TheTruth101 wrote:
Ooberman wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
You should probably stop this nonsense, but considering the reading enjoyment, please continue.
Along with my previous post, I find this a fascinating exercise in how the Myth of Jesus most probably developed.
Here, we see the superstitious person has been caught out, and the claims to be wrong. He has two options, give up, or retrench, fortifying his position and declaring other people simply wrong.
Now, it appears he is going for the angle of "she claimed supernatural stuff you can't verify! So there! I win!"
This retrenching is a product of cognitive dissonance. He will never admit to being wrong in this group because of the fear of being considered wrong about everything.
Somewhere in his mind, he probably knows he is wrong, but he won't let that come out. He must save face.
He is like one of the early Christians. Willing to believe any myth told to him, even embellishing on the factual data, and staunchly defending some principle that is impossible to prove or disprove (little creatures, and what not).
???
If you go throgh the thread I mentioned numerous times that the "prophecy" was just a small part of the OP and most of the pointers I was trying to get across was that she was BLIND however was able to see and dream visually. In all, I
was, for the most part, pointing out the logical fallacy behind "scientific" reasoning of "dreams".
A member of this forum pointed out later down the thread that she was NOT born blind and that she got blind at age 12. And in accordance with science, if a person is NOT blind upto 5 years of age, and becomes blind after, that very blind person can still have visual vivid dreams. He put up scientific sources and I agreed and
retracted (meaning my statement was
wrong) my statement on
post #35.
It rather seems like you were in it for the "prophecy" for the most part, since your post implies that "science" wasnt really what you were considering for the most part, but rather the "prophecy" spoken. Which in all, goes against your atheism and the very foundation of your belief.
The above post is actually pretty funny. Its like a statement saying my belief (science and logic) comes second to spirituality (prophecy and supernatural).
I am capable of understanding all the angles you are covering.
The prophesy's were obviously typical prophesies, regardless of who made them: that are vague and creatively applied to any major catastrophe.
The idea of visualizing things is not too difficult to imagine, since any child, blind or not, would make connections to shapes of things they know. A blind person can develop an "image" of a dog by petting one.
OTherwise, the entire phenomenon can be explained as a blind persons use of language. We speak in visual terms ("see ya later") and the blind use those aphorisms, too.
What they "see" is very different, I would imagine.
The point of your OP is that science can't explain a phenomena (that you haven't documented, BTW) so you ram your God into the Gap.
My interest, which you seem to miss, is how your post was an embellishment on a story that already was contradicted by the woman's own friends, allegedly.
You don't know where you heard she was blind from birth, but you were happy to repeat it because it was a compelling story... like a man who rose form the dead 3 days later.
You are no different from any other superstitious person today or during Jesus's time. You don't require evidence, you just like to repeat stories that confirm your belief in the supernatural.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees
