Farrell Till makes some great points concerning the
unlikeliness of the behavior of the Israelites during
their exodus from Egypt and 40 years wandering in
the Sinai desert. From the Alt. Bible Errancy discussion
group, 3 Jan 1999:
helpu wrote:
What about a desire to help people see their way out of a religious
superstition that trapped me for 12 years of my life? If I, say,
volunteered to work at a literacy center to help adults learn how to read,
would you wonder what motivated me to put in such effort? Would it be so
hard for you to assume that I did this because I had the desire to help
people who need help? The desire to help, then, is just one facet of my
motivation.
HELPU
I think the argument is very compelling too. I've posted it about three
times on internet lists, and no one has been able to give a rational
explanation for why a people who saw "God" in their presence on a daily
basis, witnessed amazing miracles that he performed on their behalf, and saw
swift and destructive punishment that was given to those who in any way
rebelled would have so consistently bellyached over rather trivial
inconveniences. Apparently this problem has you stumped too.
HELPU
You have unknowingly identified a primary point in my argument. On this
list, we see on a daily basis the fanatical belief of people who have never
seen a single sign or wonder from their god. They have never seen him
following them in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, they have
never seen him send catastrophic plagues upon their enemies while sparing
them the consequences of the plagues, they have never seen him part a sea or
bring forth water from rocks or rain down manna from heaven or send quails
in vast numbers to feed them, they have never seen him open up the earth and
swallow those who aren't Christians, etc., etc., etc., yet without such
miracles and signs, these "born-again" Christians fanatically maintain a
belief in him and lean over backwards to try to explain why obvious
discrepancies in the Bible are not really discrepancies. In other words,
they maintain a firm belief in this god without any kind of external
evidence at all of his existence, yet we are supposed to believe that a
people who saw amazing signs and wonders from this god on an almost daily
basis could hardly get through a day without grumbling and complaining. The
premise is too ridiculous to believe. I am asking for a reasonable
explanation of such conduct as this, and you obviously have none to give.
A comment is in order about your claim that there are people today who would
not believe regardless of signs and wonders. How do you know this is true?
Since there are no signs and wonders like this happening today, how could
you possibly know that I (and other skeptics) would not believe if we did
see signs and wonders?
HELPU
Can't you see that you are not giving anything that even remotely resembles
a sensible explanation for the problem that I identified in "How Likely Is
It?" All you are doing is maintaining a stubborn determination to believe
the story no matter how compelling the evidence against it may be, and you
did say above that my argument was compelling. Furthermore, you continue to
beg the question. To say that "despite all that God did in the way of
miracles" the unbelief of the Israelites was not changed is to stubbornly
maintain your assumption that this story is true. Since the issue is whether
the story is true, you are responding by simply begging the question. I'm
used to seeing biblical apologists beg the question. I just wish you were
able to see the fallacy in your reasoning.
HELPU
You're doing it again. Rather than admitting that the conduct of the
Israelites as presented in this story is unlikely enough to give reasonable
cause to doubt its historicity, you continue on your merry way making
comments like this that are based on the assumption that the story is true.
Why don't you get a basic logic textbook and read what it says about begging
the question?
My argument is that the constant disobedience of these people in the
situation they were in is so unlikely that the story probably is not true.
If that is the case, then this is not a matter of "God's fault" or
"decisions of the heart"; it's a matter of whether it is reasonable to
believe that the story really happened as claimed. Why can't you deal with
the real issue?
HELPU
Oh, please, spare us this kind of drivel. We've heard it so much that it
warrants a serious rebuke. Do I hate Zeus when I tell people that there are
reasons to believe that no such deity exists? Do I hate Vishnu when I tell
people that there are reasons to believe that no such deity exists? I hate
neither of these gods, because I can no more hate something that doesn't
exist than I can hate Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. The commonly heard
claim that skeptics "hate God" is just another form of question begging.
The theist assumes that his god exists, and from that assumption, he
concludes that those who question his existence must "hate God."
To put this matter to rest, I'm going to ask you to answer a simple
question: Do you hate Krishna?
Farrell Till
unlikeliness of the behavior of the Israelites during
their exodus from Egypt and 40 years wandering in
the Sinai desert. From the Alt. Bible Errancy discussion
group, 3 Jan 1999:
helpu wrote:
>HELPU
>Farrell Till
>
>(Till asserts that since it is unlikely that given the miraculous evidence
>given to the Israelite during the Exodus from Egypt that 'it is unlikely '
>that the Israelites would have doubted God days later. This was a basis for
>proof that the bible is inaccurate or from human origin.)
>
>
>I'm sorry to bring this to you seeing that you spent so much time writingTILL
>all these proofs .. I wonder what motivates you to put in such effort?
>
What about a desire to help people see their way out of a religious
superstition that trapped me for 12 years of my life? If I, say,
volunteered to work at a literacy center to help adults learn how to read,
would you wonder what motivated me to put in such effort? Would it be so
hard for you to assume that I did this because I had the desire to help
people who need help? The desire to help, then, is just one facet of my
motivation.
HELPU
>anyway it seems that from objective observance youve made some veryTILL
>reasonable conclusions and the argument you lay out is very compelling.
>
I think the argument is very compelling too. I've posted it about three
times on internet lists, and no one has been able to give a rational
explanation for why a people who saw "God" in their presence on a daily
basis, witnessed amazing miracles that he performed on their behalf, and saw
swift and destructive punishment that was given to those who in any way
rebelled would have so consistently bellyached over rather trivial
inconveniences. Apparently this problem has you stumped too.
HELPU
>but I think you may want ot consider a couple of things before continuing.TILL
>Just as bornagain xians believe without signs and wonders so those that
>dont believe wont believe regardless of signs and wonders.
>
You have unknowingly identified a primary point in my argument. On this
list, we see on a daily basis the fanatical belief of people who have never
seen a single sign or wonder from their god. They have never seen him
following them in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, they have
never seen him send catastrophic plagues upon their enemies while sparing
them the consequences of the plagues, they have never seen him part a sea or
bring forth water from rocks or rain down manna from heaven or send quails
in vast numbers to feed them, they have never seen him open up the earth and
swallow those who aren't Christians, etc., etc., etc., yet without such
miracles and signs, these "born-again" Christians fanatically maintain a
belief in him and lean over backwards to try to explain why obvious
discrepancies in the Bible are not really discrepancies. In other words,
they maintain a firm belief in this god without any kind of external
evidence at all of his existence, yet we are supposed to believe that a
people who saw amazing signs and wonders from this god on an almost daily
basis could hardly get through a day without grumbling and complaining. The
premise is too ridiculous to believe. I am asking for a reasonable
explanation of such conduct as this, and you obviously have none to give.
A comment is in order about your claim that there are people today who would
not believe regardless of signs and wonders. How do you know this is true?
Since there are no signs and wonders like this happening today, how could
you possibly know that I (and other skeptics) would not believe if we did
see signs and wonders?
HELPU
>regarding the Israelites ....some believed most did not and that is the caseTILL
>throughout humanity and dispite all that God did it in the way of miracles
>didnt change their unnbelief.
Can't you see that you are not giving anything that even remotely resembles
a sensible explanation for the problem that I identified in "How Likely Is
It?" All you are doing is maintaining a stubborn determination to believe
the story no matter how compelling the evidence against it may be, and you
did say above that my argument was compelling. Furthermore, you continue to
beg the question. To say that "despite all that God did in the way of
miracles" the unbelief of the Israelites was not changed is to stubbornly
maintain your assumption that this story is true. Since the issue is whether
the story is true, you are responding by simply begging the question. I'm
used to seeing biblical apologists beg the question. I just wish you were
able to see the fallacy in your reasoning.
HELPU
> So it is not Gods fault that people dont believe..... lack of evidence isTILL
>not the issue it is a decission of the heart.
You're doing it again. Rather than admitting that the conduct of the
Israelites as presented in this story is unlikely enough to give reasonable
cause to doubt its historicity, you continue on your merry way making
comments like this that are based on the assumption that the story is true.
Why don't you get a basic logic textbook and read what it says about begging
the question?
My argument is that the constant disobedience of these people in the
situation they were in is so unlikely that the story probably is not true.
If that is the case, then this is not a matter of "God's fault" or
"decisions of the heart"; it's a matter of whether it is reasonable to
believe that the story really happened as claimed. Why can't you deal with
the real issue?
HELPU
>A decission based on ,i believe , a hatred of God and a deliberateTILL
>attempt to take his place, as god of whatever and whoever we can rule or have
>power over
>
Oh, please, spare us this kind of drivel. We've heard it so much that it
warrants a serious rebuke. Do I hate Zeus when I tell people that there are
reasons to believe that no such deity exists? Do I hate Vishnu when I tell
people that there are reasons to believe that no such deity exists? I hate
neither of these gods, because I can no more hate something that doesn't
exist than I can hate Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. The commonly heard
claim that skeptics "hate God" is just another form of question begging.
The theist assumes that his god exists, and from that assumption, he
concludes that those who question his existence must "hate God."
To put this matter to rest, I'm going to ask you to answer a simple
question: Do you hate Krishna?
Farrell Till
No comments:
Post a Comment