# 10 commandments.....



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2014)

.....for atheists?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/19/living/atheist-10-commandments/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

This is the one I found interesting:



> 8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.



How can an atheist make such a proclamation?  It's the "have a responsibility" which makes it seem less a suggestion and more a declaration.  That contradicts #9:



> 9. There is no one right way to live.



And, the goldent rule is in there as well.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 22, 2014)

Seems as though every group has 10 commandments nowadays.
All are thoughtful but most are not followed by the very people who dream them up and certainly not followed by the people who the commandments are meant for.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 22, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> .....for atheists?
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/19/living/atheist-10-commandments/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
> 
> ...


I don't see the contradiction?


> 8. We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations





> 9. There is no one right way to live.


"Considering others" (8) would include those who choose to live in a way different from what "I" do (9).
That could be translated to supporting a Christian's right to worship even though I don't believe in God.


> And, the golden rule is in there as well


Why wouldn't it be?
I think you would have to somehow prove the concept never existed prior to it being turned into a Commandment.
Just as these 10 non-Commandments are not some "new" ideas that didn't exist before these dudes wrote them down.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2014)

Walt, the contradiction is that # 8 is a declarative statement "have a responsibility," and # 9 is a "do as you please."  As in, what if I don't really care about others or future generations, and want to live for me, today?

My comments on the golden rule were just an interesting note, as we have discussed that before, and I recognize Christianity is not the only belief system that believes it is a good way to live.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Seems as though every group has 10 commandments nowadays.
> All are thoughtful but most are not followed by the very people who dream them up and certainly not followed by the people who the commandments are meant for.



That's why I found it so odd.  How can you declare anything to a people group that does not recognize or believe in universal authority?  

This is not a discussion on morality, or an atheists ability to be moral, or an atheists ability to follow the golden rule.  Y'all know where I stand on that, and it remains unchanged.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 22, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> That's why I found it so odd.  How can you declare anything to a people group that does not recognize or believe in universal authority?
> 
> This is not a discussion on morality, or an atheists ability to be moral, or an atheists ability to  follow the golden rule.  Y'all know where I stand on that, and it remains unchanged.



The people that do believe in universal authority do not follow their commandments, maybe a change to "10 Really Good Suggestions" would better fit everyone.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 22, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Walt, the contradiction is that # 8 is a declarative statement "have a responsibility," and # 9 is a "do as you please."  As in, what if I don't really care about others or future generations, and want to live for me, today?
> 
> My comments on the golden rule were just an interesting note, as we have discussed that before, and I recognize Christianity is not the only belief system that believes it is a good way to live.


Ok Im seeing what you are saying. This could be used as a good example of why there are different interpretations of scripture   It all kind of depends on how you read it.
So maybe it means we have the responsibility to consider (consider of course doesn't mean agree with) those who want to live for "me". In that are they "wrong" or "bad", should be punished somehow? Sent to he11 even?
Its kind of interesting that taken individually, no problem. Put them on the same list, then they can appear to contradict etc depending on who's reading it.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok Im seeing what you are saying. This could be used as a good example of why there are different interpretations of scripture   It all kind of depends on how you read it.
> So maybe it means we have the responsibility to consider (consider of course doesn't mean agree with) those who want to live for "me". In that are they "wrong" or "bad", should be punished somehow? Sent to he11 even?
> Its kind of interesting that taken individually, no problem. Put them on the same list, then they can appear to contradict etc depending on who's reading it.



Correct.  I should point out that the author is clear that these are "suggestions for good living" before detailing the suggestions (which a few read as mandates).

I think what struck me is why they were compelled to compile this list in the first place.......did the author believe the rejection of other codes left a hole that needed to be filled?

I do follow your point on interpretation.  It's just the whole idea of an "atheist 10 commandments" seems contradictory to me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 22, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Correct.  I should point out that the author is clear that these are "suggestions for good living" before detailing the suggestions (which a few read as mandates).
> 
> I think what struck me is why they were compelled to compile this list in the first place.......did the author believe the rejection of other codes left a hole that needed to be filled?
> 
> I do follow your point on interpretation.  It's just the whole idea of an "atheist 10 commandments" seems contradictory to me.


Yeah I think I may be a "luke warm" Agnostic because things like making a "10 non-Commandments" etc never even occurs to me. I don't see the point of it other than to say "well we can have one too".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 22, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> .....for atheists?
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/19/living/atheist-10-commandments/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
> 
> ...




Yeah.  It strikes me as a contradiction as well.  It stems from the fact there's no transcendent authority/law in that belief system.

Basically is an inherent structural weakness of the belief system......a trade off for total autonomy if you will.  Gain autonomy , but lose sovereignty to judge.


It's a subject that's been beaten do death here.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 22, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Seems as though every group has 10 commandments nowadays.
> All are thoughtful but most are not followed by the very people who dream them up and certainly not followed by the people who the commandments are meant for.



How true.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 22, 2014)

I would expect most theist to have a problem with, "There is no one right way to live."


----------



## bullethead (Dec 22, 2014)

10 more "do as I say..not as I do" reasons to point fingers at others.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2014)

660griz said:


> I would expect most theist to have a problem with, "There is no one right way to live."



They aren't our commandments


----------



## TTom (Dec 22, 2014)

I see this as you projecting what you would like to believe atheists mean rather than anything close to an attempt to understand it.

Not having one right way doesn't in any way mean there are no wrong ways. Failure to see that simple logic, and instead projecting do as you please is the epitome of a strawman argument. 

To put it interms closer to the board we share here,

" There is no one right way to hunt." we see this in the plethora of ways our members here hunt. Rifle hunters, handgun hunters, shotgun hunters, compound bow hunters traditional archery hunters, tree stand hunters, ground blind hunters, still hunters, ... we have all of these folks here and yet we seem to be able to agree that there is no one right way to hunt. But we do see a pretty good unified agreement that poaching is a wrong way to hunt, although we have a few edges of beliefs where what defines poaching is not 100% agreed on.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 22, 2014)

TTom said:


> I see this as you projecting what you would like to believe atheists mean rather than anything close to an attempt to understand it.
> 
> Not having one right way doesn't in any way mean there are no wrong ways. Failure to see that simple logic, and instead projecting do as you please is the epitome of a strawman argument.
> 
> ...



That is a wonderful post.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 22, 2014)

TTom said:


> I see this as you projecting what you would like to believe atheists mean rather than anything close to an attempt to understand it.
> 
> Not having one right way doesn't in any way mean there are no wrong ways. Failure to see that simple logic, and instead projecting do as you please is the epitome of a strawman argument.
> 
> ...



Well said.

This may help some of those who don't understand how one can come up with beliefs about good or bad without a ready guide.  

Do you think that all wildlife management at its core comes from a Biblical mandate?  It may for some but it should be readily apparent now how others can and will come up with models for behavior on their own.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2014)

TTom said:


> I see this as you projecting what you would like to believe atheists mean rather than anything close to an attempt to understand it.
> 
> Not having one right way doesn't in any way mean there are no wrong ways. Failure to see that simple logic, and instead projecting do as you please is the epitome of a strawman argument.
> 
> ...



I think you took it a little further than intended.  Obviously I believe you guys recognize the creation of a victim as a bad thing, and as such, wrong.

"Do as you please....." without a victim, is there a wrong action?  You mention poaching: poaching makes a victim out of all the stakeholders of the wildlife being poached.

I'm not going to drag this into the morality argument.  My point is that it seems incredibly odd to declare an absolute on one hand, and recognize lack of such on the other.

No straw man here TTom.  I understand the agnostic worldview pretty well, atheism is a struggle for me.  But, I didn't start the thread to point out that difference.  I just figured we all have a good laugh at goofy Christians, maybe we could see the humor in an atheist 10 commandments?


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 22, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Well said.
> 
> This may help some of those who don't understand how one can come up with beliefs about good or bad without a ready guide.
> 
> Do you think that all wildlife management at its core comes from a Biblical mandate?  It may for some but it should be readily apparent now how others can and will come up with models for behavior on their own.



Wildlife management is an effort to protect the owners of the wildlife (the public) from those who would abuse it.  I think most of us on here have libertarian leanings, but recognize that property must be protected, if not, the owners become victims.  Laws should prevent creation of a victim.  It is the only way a society can function.

A biblical worldview would only apply to wildlife management in the sense that we believe man has dominion, and as such, an inherent right to manage the wildlife.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 22, 2014)

I thought most Christians viewed the Biblical 10 commandments as something given by God, to show proof we couldn't live as worthy righteous individuals and thus needed salvation.
Christianity is based on God's grace and not living good enough to warrant God's grace.
Our guide of living is the Good News as I just mentioned.This is the Gospel.
I don't see any use in comparing the Atheist 10 commandants to the Old Testament 10 Commandments or the Hindu 10 Commandments.


----------



## 660griz (Dec 23, 2014)

Biblical 10 commandments became obsolete with the publishing of the new Testament. At least, that is what I have been told whenever I bring up old testament stuff. 

As for the atheist 10 commandments...amusing.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 26, 2014)

I think it amusing the narrative being told. God, a perfect being, perfectly spoke into existence a perfectly made world, only to wipe it clean with a flood when his two legged creation goes awry(durn it, I knew free will was a bad idea.) Then the ones that repopulated got it so wrong he had to give 10 commandments to keep them straight.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> I think it amusing the narrative being told. God, a perfect being, perfectly spoke into existence a perfectly made world, only to wipe it clean with a flood when his two legged creation goes awry(durn it, I knew free will was a bad idea.) Then the ones that repopulated got it so wrong he had to give 10 commandments to keep them straight.



And when the Commandments failed to keep the two legged nitwits straight the ONLY solution is to impregnate a young woman with his child and then have the two legged nitwits KILL that child so that they can be saved.  And 2000 years later the population of the two legged nitwits is in even worse shape overall and the card carrying believers of such stories are often the worst offenders of those Commandments and Savior teachings....but hey the perfect being knew that none of those solutions would or could wise up the very creatures that created him.


----------



## Israel (Dec 26, 2014)

bullethead said:


> And when the Commandments failed to keep the two legged nitwits straight the ONLY solution is to impregnate a young woman with his child and then have the two legged nitwits KILL that child so that they can be saved.  And 2000 years later the population of the two legged nitwits is in even worse shape overall and the card carrying believers of such stories are often the worst offenders of those Commandments and Savior teachings....but hey the perfect being knew that none of those solutions would or could wise up the very creatures that created him.


You make such an eloquent case for the need of men to be saved.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 26, 2014)

Israel said:


> You make such an eloquent case for the need of men to be saved.


There is no need for anyone to be saved. There is nothing to be saved from and no one to do the saving. 
I just took all the glitz and glamour out of the story and narrowed it down to the basics of murder, rape and more murder. Murder and rape are rarely eloquent.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 27, 2014)

bullethead said:


> There is no need for anyone to be saved. There is nothing to be saved from and no one to do the saving.
> I just took all the glitz and glamour out of the story and narrowed it down to the basics of murder, rape and more murder. Murder and rape are rarely eloquent.



They need to be saved from themselves and their superstitions. Mankind's self flagellation has gone on long enough.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 27, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I think what struck me is why they were compelled to compile this list in the first place.......did the author believe the rejection of other codes left a hole that needed to be filled?



Questions of morality and what constitutes a life well lived become even more pressing when one throws off the rather poor answers attributed to authoritarian beings in the sky. The questions are not new but are no less important today than they were thousands of years ago.


----------



## Israel (Dec 27, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> They need to be saved from themselves and their superstitions. Mankind's self flagellation has gone on long enough.



Yes, we need to be saved.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 27, 2014)

Israel said:


> Yes, we need to be saved.



Why?


----------



## Israel (Dec 27, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Why?



If you don't ask Atlas, why do you ask me?


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 27, 2014)

Israel said:


> If you don't ask Atlas, why do you ask me?



Because I don't agree with you.  You keep insisting that we(the royal) are broke and in need of fixing.  I disagree.  You constantly wax pious about your piousness, but all I see in the long winded speech giving is vanity masked in humility.  No amount of your admitting your faults in the middle of the orating helps.  It's tiresome.

I am not broke.  I have low points and high. I get through it.  I make mistakes and I fix them. I have doubts and they pass. And come back. And pass again.  Life happens. I don't feel the need to look up in this process.  

