It's not entirely irrelevant to our abiding memory of this event that we have seen endlessly recycled TV news footage of it.

I've seen recent recycled news footage of my classrooms, the activities or lack thereof during the day, or the fact my father was out of state during the day. Really?

 

Also, does this easy-going attitude to standards of proof for supernatural events apply to the miracles of other religions than your own?  Explicitly catholic miracles like the Miracle at Fatima, where 'Our Lady of the Rosary' apparently made the sun dance in front of 50,000 people, surely require some explanation.  Also the Sikh miracle of Vaisakhi - plenty of witnesses again, and it sounds quite memorable.  What criteria do you have for judging the accuracy of these miracle reports?

Absolutely it applies to other accounts of miracles even in other religions. I can easily accept that when Aaron's staff turned into a serpent the Pharoah's magician's were able to do the same. And I can quite easily accept that such events you sighted happened. If a significant amount of people witnessed a miraculous event and recall the details consistently (relative to their point of view), under what criteria do you have to dismiss these accounts? The question begging fallacy that miracles can't happen?

What you fail to realize is that it also applies to simply memorable events in general. I would imagine witnessing a murder would fall into a naturalistic frame, and in the lack of any other incriminating evidence an eye-witness would be sufficient to establish the the identity of the murderer. What's telling is that it's not until a witness may actually break under cross-examination where suddenly the reliability of such an account is brought into question, but when an account doesn't fall into the naturalistic framework you automatically question it. It would seem the criteria would be whether or not consistency can be maintained even under some form of pressure. This only improves such account's of the miracle's Christ was said to perform in general and ultimately his resurrection. The apostle's faced far more pressure than simply being fined or temporarily jailed, yet did not waver in their testimony.

Read SJ's blog on why Christian's don't believe in fairies, pixies, and such. Our reasoning is quite different from that of atheists.

No, probably not.  You will have received a great deal of non-subjective cues for your personal memory of that day, however, through recycled news footage which you saw for the first time then.

Well one can admit certain cues like simply revisting a place where an incident occured can trigger a memory. However you have not made the case on whether one is needed at all. Nor does this point even say anything as to the memory's accuracy.

No, the practical consideration that not all of the things that these alleged miracles appear to support can be true.

 

I agree. What the miracle's support can't be true. That the miracles actually happened can be.

If you credit the Vaisakhi miracle with as much reliability as the deal with the loaves and the fishes then why are you a Christian instead of a Sikh?  If you believe that 'Our Lady of the Rosary' made the sun dance then why aren't you a catholic?  Or do you just dispute the interpretation of these events?

Because even if I can recognize supernatural events actually do occur even for religions like Sikh, that's not enough to support it's authority. You'll recall Christ didn't just put on a good show. There were numerous prophecy's about him long before he was born. He also performed parables and teachings. The miracles he performed were simply a method of establishing his identity and authority. He claimed to be God and thus backed it up with his actions. Read Mathew 11:20-24. Some of Christ's harshest rebukes were for the places where he performed most of his miracles. The measuring stick for Christianity is more cumulative. Just like determining truth in general, one must consider whether it's views coincide with reality. And the provided measuring stick of 100% accuracy in prophecy as only God can know the future (this is where Cop was badly beaten with his claims of religion itself providing no verifiability), is also to be considered.

And also the last time I checked being Catholic was still fundamentally Christianity. If suddenly the Lady of Rosary was the foundation of catholicism then your talking about a different religion altogether.

i did read SntJohnny's blog about elves and fairies, but your post seems poorly timed since it exposes a flaw in the views expressed there.  If you guys are the rational ones - that is, scorning the naturalist narrow-mindedness which prevents the rest of us from acknowledging the existence of angels and demons - then you badly need an explanation for all these subversive miracles.  The ones which don't obviously provide evidence for your particular brand of supernaturalism.

Subversive entities (ie Lucifer) seems to fit quite nicely in the explanatory framework, which I believe was mentioned. And of course this is under the assumption we are conceding genuine supernatural events for other religions.

i think you also miss how much you rely on the 'naturalistic framework' for your every day existence.  Putting your coffee cup down on the table automatically buys in to the nasty skeptical naturalistic assumption that the molecules in the table aren't going to temporarily ignore the laws of physics and allow the cup to pass straight through them.

Hmmmm, as miracle's are the suspension of naturalistic rules, that would have to concede that naturalism is the general flow to begin with. So your objection is rather weak, as it shows your assumption is that the molecules in the table can't temporarily ignore the laws of physics.

And forget travelling in an airplane or using western medicine.  Like it or not, you embrace the naturalistic framework with your every waking move, but disclaim it when it contradicts your medieval belief system.  That would make you an inconsistent supernaturalist at best.

So your arguement is that since traffic laws are established and are generally followed that's proof no one ever does or can break the speed limit. Riiiiiiiiight.

It seems you do indeed only have the question begging fallacy that miracles can't happen. It also seems your putting words in my mouth that I think every event must be interpreted as supernatural. As I said miracles by definition seem to concede there being a general rule. The difference being that you presumptiopusly think this framework can never be broken or suspended, when in actuality there is no logical prohibitation, your snide condescention aside. That doesn't demand one must believe every event is supernatural. All that demands is that you have to examine everything on a case by case basis, as you can never arbitrarily rule it out.

No, i wasn't commenting on that.  Only that we have very strong repeated non-subjective cues to trigger our recollection of 9/11, where we might not have in the case of something which we alone witnessed and which did not appear on TV.

That would be the difference between something in the news and something experienced, yes.

On the subject of the reliability of memory, i used to know a set of identical twins, and one of their biggest disputes was over a photo of one of them in a particular location in their childhood.  It was something reasonably distinctive, but i forget exactly what.  They were fairly easily distinguishable when i knew them, but much less so in their childhood.  Both of them remembered being the child in that picture, that is, having their photo taken while in that particular time and place, and clearly one of them had unintentionally fabricated that memory based on seeing the picture.  That would be an example of a non-subjective cue leading to a false memory.

Not really. What it would be is an example of confusing association in the general act of taking a picture.  Did both twins give details of what occured during the picture taking, what activities they did threw the day, etc. etc. The simple proclamation of "That was me." isn't a creation of a false memory. It's the forgetting of details.

It can, yes, although some of them then become more difficult to explain.  If God had parted the Red Sea for the Egyptians instead of the Israelites, that would have made the interpretation a little more tricky wouldn't it.

"If" is a game you can always win at.

So because your religion makes more supernatural claims than other religions do, what claims they do make can be written off as demonic activity, essentially?

No, it's because my religion makes an identity and historic claim that have been supported, and thus what claims other religions make can be written off as demonic activity if not exposed on their own right (showing signs but having everyone engage in pedophilia would be a clue).

...100% accuracy of the prophesies that i and other apologists going back to the birth of Christianity have selected and correctly interpretted with the understanding that if they appear inaccurate they will be discarded or written off as 'yet to be fulfilled'.  That is a good measuring stick.

Unfortunately for you with the the prophecies regarding the Messiah have already been fullfilled with 100% accuracy. What's interesting is that they go further back than the birth of Christianty.

i think strict catholicism approaches polytheism so closely as to be almost indistinguishable from it, although of course popes down the ages would turn in their graves at the suggestion (and in doing so, i privately hope, might brush up against something razor-sharp).

Last time I checked you simply regarded the Bible as polytheism. So you can understand how what you think has very little weight.

i get the impression you're more of a protestant kind of chap, not given to deifying the virgin Mary, whatever unlikely opinions you hold about her sexual history.  Now i guess that in a supernaturalist framework it is entirely possible for beings who are not Gods to appear to us mortals and make weird stuff happen, but my point was essentially that for such a being (in an account which you are apparently committed to not questioning) to identify herself in catholic terms, appears to prima facie support the catholic framework rather than yours.

She can identify herself in catholic terms, alien sightings and 'ascended beings' can identify themselves in evolutionary terms, heck it's said the antichrist will identify himself in christian terms. Once you realize that there is a spiritual con game that's been going on threw out human history, you can see how 'buddying up' doesn't hurt the Biblical framework as much as you think. Especially as we are given the command to test spirits.

Your options in this situation (within your own framework) appear to be either to question that particular part of the testimony (in which case why not question all of it?); to assume that this supernatural being was deliberately misleading for some noble reason; or to assume that this supernatural being was misleading for some malign reason.  i am interested to know which option you would prefer.

Subversive entities (ie Lucifer) seems to fit quite nicely in the explanatory framework, which I believe was mentioned. And of course this is under the assumption we are conceding genuine supernatural events for other religions.

Option three.  Interesting.

I'm curious as to why you'd say "interested to know", while having the answer in the same post.

