Banned at another atheist forum

[Bucky Ball]

Wrong again Zed Male.
YOU asked the question concerning the blind man. All I did was ask you to demonstrate you r question made sense in the context of the discussion.

Incorrect. You asked me to "go right ahead and actually prove that ever once happened in all of human history," which is irrelevant in context of the Biblical definition of miracles.

Actually you got THREE wrong there, Alpha Retard.
1. You did not demonstrate that any miracle ever once occurred.
2. You have not even stated what a "Biblical miracle" is, and
3. You did not even get what I said about Biblical miracles.

[*Deidre*]

So if someone tells a blind man to see in the name of god, and he does, that's just a low probability natural event being attributed to god. Gotcha!

Do you believe everything you read? I don't. The Bible, for all we know, could be a total fabrication ...designed to concoct a religion to compete with the others of the time period, and gain control.

Oh wait. Christianity is now the largest religion, globally.

But, yet poverty, racism, sexism, and bigotry still pervades many societies. Hmmmm...if Christianity means anything at all to its followers who make up this large population, why isn't it changing the world in which we live?

[John V]

Actually you got THREE wrong there, Alpha Retard.
1. You did not demonstrate that any miracle ever once occurred.

As already noted, the issue is definition, not actuality.

2. You have not even stated what a "Biblical miracle" is, and

Of 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.

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.

---

So if someone tells a blind man to see in the name of god, and he does, that's just a low probability natural event being attributed to god. Gotcha!

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?

[Bucky Ball]

Actually you got THREE wrong there, Alpha Retard.
1. You did not demonstrate that any miracle ever once occurred.

As already noted, the issue is definition, not actuality.

2. You have not even stated what a "Biblical miracle" is, and

Of 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.

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.

---

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.

[LastPoet]

[John V]

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.

No, when you claim to be using a Biblical definition of a term, it's completely proper, and generally necessary, to go to the Bible to support that claim. This is obvious. The circular argument fallacy doesn't apply in such a case.

[Losty]

Some of you are obviously having a hard time understanding that god's miracles are real. Please watch this video of an atheist who finally realized the truth to god's miracles!

[Bucky Ball]

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.

No, when you claim to be using a Biblical definition of a term, it's completely proper, and generally necessary, to go to the Bible to support that claim. This is obvious. The circular argument fallacy doesn't apply in such a case.

Wrong again Alpha Retard. I GAVE YOU scholarly articles who DID "go to the Bible". You didn't bother to get them or look them up, as all you idiot Fundies know how to do, is "do" Babble quotes. Bablle quote PROVE NOTHING. Perhaps some day you may actually go get an education on the subject you PRETEND to speak knowledgeably about. No one will hold their breath.

[John V]

Wrong again Alpha Retard. I GAVE YOU scholarly articles who DID "go to the Bible". You didn't bother to get them or look them up, as all you idiot Fundies know how to do, is "do" Babble quotes. Bablle quote PROVE NOTHING. Perhaps some day you may actually go get an education on the subject you PRETEND to speak knowledgeably about. No one will hold their breath.

Yes, you gave citations without links or quoting the relevant parts. As this is a discussion forum, I asked you to present the argument. BTW, by noting that you gave citations to articles which do use Bible quotes, you show that your arguments about circularity were fallacious.

[Bucky Ball]

Wrong again Alpha Retard. I GAVE YOU scholarly articles who DID "go to the Bible". You didn't bother to get them or look them up, as all you idiot Fundies know how to do, is "do" Babble quotes. Bablle quote PROVE NOTHING. Perhaps some day you may actually go get an education on the subject you PRETEND to speak knowledgeably about. No one will hold their breath.

Yes, you gave citations without links or quoting the relevant parts. As this is a discussion forum, I asked you to present the argument. BTW, by noting that you gave citations to articles which do use Bible quotes, you show that your arguments about circularity were fallacious.

Nice try. So now you're saying that discussing what's written "about" a book and referencing what's in it, is the SAME thing as (only) quotes.
You really are a retard.