One of the concepts of Christianity that I cannot accept is this idea that we faulty humans are in constant need of saving.  I simply do not agree.  So the burden is on you, who believe we do need a savior, to explain why.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 27, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> Because I don't agree with you.  You keep insisting that we(the royal) are broke and in need of fixing.  I disagree.  You constantly wax pious about your piousness, but all I see in the long winded speech giving is vanity masked in humility.  No amount of your admitting your faults in the middle of the orating helps.  It's tiresome.
> 
> I am not broke.  I have low points and high. I get through it.  I make mistakes and I fix them. I have doubts and they pass. And come back. And pass again.  Life happens. I don't feel the need to look up in this process.
> 
> One of the concepts of Christianity that I cannot accept is this idea that we faulty humans are in constant need of saving.  I simply do not agree.  So the burden is on you, who believe we do need a savior, to explain why.



Powerful stuff.

I don't understand what Isreal is saying either.  "I'm worthless but he finds me worthy." "I'm unlovable but he loves me."  



Isreal,

Tell me about when you met Jesus.  Tell me how he appeared to you.  What was he wearing?  What color was his hair? Use as plain language as you can stand to; like your giving an eyewitness testimony to a police detective.  

What makes you so certain that "He" will: never leave you, loves you, never lets you down, forgives you, sees worth in you, is perfect in every way, is just, is kind, is the epitome of morality, loves the little children etc. How do you know these thing you claim?


----------



## Israel (Dec 27, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> They need to be saved from themselves and their superstitions. Mankind's self flagellation has gone on long enough.



I don't disagree with the above, at all.
It's not even the "they" that stands out as much as by the absence of another...the "we".

Yes, one side, either side, both sides, distinguish themselves in the application of the "they". The they that are always the ones in need of fixing, the they that either hold back progress, or the they that are seen to be abandoning a foundation. The "they" that don't quite measure up to the apotheosis, the ideal, the inward idol...of what it means to be a "real man".
You believe you have this less than others?
Have you looked? Have you listened?
To find a fault is by presumption to be in possession of what can discern real from false, true from lie, perfect from imperfect.
We all need saving...from our own measurements, that always lead to a false balance.
Whose toe is on the scale? 
My own alone is all am responsible for.
That I am tedious, does not negate that I am.
But what could a man know of being willing to be tedious, had he not seen through the vanity all of being fascinating can earn him? 

A "hero" got a lot of press recently.
If only such a smart man could learn it's not wise to stand upon another man's shoulders without his invitation or permission. Isaac Newton has much to say about idols. If one cares to, they may read it here:
http://www.enlighteningscience.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00064

I guess I can't help but think that Neil could imagine himself being "buds" with Newton had he only lived back then. Someone far wiser than I grasped the whole of it when addressing those with a not dissimilar vanity:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.…

I am guessing that many...here and elsewhere would easily mouth the obverse..."I am a thinking man, I would be just as much an atheist in 4000BCE/1000BCE...0..., as today. How far back must you go to separate from "your father?" And what will you do in tomorrow...that doesn't even exist. Adrift all...now...only now. With nothing to know...but now.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 27, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Powerful stuff.
> 
> I don't understand what Isreal is saying either.  "I'm worthless but he finds me worthy." "I'm unlovable but he loves me."
> 
> ...



That is exactly who his posts remind me of. It's like GK Chesterton having a bad day.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 27, 2014)

Israel said:


> I don't disagree with the above, at all.
> It's not even the "they" that stands out as much as by the absence of another...the "we".
> 
> Yes, one side, either side, both sides, distinguish themselves in the application of the "they". The they that are always the ones in need of fixing, the they that either hold back progress, or the they that are seen to be abandoning a foundation. The "they" that don't quite measure up to the apotheosis, the ideal, the inward idol...of what it means to be a "real man".
> ...



More verbal diarrhea. Try getting your point across in a concise manner.

My point was, if you are a slave to superstition nobody can save you but you. Try facing your fears for a change. Look inward and confront them instead of expecting someone that died two thousand years ago to save you from your own fallibility and mortality.


----------



## Israel (Dec 27, 2014)

Come and meet a man who told me all I ever did.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 27, 2014)

Israel said:


> Come and meet a man who told me all I ever did.



I'm your huckleberry. Have your man post. Ask him to join us in this conversation. I still would like to ask him about the names of those stars you couldn't get him to do a month ago.


----------



## Israel (Dec 27, 2014)

You may ask him yourself. he's not far from you at all.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 27, 2014)

Nonsense.
I have asked many times and did not make up an answer that I needed to hear.  Nobody else answered me.
Please stop with the hollow claims and transparent promises. None of the two A's down here has ever benefited from your claims. None of the two A's down here has ever experienced any of your statements. You cheerlead for a team with a missing QB.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 27, 2014)

Israel said:


> Come and meet a man who told me all I ever did.




I'll ask again in case you missed it.


Isreal,

Tell me about when you met Jesus. Tell me how he appeared to you. What was he wearing? What color was his hair? Use as plain language as you can stand to; like your giving an eyewitness testimony to a police detective.

What makes you so certain that "He" will: never leave you, loves you, never lets you down, forgives you, sees worth in you, is perfect in every way, is just, is kind, is the epitome of morality, loves the little children etc. How do you know these thing you claim?


----------



## Israel (Dec 28, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I'll ask again in case you missed it.
> 
> 
> Isreal,
> ...



Only once have I seen what I believe was his face, someday perhaps we could discuss the particulars.

As to the rest.
A man is known by his word. 
Perhaps rightly you have many questions..."how do you know what he said? How do you know what you have read is not simply a concoction of men putting words in his mouth, after all, you freely admit that even what you read was penned by "men", conceding that even by the narrative, Jesus himself is never purported to have written anything "handed down". It's all at best, very second hand...if not a fabrication...so do you have a lot of trust in the amanuenses as sort of faithful stenographers, also?
And what about preservation, even if the "stenographers" were perfectly honest? What about translations? Which do you believe is the truth? NIV? KJV? ASB? NWT? YLT? etc? And what of all the writings that mention him, how do you know that what may have been excluded from "canon" is less credible than what was chosen to be included? What of the "Gospel of Thomas" and others? Could you be in complete error as to what you accept, based solely on the whims of some council millennia ago? A group of men which you do not even concede as necessarily what _you_ call apostles, but clerics which, even if well intentioned, you do not accord any sort of attendant inspiration? You don't even seem to know their names...or care about their character.
Whence even this persuasion about the bible at all?
If you were raised in Islamabad, wouldn't you be just as persuaded of and by the koran?
How do you know "your" God is anymore the God overall than Allah? Or the FSM...or Shiva and Krishna, et al?


How do you know?


How does one know anything?

"If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself."

I might tell you someday of all my unwitting experiments in the testing of Jesus' word. Till then, if you don't believe him, why would you believe me?

Living as I do, learning to accept that it is all upon a "need to know" basis once seemed even less than attractive, for what I mistook as need was just curiosity. Curiosity may have its proper place, but need...need...must be revealed for entertainments to give way to things unseen and unknown. But, needed.


----------



## Israel (Dec 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Nonsense.
> _I have asked many times _and did not make up an answer that I needed to hear.  Nobody else answered me.
> Please stop with the hollow claims and transparent promises. None of the two A's down here has ever benefited from your claims. None of the two A's down here has ever experienced any of your statements. You cheerlead for a team with a missing QB.



In light of what I'd written above it could appear that "my" need to know I assess as greater than yours.
That just is not so.
You tell me just what I need to hear. But, of which I did not know, till I heard it.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 28, 2014)

Israel said:


> In light of what I'd written above it could appear that "my" need to know I assess as greater than yours.
> That just is not so.
> You tell me just what I need to hear. But, of which I did not know, till I heard it.


If our needs to know are equally as important to Jesus why am I ignored? Why if I am a person that needs more convincing do I not receive as much evidence as needed to convince me?
I am told by you and the Gospels that all I have to do is ask and I shall receive. I have been told so much and have been neglected as many times as I have asked that my only conclusion is that I believe that You believe what you say is true, but despite all of your claims based off of your beliefs they are untruthful. Not one thing you promise or claim has happened. But blame cannot be solely be put on you  because the place you get your information from does not and has not fulfilled a claim or promise either. The notion of "wait till you die to find out" is the final grasp at hoping what you believe finally comes true because every tactic and promise made by you, people like you, and the very scriptures where you get your information has been unfulfilled to every living sole in the last 2000 years. You cannot argue that Jesus' word is universal because it is proven it is not. I am at least one of billions of examples of that. 
I can truly appreciate apologetics that have the ability to explain religion and religious claims in layman's terms. That really is the core of apologetics and a good apologist. What you post here is not apologetics. You have a unique ability in your writing style but it is not apologetic at all. It is pro religious propaganda that normally takes place in pro religious like minded forums where everyone believes it because there is no need to back it up. 
In here, try as you might, you have not yet been able to shed the propaganda and offer truthful explanations that back up the claims you make in every post.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 28, 2014)

bullethead said:


> If our needs to know are equally as important to Jesus why am I ignored? Why if I am a person that needs more convincing do I not receive as much evidence as needed to convince me?
> I am told by you and the Gospels that all I have to do is ask and I shall receive. I have been told so much and have been neglected as many times as I have asked that my only conclusion is that I believe that You believe what you say is true, but despite all of your claims based off of your beliefs they are untruthful. Not one thing you promise or claim has happened. But blame cannot be solely be put on you  because the place you get your information from does not and has not fulfilled a claim or promise either. The notion of "wait till you die to find out" is the final grasp at hoping what you believe finally comes true because every tactic and promise made by you, people like you, and the very scriptures where you get your information has been unfulfilled to every living sole in the last 2000 years. You cannot argue that Jesus' word is universal because it is proven it is not. I am at least one of billions of examples of that.
> I can truly appreciate apologetics that have the ability to explain religion and religious claims in layman's terms. That really is the core of apologetics and a good apologist. What you post here is not apologetics. You have a unique ability in your writing style but it is not apologetic at all. It is pro religious propaganda that normally takes place in pro religious like minded forums where everyone believes it because there is no need to back it up.
> In here, try as you might, you have not yet been able to shed the propaganda and offer truthful explanations that back up the claims you make in every post.



Exactly.  Even testimony would be better than simple proclamation.  Maybe it's time we heard some details about this:



Israel said:


> Only once have I seen what I believe was his face, someday perhaps we could discuss the particulars.
> 
> I might tell you someday of all my unwitting experiments in the testing of Jesus' word. Till then, if you don't believe him, why would you believe me?



I would believe you if you could prove yourself credible.  Tell me about the undeniable experience.  Give me examples of how you tested and retested until you were certain that it was true.  That's the kind of stuff that we understand.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 28, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Exactly.  Even testimony would be better than simple proclamation.  Maybe it's time we heard some details about this:
> 
> 
> 
> I would believe you if you could prove yourself credible.  Tell me about the undeniable experience.  Give me examples of how you tested and retested until you were certain that it was true.  That's the kind of stuff that we understand.



Here is a simple test. Keep the testimony the same but change the name of the god and offer it to Israel from someone else and see if it convinces him of that god.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 28, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Here is a simple test. Keep the testimony the same but change the name of the god and offer it to Israel from someone else and see if it convinces him of that god.



I don't think it's necessarily like that.  I think he's talking about a specific critter like Bigfoot.  The evidence for Bigfoot would be different than the evidence for the Loch Ness Monster.

I want to hear about the "tracks", the "video", the eyewitness account.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 28, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think it's necessarily like that.  I think he's talking about a specific critter like Bigfoot.  The evidence for Bigfoot would be different than the evidence for the Loch Ness Monster.
> 
> I want to hear about the "tracks", the "video", the eyewitness account.



Would it really be different? A photo of two different animals are still photos. The physical bodies may be different but they are still physical bodies. The nature of the evidence is the same. Changing the name of the animal or of the god shouldnt' change the bar of what would establish their existence.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 28, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Would it really be different? A photo of two different animals are still photos. The physical bodies may be different but they are still physical bodies. The nature of the evidence is the same. Changing the name of the animal or of the god shouldnt' change the bar of what would establish their existence.



True.  But by their own admission the various gods manifest themselves in different ways, burning bush, eagle etc.   I want to know what he saw.  That's why I put tracks and video in "   ".


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 28, 2014)




----------