You look both ways when you cross the road?  So do i.  That's because we both know that despite the established and usually followed laws that occasionally people behave stupidly.  So, that would be sensible behaviour, and that is why your analogy fails.  Very little behaviour displayed in western society shows any actual belief in the possibility that the laws of physics could be broken in a similar way.

How wonderful it is then that behavior has absolutely nothing to do with the occurance of miracles, as it's not a matter of behavior so much as the recognition that miracles can happen, and have happend. To continue the analogy looking both ways may be the general behavior, yet every one recognizes that a plane can still fall on you.

i'm not aware that we've even talked about my position on miracles, only discussed yours.  True to form however, you arrogantly assume knowledge of my every thought and motivation.

Wasn't hard given that you may have answered the question with this:

No, the practical consideration that not all of the things that these alleged miracles appear to support can be true.

But we see this:

but disclaim it when it contradicts your medieval belief system.

Quote me.  Where did i suggest that you think this?  i would suggest that you are yourself guilty of what you accuse me of here.

No, not really:

Like it or not, you embrace the naturalistic framework with your every waking move, but disclaim it when it contradicts your medieval belief system.  That would make you an inconsistent supernaturalist at best.

Apparently if you think I'm inconsitent for recognizing that naturalistic framework if the general flow, yet can be broken and has been broken, then that implies you think I'm making the claim the supernaturalism is the interpretation of everything.

i was trying to decide whether or not 'presumptiopusly' was a purposeful amalgam of two words you wish to connect for humorous purposes (as i did with 'Absolubrist').  The best two candidates seem to me to be 'presumptuous' and 'octopus', although i struggle to see what point you were trying to make with it.  Either way, i think it's a wonderful word, and i plan to use it in future.

Always glad to be helpful.

i agree that there is no logical reason why the laws of nature as we understand them cannot be suspended, either due to an incomplete understanding on our part, or by the interference of a supernatural entity.  Where have i said otherwise?  i just find myself with no compelling reason to think that it has ever happened.

Well then as you concede they can happen and as you concede there have been claims and inferences of them happening, it seems you have no logical leg to stand on to say they didn't happen, whether in specific cases or in general. But indeed true to form I know exactly why you have no "compelling reason" (it's more that your that transparent than arrogance DB). Because giving up your atheism isn't compelling to you.

You ask a lot.  Essentially, you're saying that i am not allowed to believe that supernatural events probably don't happen unless i investigate every single claim of spiritual possession, haunting, levitation, crystal ball reading, angelic visitation etc and prove them all false?  You are setting an impossible standard.  i can't prove that miracles dont happen, but that doesn't lend any particular support to your belief that they do.

I can see why keeping an open mind is asking a lot for you. And no, you can believe whatever you want to believe. I'm saying you can't claim or argue that they didn't happen, unless you investigate every single claim. The concession that they are possible, along with strong eye-witness testimony lends plenty of support to my belief. That fact that you can't prove they didn't happen or argue them as impossible doesn't hurt me. All you have is your presumptiopusly claim that they didn't, because well...atheism is then out the window.

Obviously i disagree.  Nothing new there.  i guess we'll find out who is right when we die (although of course if i am right then i wont be able to enjoy it).  If it turns out that the muslims were right then we're both in big trouble.

You take a very foolish gamble then. Though even with muslim's as much of their form of salvation revolves around doing "good deeds" like most other religions that's not much risk to a Christian who's called upon to do them anyway. Though if every act is supposedly suppose to originate with God, including evil ones, I don't see how we can be condemned in the first place.

The Old Testament often reads like a polytheistic account, yes.  Modern Christianity is unambiguously monotheistic, except (in my opinion) catholicism, with it's deification of the Virgin Mary and apparently all the saints.  i dont think you really addressed my point there.

Sure Catholicism teaches to hold the saints and the Virgin Mary in higher regard that has no justification in scripture. That's not deifying so much as giving someone too much credit than they deserve. That's simply a flaw in that denomination.

Still not seeing any reason why i should believe that this is true.

I know. You'd have to give up your atheism if you did.

That is a better analogy.  We don't regularly acknowledge in our behaviour the possibility of a plane falling on us, but we understand that it is a remotely possible occurence.

So then you now recognize how since you admit a miracle is possible, how the general behavior that it doesn't happen every second is irrelevant then, correct?

i don't quite see how you got from (a) to (b) there.

Your very clear claim I'm being inconsistent.

i am not suggesting that you think everything is supernatural, just that in your day-to-day life you probably dont make much acknowledgement of the possibility of supernatural events.  Now, if you are happy to concede that supernatural events are as rare as a jumbo jet falling from the sky directly on top of you, then i am happy to concede that you are being consistent by not behaviourally recognising their existence.

I do behaviourily recognize their exsistence. I wouldn't spend time worshiping God, trying to live my life in a way pleasing to Him, or reading my Bible if I didn't. I do acknowledge the possibility of supernatural events in my day-to-day life. Where you fail is that recognizing that they can occur does not prevent me from recognizing when they don't occur. I live every moment fully aware something unexpected can happen, I simply don't revolve my behaviour around it until it actually occurs. And as Christ's Ressurection actually occured, then I do indeed revolve my behaviour around Christianity.

i am not saying that they can't happen, i am saying that i personally don't believe that they happen.

Well even if the universe did revolve around your personal opinion, you still don't have a logical leg to stand on to even believe that they didn't happen.  Not unless you investigate each and every claim and dismiss them for solid reasons. Thus why atheism is inherently irrational.

Seriously DB, you say they can happen and you recognize many people have witnessed and testified to miracles happening in general, and have no proof to discredit each and every account. What is the basis for your personal belief? If it turns out to be your atheism, than I'd say my comment about you having an open mind was spot on.

Yet i remain in the dark over why you think that behaving like such an ass all the time makes you any kind of persuasive example of the benefits of Christianity.

Problably because I find you to be far too sensitive while you simultaneously throw out "your medieval belief system". It amazes me how your given to see me as an ass while we are having such fun "presumptiopusly" at the same time. Perhaps my skin is simply thicker than yours, but if my suspicion on your basis for your personal belief is accurate, it may be because I'm hitting too close to home for your liking.

i disagree.  You can't prove a negative, but you can certainly argue in favour of a negative position, otherwise you would be unable to argue that Mohammed didn't ascend bodily into heaven (for instance).  i can also argue in favour of atheism, despite the impossibility of disproving the existence of all gods.

Problably because the claim that Mohammed died and was buried like a normal man is how one would approach it. You can see it is more a positive claim than a negative one. Much like atheism in general you simply have no real support if you recognize all these claims as a possibility, but still deny them based on your opinion. The fact that atheism makes a diffinitive claim as a fact upon reality, with little but your opinion, makes it inherently more irrational than any other religion.

Again, you act like i have a choice about what i believe.

Could it be quite possibly be because...oh I don't know....you do?

You've been worshipping the wrong god - that makes you just as much of an infidel as me.

While it's refreshing that an atheist can recognize Islam's god is not the same as the God of the Bible, it would still seem that such an act would originate from Islam's god as well. So again how can anyone be condemend on such terms?

Like I said, I reject Islam for a bit more than simply a lack of belief that their accounts of miracles aren't true. I can simply reject them for their inherent contradiction to say we are condemend while maintaining that we have no choice in the matter and are ultimately not responsible at the same time. Again, Christian's dismiss other religions for inherently different reasons than atheists.

True but trivial.  You'd have to abandon your Christianity if you came to believe in strict naturalism, but that doesn't mean that is why you dont believe in it.

The difference being is that you'd have to prove miracle's being inherently impossible. As it isn't, still maintaining strict naturalism always occurs and is the explanation for everything, even when miracle's are witnessed and inferred, shows an inherent irrationality and closed mindedness.

i don't 'believe that a miracle is possible', it's just impossible to prove that it isn't.

i agree that there is no logical reason why the laws of nature as we understand them cannot be suspended...

You are rather transparent in your attempt to equivocate. Either you recognize that it is possible and thus you have no rationale leg to stand on, or it's like I said in the beginning: all you have is a dismissal for arbitrary reasons. Heck there's not even arbitrary reasoning behind your belief. There's simply opinionated assertion.

What are you smoking?  You're saying that i can't believe something isn't real when i have been shown no evidence for it's actual existence?  And where did i suggest that the universe cared in the least about my personal opinion?

You have been shown evidence: testimony. You simply dismiss them. Thus you need a reason to dismiss them. And the only reason you keep giving is "I personally...". You can believe whatever you want to believe (Oh dear, it's almost like you have a choice in the matter  ). That doesn't mean you have a rationale reason for that belief and thus no support for it. You may not verbally suggest the universe cares, but your attitude and way of argueing clearly does suggest it.

Reasons as solid as 'they're just demons'?  i'm sure that you've investigated every reported miracle of every religion other than Christianity in order to come to that conclusion.

Actually this was in the context investigating if a supernatural event really did or did not occur. Even the conclusion of demonic activity is under the conclusion that a supernatural event did indeed occur as it's determining the source.

Inadequate evidence.

Like I said you've been given plenty of evidence. You simply find them all "inadequate". Thus you need a reason to find them all inadequate. And as mentioned, accounts like the one you sight below are inherently different than accounts of Christ's miracles or others.

According to you then, i cannot believe that Mr Edmonds is deluded on this subject (and perhaps many others), despite the fact that even websites specialising in ghost photography disclaim orbs as 'digital flaws' and (this with an air of disappointment) 'nothing paranormal'.

Exactly. Because as stated your reasoning is arbitrary. All you have is the arguement that not ALL acounts can be true, which I agree. However this is inherently ridiculous to dismiss ALL accounts as it only would show that SOME would not be true, but OTHERS could very well be. You're shown to be painting with a very large brush and if even one is actually true, then your naturalism is shot.

Hey, if anything i do offends you then please let me know (i have tried to do this with you in the past but you just carried right on).  i know that i am capable of having civilised debates with people of differing outlooks to myself (i.e. Cimics, Sasquatch, SntJohnny).  The question is: are you?

Of course. Which is why nothing you've ever said or could say personally offends me. Like I said perhaps it's just that I have thicker skin than you do. Though as more and more of your reasoning is shown to be mere opinion, I find your bursts of outrage more indicative that I hit a nerve.

Do you have any support for that claim?  If not, aren't you simply operating on the circular assumption that he didn't ascend to heaven because he couldn't have!

And thus we go back to SJ's blog on Christian's dismissing accounts for an inherently different reason than yours, as we readily acknowledge it could have happend. We base that it didn't on evidence or the strength of the testimony. Athiet's seem to base it on an arbitrary belief of impossibility, or in your case opinionated assertion. Thanks for proving SJ's point.

You think?  i could go to church (in fact sometimes i do, because my wife is a Christian), but that wouldn't make me a believer.  i could try to 'accept Jesus with all my heart', as i have on occasion been encouraged to do - usually online - but that wouldn't help much if i still carried the suspicion that he was just a man.

Who said one can't be a Christian without suspicion that he was just a man? I've openly stated that there is plenty of room to doubt. However that is not an option for supporting atheism, as atheism makes a deffinitive statement. At best you'd have to be agnostic.

So, there is no gamble here - unless it is being outspoken about my beliefs.  No one but God/Allah would be able to tell whether someone is a 'true' believer, or just someone acting like one.  SntJohnny might be as much of an atheist as i am.  

Hehehe. Not really as our actions and words best reflect what's in our hearts, and while I'll admit you can always talk an act a good game, you can't do it with any amount of consistency without actually believing. But even setting that aside, it seems the choice is still yours, and you still face the gamble of it being true or not. Even carrying suspicion would be a choice in the matter.

]
i'm sure a muslim apologist would have some perfectly reasonable answers to help 'resolve' that contradiction for you.  Every religion has people like you in it.

Difference being our resolving what appears to be contradiction is reasonable and is within the context of Scripture. There's isn't, but you're always free to make assertions DB.

 You say.  i have never seen anything in my life to give me reason to think that there is anything that can't be ultimately explained by natural processes.

And there's nothing that can't be ultimately explained by supernatural processes. That's why many atheist simply reject it for appearing to be deus ex machina. The issue isn't what can or can't, even if the universe did revolve around your experience (I would think after SJ"s discussion you'd be free of any notion that reality is narrowed to what you personally experience), the issue is did or didn't.

i have heard stories of one-off events which sound supernatural, but i have no way of verifying them.

Someone claims to be back from Arizona, you have no real way to verify that either.

Anytime someone claims to be able to reproduce supernatural events (mind-reading, telekinesis, etc) they get debunked and revealed as frauds.  There seems to be a general trend there.  Like at the begining of the 20th century there were wild reports of the amazing things which happened in psychic readings - levitation, the voices of the dead speaking through people, pianos flying.  Now their claims are much more modest, because the more spectacular ones have been shown to be cheap fakery.  It seems that when supernaturalism is claimed, the true answer is often human trickery or human gullability.

And again that would suggest that SOME must not be true, but until you investigate ALL you have no support to dismiss ALL. It just shows you're generalizing with a brush that seems to encompass all of reality. Their have been many false claims of theft or murder, or even just an emergency. Do you generalize that no murder, theft, or emergency ever occurs based on the false reports too?

Do you believe it is possible that Allah exists?

That Allah could exist? Absolutely. And in a sense I believe he does. Like I said I'm quite comfortable that other entities existing other than man.

You recall the Vaisakhi miracle i suppose?  Not being able to interview any of the people who allegedly saw it, i am supposed to be content with the author's assertion that many people witnessed these young men having their heads cut off and then reattached and coming back to life.  What is the most likely explanation for this event?  Even allowing a belief in the supernatural.

Assuming that such an event really happen - demonic activity. Not even original since Antichrist is suppose to die and be brought to life as well.

To take your aircraft-falling-from-the-sky analogy:  If i am told that a person died in the street because an aircraft fell on them, then i am amazed because of the massive unlikeliness of this actually happening.  If i can think of a more plausible explanation for the facts i am presented with, then it may be preferable.

And again we see by your arguement that you do indeed feel the universe revolves around your preferences. Fortunately reality doesn't work like that.

Well now we get to it.  Why should i not believe that Christ's miracles were simply demonic activity designed to lure people away from the true faith of Islam?  Lay out your reasons.

*Pffft* You're kind of 2,0000 years late if Mathew 12: 22-37 is any indication. The Jews already tried to discount Christ by declaring Him a demon. He himself masterfully showed the folly of such a criticism when he showed the folly of the idea that Lucifer was working against himself. Not even Islam believes Christ was a demon. Indeed the best method of witnessing to muslims is to use their own Qu'ran as the Qu'ran's account of Jesus is the same as the Bibles. THey just dismiss his identity, but of which He had made claims about himself.

However, you would be better served actually picking a single miracle account and trying to convince me that the evidence in favour of it being true was good enough to overturn my naturalism, because all this 'you are just dismissing them for arbitrary reasons because you want to hold on to your atheists beliefs' crap is not especially useful.

Neither is "good enough", as many atheits have been quite content to say that even if God directly came to them they'd rather believe it was a halucination. But if you are truly open minded than the best evidence is obviously Christ's Ressurection. And the numerious evidence and arguements for it can be found here:

http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html

Remember, you can't arbitrarily dismiss anything a priori.

Of course there are things which, if i were to accept them as true, would necessitate me changing my belief structure.  But that doesn't mean (as you imply) that that is why i don't believe them.  Stop throwing assertions around and put your money where your mouth is.

OK, the why seems to continuously boil down to your personal opinion or preferences as seen through out this discussion. But I'm glad we could establish that the crux is what you choose to accept.

i'm sure that you can 'show' anything you want to yourself.  It's kind of cute you think that anyone else is being influenced by your 'logic'.

That would be true, but sadly it's what you have shown me. And it's equally cute you think no one can be repulsed by your 'logic' (read opinion).

So you admit that Mohammed could have ascended bodily into heaven.  You believe it is possible that he did?

Like with Allah, I absolutely believe he could. It is certainly possible. Unlike with Christ I find the evidence more supporting that he didn't, as his life is indicative of him being an ordinary man, who perfomed no miracles and nothing extrodinary about the circumstances of his birth or death. With Christ there is indeed an acknowledgement of a tomb being empty that begs explanation.

Essentially, your argument is that i can't assume a priori that a reported miracle was a natural rather than a supernatural event, although this puzzles me, since you are apparently free to assume a priori that any reported miracle which doesn't support your particular belief system was the work of a demon.  If this is the stance that you choose to take, then why not wonder about Christ's potential demonhood?

Problably because, again this is a criticism already put forth and was recognized as futile. Also by the very fact that  the criteria of prophecy, not only about Chrit's ressurection, but the criteria of identifying the Messiah rules that out.

Your response to this challenge was nicely circular.  Jesus apparently "masterfully showed the folly of such a criticism when he showed the folly of the idea that Lucifer was working against himself".  That is masterful.  It is also a little naive.  Only a very stupid demon would show up pretending to be the messiah and do a load of nasty stuff.

I'm waiting for you to address the issue of Christ's history as he was born fully man, and suffice it to say didn't just 'show up'. Of course that just leads into the prophecies identifying Messiah threw aspects of his life in which he'd seemingly have no control over.

Problem is you'd have to find some form of 'nasty stuff' somewhere along the line. Teaching morals, living a life treating the needy, and ultimately sacrificing oneself for all of humantity, doesn't fall into such view. To claim deception, you'd have to actually find an instance of deception. And when dealing with the context of actual miracles that can only be found in the theology itself. Like I said before, I can accept each and every one of Islam's accounts of 'miracles' or spiritual vistation, and I'd still reject Islam for it's contradictions and it's support of jihad actions that actually do fit within the context of their scripture.

The underlying premise here is that Jesus must be divine because otherwise it would be the equivalent of Satan kicking himself in the teeth.  Well, i'm going to say something controversial - Jesus' death changed nothing.  Satan would have as much reason to approve of the results of his 'visit' as god would have.

Lovely assertion. But then in it's already been shown that opinionated assertion is all you have in this matter. It's more rather this point was already brought up during Christ's ministry and was already dropped to where it must have been realized as inherently ridiculous by those who were actually there. Because mostly it was the casting out of demons that they were referring to, rather than the Resurrection, in the case. Though another point would have to be for such a figure like Christ, you'd generally see some 'demonic' behavior (usually characterized by frothing at the mouth, convulsing,

People did good things for each other and terrible things too each other before and after Jesus' death, and the only real change is that afterwards they started doing those good and terrible things in his name.  i have no reason to think (even assuming that i accept your "maybe fairies do exist" supernaturalist agenda) that Jesus was anything other than a particularly clever demon trying to mislead people.  Show me a major difference between the worldly results of christianity and any other major religion, and i might reconsider.

Nice bait and switch. But given the death camps and the gulags, your atheism doesn't fair much better under such a criteria either.  In fact given how much more death and suffering have been caused under atheistic reasoning and are logically allowed to begin with it would stand to reason that atheism would be worse off in such a manner. Though given how you don't really hear of Christians flying into buildings, I'd say the result isn't as disfavorable to Christianity as you'd like to think.

Of course this is beside the point anyway, as it's not a matter of 'results', but is a matter of what is being taught. If what is being taught isn't true, then you obviously have to abandon it. That's why you fail as even those who don't believe in Christ's divinity, simply see him as a 'moral man' often to the point of simply incorporating him in their religious framework. That's why in the case of an actual miracle the only way to determine the source is on the basis of what commands or revelations (if any) go along with it.

But even in the case of presupposing Christ was in fact a demon (and quite the long suffering one at that, to the point of forgiving those who persecuted and tortured him near his death), your atheism would still be out the window regardless. So as clever as it is for you to try to switch the issues here, your atheism still doesn't have a reasonable leg to stand on.

Written in haste because i lost the previous post and now i want to go to bed.  
Internet Explorer is definitely demonic activity.

I was wondering what could have possesed you to try a new tact. 

You skipped over the main point of that paragraph.  If you can a priori assume (without investigating) that a particular reported miracle is demonic activity because it doesn't fit with your overall belief system, then why can't i assume without investigation that a particular reported miracle fits into a naturalistic framework (in line with my beliefs)?

And your point fails because I don't a priori assume a demonic activity because it doesn't fit in my overall belief system. In fact demonic activity is very much an aspect of my belief system. I point to demonic activity when the theology has already been discredited. Again, this is pointed out by the fact that I can take every claimed miracle as actually happening and still reject Islam. As Islam is then discredited as a false religion one can easily see that it follows that such miracle's are performed by a deceptive entity.

It's reported that he was born a man, but it is reported that six men were beheaded and then revived at Vaisakhi, and you are happy to write that off as demonic activity "assuming it actually happened"!  And as for prophecy-fulfillment, we have only to posit a particularly well-read demon for that to make perfect sense.

Problably because with Vaisakhi it's a matter of recuscitation rather than virgin birth (and I've seen no evidence that a virgin birth is within a demon's capabilities as obviously the nature of a creature means their is a limit to that creature as opposed to the unlimited Creator). Though this again leads to such prophecies that would seemingly be out of Christ's control. But even putting all that aside, if you have so many criteria for Messiah and all of them are fullfilled, claiming 'perfect-demon impersonation' just shopws you to be graspping for escapisms. You are essentially argueing: 'if it looks like a dog, behaves like a dog, and barks like a dog, then I suggest it's a cat'. It's quite frankly absurd on it's face.

Would setting up a false religion not qualify?  Looks like all that stuff was necessary in order to do that.  And also, you are being circular again - if Jesus was a demon, then he didn't sacrifice himself for all of humanity, did he.

And as I said your assuming a false religion a priori, while I have demonstrated a dismissal of a religion on it's own ground while even accepting every claimed miracle as true. And I'm being no more circular than "He was a demon (albeit a very well behaved and morally upright one) thus the religion is false, because a false religion proves he was a demon."

But now we come to the real heart of the matter: how is it that Christ could be the perfect sacrifice for all humanity? And the answer is what ultimately defeats such a notion. He was sinless. Take a minute to let that sink in. Being demonic ultimately leads into the encouragement and eventual act of sin. It is impossible for one to be sinless even as a method of deception. So in which you would have to ultimately show that Christ did in fact sin to have any merit.

Circular.  If he was a demon then the deception was massive.

And your only proof of deception is an a priori belief that he was a demon. It's not flying DB.

So challenge it.  Precisely what did Jesus' death change about the world - i am talking about verifiable things that we can know about before we die.

Why his death and ressurection showed that miracles have indeed happened, and as such we can know atheism and phylisophical naturalism are out the window silly. 

i don't see much of that in the Vaisakhi report.  Should i then conclude that it is a genuine miracle (i.e. not demonic actuvity).  And i was being accused of arbitrary standards!

No because I never claimed possesion in that case. Resuscitation is perfectly within a demon's capabilities. By claiming Christ was a man yet a demon at the same time, you are the one implicitly claiming possesion.

   Atheism is not aspiring to be a divinely-mandated religion.

I would have to disagree as it is indeed a religion that is 'divinely' mandated by those who are driven to egotistical 'godhood'.

[/quote]If Atheism is true then we're all just people.  If Christianity is true then god personally involved himself in human affairs and your religion is the result.  Perhaps that necessitates holding them to different standards when it comes to the fulfilment of the respective claims they make.[/quote]

Perhaps so, but that would still leave your atheism at a disadvantage as 'worldly results' is all it has to work with. Christianity's claim of result is more in spiritual matters that should have a reflection on our worldly behavior, but makes no illusion that people will still sin. As such we're still left with the death camps and gulags under your standard.

Is that really as far back as you go?  If we're totalling up the body count of various religions as a measure of their morality then 3,000 is a drop in the ocean.  Between 40,000 and 100,000 people are estimated to have been executed as witches in Europe and America during the middle ages.  Whose door would you lay their deaths at?

Human beings naturally. Though millions were executed in Hitler's gas chambers alone seems to indicate how far you are willing to go back. Which is no problem for me as atheism's atrocities are far more recent in history.

i take this as a tacit admission that the results aren't all that good.

Actually with the numerous charity organizations founded by Christians on Christian principles the results are quite good.

A really clever demon then.  Get everyone thinking of you as a good man even though your actions kick off a sequence of events leading to the torture and death of millions (adding in the Crusades, conquest of South America, Spanish Inquisition, Invasion of Iraq etc).  That's a pretty good scam.

I take it as a tacit admission of you grasping for straws. Of course you fail because you'd have to show direct caustion, rather than this convoluted nonsense. You would indeed have to show a quote of Christ saying "Go and pillage, conquer, and murder." Otherwise this is simply revealed for what it is: a concious refusal to deal with what was actually taught on it's terms. I could very well reject evolution and atheism for the influence it had in Nazi Germany, and euphenasia.

You misunderstand me.  i don't believe in demons.  Not that the existence of demons (or supernaturalism in general) is incompatible with atheism - it isn't.  An absence of beings who could be described as 'gods' doesn't preclude the existence of a whole host of supernatural entities of benevolent or malevolent intentions.  However, i don't believe in that stuff.  What i am doing is examining the consistency of your approach to miracles.

I know. The issue was in presupposing miracle's did happen even in the case of demonic activity you'd still end up with theism. Trying to use 'demonic activity' to discount every theistic religion obviously doesn't work. And as such you'd have to deal with them in another criteria. Of which I've been very consistant with.

And of course disbelief in God ultimately means a disbelief in the supernatural in it's entirety. Otherwise your atheism has even less support to it. Because really God is the only being to be supernatural. The belief in the existence of immaterial entities like demons obviously begs an explanation for their existance. And obviously that begs the inferrance of an immaterial Creator. To say "I believe spiritual beings exist, but a spiritual Being doesn't exist" is pure madness. To which I believe most atheist's are coming closer and closer.

It was deep deep annoyance.  i spent something like an hour on my first reply, and then lost it - so i just condensed what i remembered of it.  While taking the Lord's name in vain a good deal, as i recall.

Same happens to me more than I like.

By the way, i don't know if you have seen this before:

It's an SS belt buckle.  Can you translate?

Minor point but that is actually a Wehrmacht belt buckle.  The SS belt buckles read "Meine Ehre hei