| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mantorok Redgormor" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2003 01:16:30 AM |
| Object: |
argument based on history |
Anyone ever encountered an argument of the following form:
"The bible is true because there are so many prophecies
throughout the bible which have come true. This fact
alone can't be ignored."
--
nethlek
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: argument based on history |
27 Dec 2003 03:10:50 AM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2003 23:16:30 -0800 in alt.atheism, Mantorok Redgormor
(nethlek@tokyo.com (Mantorok Redgormor)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Anyone ever encountered an argument of the following form:
"The bible is true because there are so many prophecies
throughout the bible which have come true. This fact
alone can't be ignored."
Prophecy, eh? The Marquis de Sade had some interesting observations
about that particular form of "proof". I quote herewith:
"How, in terms of strict logic, can you expect me to accept as proof
something which itself first needs to be proved? For a prophecy to be
a proof, I must first be completely convinced that what was foretold
was in fact fulfilled. Now since prophecies are part of history,
they can have no more force in my mind than all other historical
facts, of which three-quarters are highly dubious. If to this I were
to add further the possibility, or rather the likelihood, that they
were transmitted to me solely by "historians" with a vested interest,
I should be, as you see, more than entitled to be sceptical.
Moreover, who will reassure me that such and such a prophecy was not
made after the event, or that it was not just politically or
self-fulfillingly contrived, like the prediction which foretells a
prosperous reign under a just king or forecasts frost in winter? If
all this is in fact the case, how can you argue that prophecies, which
stand in dire need of proof, can themselves ever become a proof?
(quotation ends, paragraphing may not be as in original)
(Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man, Marquis de Sade)
Allow me to repeat de Sade's telling question:
"how can you argue that prophecies, which stand in dire need of proof,
can themselves ever become a proof? "
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: argument based on history |
27 Dec 2003 01:30:54 AM |
|
|
"Mantorok Redgormor" <nethlek@tokyo.com> wrote
Anyone ever encountered an argument of the following form:
"The bible is true because there are so many prophecies
throughout the bible which have come true. This fact
alone can't be ignored."
That isn't an argument, it's a claim. Heck, it's two claims.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: argument based on history |
27 Dec 2003 05:53:26 AM |
|
|
"Mantorok Redgormor" <nethlek@tokyo.com> wrote in message
news:41ec7ac0.0312262316.4acd344f@posting.google.com...
Anyone ever encountered an argument of the following form:
"The bible is true because there are so many prophecies
throughout the bible which have come true. This fact
alone can't be ignored."
Oh yah.
The guy to deflate this argument is Farrel Till, a former Church of Christ
preacher (now atheist) who wrote a bunch of stuff now online somewhere (a
Yahoo search will get ya there). Goes into various prophecies in detail,
shows how the prophecies were (a) taken out of context (b) actually not
fulfilled (c) not actually prophecies at all. Pretty cool stuff.
Like for instance, Ezekiel's prophecy that the city of Tyre (which is
nowadays called "Sur" and is in Lebanon) would be destroyed and NEVER
rebuilt. Well, Tyre was destroyed not by the guy he thought would do it,
but by Alexander T Great in 323 BC, and was rebuilt to the point where the
Romans had built a Colusseum that held 25,000 spectators . . . it was one of
the major trading cities in Roman times. Nowadays it's a minor tourist
destination and fishing village, about 20,000 population. The gov't there
discourages building because they've got so much archeological digs going
on. I suppose once they find everything and once the war & strife settles
down (a lot of the buildings there are all shot to blazes from war), it'll
become a major city again.
ANYWAY, Ezekiel's prophecy fails because he said "NEVER" would it be
rebuilt, and over the centuries, it's been rebuilt several times.
A curious consequence of Ezekiel's failed prophecy is connected with the
old testament description (the test, actually) of a "True prophet" (I forget
where it's written, but it's in there) . . . the Bible says if a prophet
tells prophecies that ALWAYS come true then he's a prophet of God. If he
misses just once out of a million times, then he's a prophet of Satan.
Going by the Bible's logic, then, Ezekiel is a prophet of Satan. Which
raises the question of why is writing by a prophet of Satan included in the
Bible? For the answer to that question, you'd likely have to study a
history of the Bible, track down who actually put all the "sacred" writings
together and "officially" approved 'em.
Yah, Farrell Till showed how there is not a single prophecy in the Bible
that has come to pass, other than a few that were obvious (the sort of
"prophecy" like if someone today was to prophesy that China was going to
become a great economic power---that's the sort of thing any one who reads
newspapers can tell you . . . some Bible prophecies fall into that category.
Most others, though, are 100% unfulfilled.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeremy Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: argument based on history |
27 Dec 2003 05:33:16 AM |
|
|
(nethlek@tokyo.com (Mantorok Redgormor)):
Anyone ever encountered an argument of the following form:
"The bible is true because there are so many prophecies
throughout the bible which have come true. This fact
alone can't be ignored."
It's called "argumentum ad dumbassium."
--
Jeremy Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: argument based on history |
28 Dec 2003 07:28:56 AM |
|
|
(Mantorok Redgormor) wrote in message news:<41ec7ac0.0312262316.4acd344f@posting.google.com>...
Anyone ever encountered an argument of the following form:
"The bible is true because there are so many prophecies
throughout the bible which have come true. This fact
alone can't be ignored."
Oh, yes, that's a popular one. The best you can point out is:
1) Prophecies are not predictions; they cannot be tested in the same
way. For one thing, prophecies are usually vague, in the sense that
whether or not they have been fulfilled is a matter of interpretation.
For another, prophecies are undated; so lack of anything that
fulfills a prophecy does not serve to refute it (It could come true
tomorrow, or next year, or next millennium.)
2) Even with that, there are Bible prophecies that no one claims have
been fulfilled.
3) There are also claims of fulfilled prophecies, that turn out to not
have been prophesied in the first place.
You can support the last two claims by referring your correspondent to
web pages like:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
That at least justifies a conclusion that you don't accept his general
claim of 'so many' fulfilled prophecies in the Bible - his convincing
you depends on his giving you examples of specific prophecies that
have been unarguably fulfilled. Pending that, there is no reason for
you to accept that the Bible is 'true;' - and, until he has dealt with
your counterexamples, there are reasons for you not to accept that the
Bible is 'true' in all respects.
2)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kenny Leong" |
|
| Title: Re: argument based on history |
28 Dec 2003 03:42:37 PM |
|
|
(Mantorok Redgormor) wrote in message news:<41ec7ac0.0312262316.4acd344f@posting.google.com>...
Anyone ever encountered an argument of the following form:
"The bible is true because there are so many prophecies
throughout the bible which have come true. This fact
alone can't be ignored."
Which prophecies from the bible have come true? As far as anybody
knows, nothing has been predicted accurately in advance of some event
happening. If a certain exact times, dates, and locations are given to
describe some really major and natural phenomen, then there's
something to talk about. But right now....forget it.
Kenny L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Thomas" |
|
| Title: Re: argument based on history |
28 Dec 2003 01:47:45 PM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2003 23:16:30 -0800, (Mantorok
Redgormor) wrote:
Anyone ever encountered an argument of the following form:
"The bible is true because there are so many prophecies
throughout the bible which have come true. This fact
alone can't be ignored."
Personally, I think that life is too short to learn enough about
the details to argue with a fanatic, but it is not really
necessarily.
Fortune telling was banned by medieval Christianity not because
it was believed to be a con trick, but because it was believed
that the devil was giving people the power to see the future.
So even if it is true that some of the predictions came true,
that does not prove the Bible is true.
If God and Satan both exist (unlikely!!) the Old Testament
barbarians were obviously backing Satan.
-
Martin Thomas
mart666t@netscape.NO.HAWKERS.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: argument based on history |
27 Dec 2003 10:51:50 PM |
|
|
On 26 Dec 2003 23:16:30 -0800, (Mantorok Redgormor)
wrote:
Anyone ever encountered an argument of the following form:
"The bible is true because there are so many prophecies
throughout the bible which have come true. This fact
alone can't be ignored."
Yes, it is also known as "the argument from Gastrich", or the "Jason
argument".
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
