Unbelievable. Same exact mental pattern. No, OBVIOUSLY, making an -equivalent- prophecy.
Oh, sure. Here's one: no person will ever exhibit the powers of Superman. Here's another: no person will ever grow to be over 100 feet tall. Here's another: no man will ever be able to tell a mountain to cast itself into the sea and have it happen. How's that for equivalent? So far, in the last 10 seconds, I have amassed 6.8 billion data points, and it's only going to grow. Damn, this is fun! I should have taken up prophesy a long time ago! Perhaps if you weren't so blind, you'd see that your "prophesy" is just the same. There is no evidence at all that men ever lived to be hundreds or even tens of thousands(if you buy into Sumerian mythology) of years old. Yet, the oldest parts of your holy book clearly mention people hundreds of years old. So, the non-idiots of the world would look at your prophesy and say, "ah, here's an attempt by Jewish story tellers at an explanation for why these supposed ancients lived so long, and why no one lives that long now." And we'd look at the comparable lifespan of our closest relative, the chimpanzee, along with the general lifespans of mammals our size, and we'd point and laugh at people who think this is the result of some divine edict.
Obviously, I would know about "Saint" Calment. I'm not doing this exact same thread again I already did a month ago.
So, you are stupid enough to have been corrected a month ago, and yet still make the claim?
Suffice it to say--two significant digits were specified, all the billions fit within that specification, per how math always works for measurements. This is one of a half-dozen ways she fails to be a contradiction, but since it's absolutely clear you have the same personality type as that other guy did for a hundred posts, and will randomly switch topics and evade the entire way along each individual line of argument, claiming that since you're still talking irrelevantly about at least one of them, you've met what's necessary for you to do with -all- the rationales, to establish a contradiction. Not going to do that again. "120", two significant digits, all of the billions fitting with in that, -one- statistical outlier across all time, not showing it inaccurate, but actually illustrating its accuracy as an endpoint as specified.
Ah, so you retreat from your claim, start tossing out personal reasons as to why I'm going to find your claim silly, and then claim that your god's word is vague enough to include a certain measure of error. So, tell me, where does it say in your holy book exactly how much deviance we can expect from divine pronouncements? With the increase in medical knowledge and technique, people are living longer and longer. How long will your faith in this "prophesy" last when it becomes more common for people to exceed 120?
I weight them all, as is appropriate, according to the context. If Joseph Smith had martyred himself for a particular belief, rather than living a life of a self-interested scam artist, that would have weight quite heavily as a significant factor.
So, you aren't evaluating the prophesies themselves, and their likelihood of being valid, but rather by the subjective behavior of the prophet? No wonder you are so screwed up.
I use basic, logical criteria to evaluate things, same as everyone does when not evading as you are now.
Liar. You use specious reasoning and selective observation to rationalize the beliefs you already have.
I was once very close to considering myself Objectivist, and would easily outclass you if I were arguing your side of atheism
Outclass me? LOL, you are barely even coherent! You hop from "I'm sure that I'll live forever," to "the fact that people have a lower average lifespan than mythical characters from my holy book is proof that god exists." In case you haven't noticed yet, you are a joke to me.
I also draw and synthesize quite a bit from Zen Buddhism, where appropriate, as well, and have for many years.
You should definitely favor that more, because the rest of it is nonsense.
As usual, no cognitive limitation at all across theists in actual reality, though I realize it's a favorite made-up claim for you, as you parrot and massage Dawkins' coattails.
See, before you can even start to "outclass" someone argumentatively, you have to be able to communicate. Here's another example of weighty sounding gibberish. "No cognitive limitation at all across theists in actual reality?" Do you even read what you write before you hit Submit?
Nice breezy abstractions. Still waiting for a single empirical example to reference
Well, I pointed the secular humanists out to you. It's not my fault if you are too stone stupid to look at them.
(including, I might add, during the millenia of inter-tribal bloodbath existing before any "religion" at all, that would have been necessary for you even to exist),
And how does this invalidate secular humanism in the least? Seriously, you think you outclass me when you spout things like this? Even assuming that primitive tribal life was particularly bloody(look at some of our closest ancestors, like the bonobos and chimps, and you will see social cohesion and cooperation in addition to physical altercations), it has zero bearing on secular humanism.
so I can know this isn't just your parasitical fantasy.
LOL