Dat Noah Flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2015, 09:32 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(26-05-2015 02:17 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 06:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  An ancient text can be interpreted to give an approximate time for an event for which there is no evidence. Right - so convincing. Dodgy

No, you have no credibility with me because you have not presented anything credible.
Your confirmation bias is blindingly obvious to everyone but you.

You are a skillful logician and pundit, however, Chas, you are completely saying the reverse of my point above.

Better would be "An ancient text states a time for the formation of modern documents, society, agronomy, etc., etc. which are verifiable as history. Pre-history loses all these threads of society quickly..."

No, your fairy tale was written after the fact - it predicts nothing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-05-2015, 09:37 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(26-05-2015 02:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(22-05-2015 11:19 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  1. When it comes to some of these topics, yes it is quite black and white. It would be a lie to claim evolution to be true and also that a woman is created magically from a man's rib. You need as much "grey" areas as you can get to keep your fantasy world intact - not me.

2. I am not looking for salvation you presumptuous dolt - only facts.

If you say so. I believe God intervenes at times in the natural world, and this is called "super-natural" or "above the usual, natural". As soon as you prove naturalism to me, we can abandon the Adam and Eve line of thinking...

Science assumes methodological naturalism. That has been proven to work by the results.

The success of this lends credence to the truth of ontological naturalism.

Quote:...I'm sorry to hear you are looking only for facts that don't lead to the Bible, Jesus and salvation. That seems a little narrow-minded to my way of thinking.

There are no facts that lead to the Bible, Jesus, or salvation - there are just delusions.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
26-05-2015, 09:55 PM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
If your way of thinking leads you to the bible, jesus, and salvation, your thinking is faith-based.
Faith is not fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
27-05-2015, 09:50 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(26-05-2015 02:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 02:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The hypothetical method (to falsify a possibly falsifiable claim) would need to presuppose certain things, yes. Some of the greatest apologists of the past several centuries were skeptics/atheists who employed that method on the Bible in an attempt to falsify its claims. You presuppose many things, as do many people, I'm sure.

I presuppose reasonable things, such as the reliability of logic and my senses (while realizing that my senses can sometimes be deceptive). That is entirely different from presupposing that because a character in a story mentions a character from another story, the older character must have really existed and the story in which he appears must be literally true. That is only reasonable with the help of several additional dubious presuppositions. The whole thing is a house of cards. Noah is no more likely to have existed in real life than Captain Ahab. And if Jesus existed, he is highly unlikely to have been anything like the characters portrayed in the Gospels (yes, I said characters, plural -- because the Jesus of John's gospel is a different character than the Jesus of the other three gospels).

You certainly would be 100% correct, except for the things I've cited elsewhere--that there are reasonable pieces of evidence outside the Bible for things like the Flood, the historicity of Jesus, even the miracles of Christ, particularly, and most germane for you and I--the resurrection.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(26-05-2015 03:04 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 02:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I believe God intervenes at times in the natural world, and this is called "super-natural" or "above the usual, natural". As soon as you prove naturalism to me, we can abandon the Adam and Eve line of thinking...

...I'm sorry to hear you are looking only for facts that don't lead to the Bible, Jesus and salvation. That seems a little narrow-minded to my way of thinking.

So you "believe" god intervenes at times - who friggin' cares what you believe. Let me guess, he only intervenes at those times you need him or cannot explain something. Prove naturalism you say, this from some idiot that believes in the adam and freaking eve children's tale - grow up!

I don't discriminate between facts I come across moron, as they will lead to the coreect and supported conclusion. Show me a fact that supports the need for salvation, or a woman created from my rib - go ahead i am waiting.

You are exhausting man. Were you strung out on drugs or molested or something? You cling to ridiculous claims too much to be a sane person with no serious skeletons in his closet.

The sole ridiculous claims I see above are yours:

Quote:I don't discriminate between facts I come across moron, as they will lead to the coreect and supported conclusion.

1. I discriminate between "facts" to see whether they are truly facts.

2. You feel you always come to the correct conclusion, while I am willing to admit my personal biases and past errors.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(26-05-2015 09:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-05-2015 02:14 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If you say so. I believe God intervenes at times in the natural world, and this is called "super-natural" or "above the usual, natural". As soon as you prove naturalism to me, we can abandon the Adam and Eve line of thinking...

Science assumes methodological naturalism. That has been proven to work by the results.

The success of this lends credence to the truth of ontological naturalism.

Quote:...I'm sorry to hear you are looking only for facts that don't lead to the Bible, Jesus and salvation. That seems a little narrow-minded to my way of thinking.

There are no facts that lead to the Bible, Jesus, or salvation - there are just delusions.

I call baloney. Ontological naturalism involves assumptions of an almost religious nature. In fact, that is why it is a synonym for metaphysical naturalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

Obviously, I would also disagree with your second point. The Bible is rife with facts, verifiable in archaeology and elsewhere. You merely are employing an anti-supernatural bias to everything in and outside the Bible in this universe also.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. You feel you always come to the correct conclusion, while I am willing to admit my personal biases and past errors.

[Image: hum-bullshit-1024x768-wallpaper-861314.jpg]

Bullshit!

You still keep quoting the Bible like it is a reliable source when it been demonstrated to you multiple times just how unreliable it is. You still treat it like evidence, instead of a claim in search of (and failing to find) corroborative evidence.

So fuck off. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-05-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(26-05-2015 09:55 PM)pablo Wrote:  If your way of thinking leads you to the bible, jesus, and salvation, your thinking is faith-based.
Faith is not fact.

Faith = trust

Blind faith = trust in something without supporting facts or evidence

Reasoned faith = trust in something offering supporting facts, reasons to trust

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-05-2015 09:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  2. You feel you always come to the correct conclusion, while I am willing to admit my personal biases and past errors.

[Image: hum-bullshit-1024x768-wallpaper-861314.jpg]

Bullshit!

You still keep quoting the Bible like it is a reliable source when it been shown to you multiple times just how unreliable it is. You still treat it like evidence, instead of a claim in search of (and failing to find) corroborative evidence.

So fuck off. Drinking Beverage

I quote the Bible at TTA mainly when TTA'ers misquote it, mis-remember it, or create straw men attacks at items not listed within.

For my own self, I'm always looking at corroborative evidence, wherever it leads, for or against Bible doctrines.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 10:25 AM
RE: Dat Noah Flood
(27-05-2015 09:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I quote the Bible at TTA mainly when TTA'ers misquote it, mis-remember it, or create straw men attacks at items not listed within.

For my own self, I'm always looking at corroborative evidence, wherever it leads, for or against Bible doctrines.


Oh, sure, we're not 'interpreting it correctly'. Dodgy

[Image: mBzKi.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: