(March 29, 2014 at 3:10 pm)alpha male Wrote:(March 29, 2014 at 2:59 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Actually you got THREE wrong there, Alpha Retard.As already noted, the issue is definition, not actuality.
1. You did not demonstrate that any miracle ever once occurred.
Quote:2. You have not even stated what a "Biblical miracle" is, andOf course not, as that was your term, not mine. When I asked what defintion of miracle you use, you said, "I use the Biblical one. A completely natural event, in which a believer chooses to "see the hand of god operating."
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24729-po...#pid637890
I've asked you to provide Biblical passages supporting your position, but you instead offer up red herrings, and now pretend that your position is my position.
Quote:3. You did not even get what I said about Biblical miracles.I get it. I think it's incorrect. I've asked for Biblical support, but instead I get obfuscation.
(March 29, 2014 at 3:05 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Do you believe everything you read?Obviously not.
If the above occurred and you were satisfied it was legitimate, would you consider it to be just a low probability natural event, i.e. the supposed healer just got lucky and the blind guy coincidentally had a natural spontaneous healing at that instant?
I've already explained Alpha Retard that using Biblical passages to support what you already THINK the Bible says is circular. Thanks for proving aging your imbecile status.
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell 
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist

Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist