in and day out are telling us.....

Quote:I don't know. What does anybody else think of this?

I feel like, if the above were conceptually true, then one of my favorite songs, amazing grace...would sound even sillier than it already does.  I think it's more likely that there has been a failure to convince a person than for the person in questions mind to have been somehow specifically defective in this area - such that they're completely immune to compelling demonstrations. We know that's not true. We know that humans beings are, in point of fact and directly to the contrary, susceptible even to the most ludicrous and false "demonstrations" of x y or z. 

I'd spend more time working on my delivery, and less time blaming the audience...if I were an apologist. I definitely wouldn;t actively diminish the transformative nature and alleged power of coming to belief if I were a particularly christian apologist. It would seem wildly cross purpose. Rather than concede some shortcoming in my ability as an orator or educator, diminish the central event of the christian faith in a person's life? The day they became convinced that god was real and that god was christ? I'd have to be an awfully cynical believer.

(January 2, 2018 at 11:25 am)Dan Brooks Wrote:

(January 1, 2018 at 11:44 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Answer the questions. jesus was not around at the time of Leviticus. The blood can't symbolize something they haven't perceived yet.

Or are you opting for the dodge?

God had already told about the Redeemer who would come at a later time. He mentioned it in Genesis several times. And Job, which was written a little after the flood, says, "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in my flesh, I shall see God." David also mentions Him, and he lived around 1000 BC. And also certain prophets, especially Isaiah, give even a more detailed description of the coming Messiah. Even the magi knew by their reasonings that Christ was to be born, and when, and where. It was all written. This wasn't just something that happened as a surprise. Now of course they knew much less about Him in the Levitical times, but they still knew of him.

So you've basicly decided to rewrite the bible to make the bits that don't fit your worldview look as if they do*. What's the point in us debating a person who is just going to change his source every time it's shown to be wrong?

*Absolutely none of the jewish portions of the bible predict Jesus. Firstly, the jewish messiah was going to be a second David an earthly king who would remake Judah into a paradise right here on earth. Secondly most of the "prophesies" were misinterpreted to give Jesus a legitimacy. For example the whole "Jewus was born of a virgin to fulfil prophesy" is bullshit because the original prophesy referred to a woman who wasn't a virgin (she was alrady pregnan) and who had died 700 years earlier. The original propesy said "before this young woman who is clearly pregnant gives birth, yhwh will drive the invading Assyrians from the land of Judah and preserve your kingdom" (I'm leaving aside the fact that the original prophesy was post hoc for now). None of this has anything to do with Jesus yet christers constantly claim that it's proof of his divine nature.

---

(January 2, 2018 at 1:43 pm)Dan Brooks Wrote: Well if it says it is and it isn't, then it is lying. If it's lying then none of it should be believed. But since it's hard to know whether or not that particular claim is a lie, the only thing we can really do is look at the rest of it and see if anything in there is absolutely known to be a lie. If there is an indisputably known lie in it, then we know it can't be the revealed word of God, because it says that God cannot lie.

I see you're now retconning Star Trek 4 into the bible. Good for you, about time christers adopted some good fiction.

And I'll leave aside the she sheer arrogance and pride you display in your hectoring us over not accepting your assertions even though you are incapable of showing supporting evidence.

The Santa thing got me thinking. If there was always either an unaccounted for present or lump of coal, and all the little boys and girls of the world got one regardless of their parents income (or at least all the Catholic boys and girls, since Nick is supposed to be a saint), that would be Pretty Mysterious and I would count it as evidence that There's Something Strange Gong On, and maybe there's something to this Santa thing after all.

Something falling into to similar category for God might be if the children of Christian parents, or a particular sect of Christianity, never got childhood leukemia or bone cancer. That would at least be a sign that Something Powerful is paying special attention to them. Of course, Christians explain the lack of such a phenomenon as God defending free will: everyone would join that sect if they knew it would protect their children from horrific suffering and nearly everyone would take it as a sign that the sect is the correct one. And God can't have people actually knowing which religion is the one he would prefer they join, so suck it, children of Christians.

(January 3, 2018 at 8:11 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Going to ask again, if Leviticus outlines gods cure, and these are gods words, why is the cure still not being used, from that day to this? Is it that god is ineffective?

Or is it that this was a man made cure simply attributed to god?

Why did you post about current antibiotics? Trying to divert the subject yet again?

It obviously wasn't ineffective, since it I showed from various sources that it does work. And I showed the antibiotics that are used nowadays and their side effects, to point out that the prescription God issued was superior top it, since not only does it not have side effects, it actually treats the side effects the antibiotics we use today cause. I also showed that people used at least part of His prescription long after the biblical times, and there are even holistic doctors who encourage the use of either hyssop oil or cedarwood oil or both for various skin issues an other things, which sometimes even include leprosy (because it still is effective.) 
Now of course the modern medical industry doesn't want to associate themselves with that old, "archaic" method of dealing with sickness and disease. They want to be thought of as more intelligent in this age of the medical and scientific pseudo-renaissance. But just because there is an inferior alternative method of dealing with a certain disease, it doesn't mean that the one God gave was ineffective. I already proved that it was. 
And the reason I posted about the current antibiotics used for leprosy is to show their inferiority to the treatment God gave, because they have a multitude of side effects that His treatment doesn't have. And not only does the biblical treatment not have side effects, but it's been shown, and known, that at least the two main items, cedarwood and hyssop, both are used, or can be used to treat the very issues that are caused by the side effects of the antibiotics that are used today. 
I do think that some of the aspects of the actual method used are symbolic, but that doesn't mean that the elements used in it have no literal effectiveness against the disease. You can look it up for yourself that people used those two main elements to cure and treat leprosy for a long time after the times of Leviticus, and you can even find doctors who recommend it today. 
So the fact that the local hospital doesn't use the biblical cure has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the biblical cure.

(January 3, 2018 at 8:20 pm)Dan Brooks Wrote: I was thinking about this this morning on the way to the job site. What Whateverist was saying, or asking. Is there any type of evidence that I think would count as adequate justification for his believing in God. And I had told him that I don't know what type of evidence would suffice for that.
But then I thought about it this way. If someone were to try to convince me that Santa Claus was real, and they took me to the mall at Christmas time and said, "See? Look over there on that big chair. It's Santa Claus!" That wouldn't do a single thing toward convincing me that Santa Claus is real. I already know he's fake. So since I'm already convinced in my mind that he isn't real, it wouldn't matter what kind of evidence were brought to me, or how much of it, it wouldn't convince me in the least. I would either laugh, feel sorry for them, or get annoyed.
So I'm thinking that trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in God that God is real is kind of like taking them to the mall at Christmas time to show them Santa Claus. If it's already in the person's mind that God isn't real, it really doesn't matter what evidence is shown, it won't convince you in the least. A completely neutral mind may be able to at least accept the possibility, but a mind already convinced otherwise is not going to be persuaded, just like I couldn't be persuaded about Santa Claus.
I don't know. What does anybody else think of this?

But I could be convinced that a god or god exist.

All it would require to convince me is testable, repeatable, falsifiable EVIDENCE, and valid and sound logic to support the claim.

My current disbelief is based 100% on those criteria not being met by any theist. I am opened to be convinced, but your OP has so many fallacious arguments, that it is laughable.

The 'watch maker' argument?! Seriously?