Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2015, 12:20 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 11:55 AM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  People like you are why we haven't done better as a species.

Yeah, we can always be "better" animals, right? Laugh out load

(22-03-2015 11:55 AM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  You are a pitiful example of the result of child indoctrination.

I can say the same thing to you, after all, it is as a child that you learn about shit like evolution Laugh out load

(22-03-2015 11:55 AM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  You're are an arrogant, irritating, delusional and dangerous fucked up human being.

Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 12:22 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 11:57 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The Bible could be true regardless of whether there is any outside books or documents to support it.

There is no reason to suppose that it is.

And many to support the idea that it is a pile of shit.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
22-03-2015, 01:58 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 11:39 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The Bible could be true regardless of whether there is any outside books or documents to support it.

"Could be true" is not an argument. In the case of Jesus we are speaking of an era in which the contemporary culture kept extensive records. A crucified criminal coming back to life would be well documented. And the Biblical account of the crucifixion itself is contradictory. Different Gospels even place it on different days. And of course there's the fact that crucified criminals were NOT taken down and buried. They were left on the cross to be eaten by scavengers. It was part of the punishment in a culture where burial was regarded as essential for the peace of the soul.

Theists always assert that we cannot be moral unless we have a divine moral authority. But how do you know your Bible is a correct account of what God wants? The many contradictions and errors in the Bible demonstrate that it is not a reliable authority. And even among sects that regard the Bible as the literal Word of God, there is strong disagreement about what it says. So you have no way of knowing whether your interpretation is correct.

Bottom line, you have no more valid basis for your morality than atheists have. You have less, because the belief that you can possibly know the will of a supreme being is clearly delusional.

The one universal of religions is that as soon as a religion arises, its adherents will divide into multiple quarreling sects. Each of those sects will claim to have the One True Faith ™ and often they spend centuries killing each other to decide which is right.

You have claimed that Christianity is "obviously" the true religion, but there is not just one Christianity, there are many, and many of those mutually condemn each other to hell for believing the "wrong" things about the Bible.

I would not put my faith in a book written by people who thought that showing spots to a cow would cause her to give birth to spotted calves. Or a book that gives contradictory accounts of creation from one chapter to the next. Or a book with so many historical inaccuracies. Or a book that says God loves us, after having previously quoted God as saying to his most loyal servant (Job) "You are a bug and I'll squish you under my boot if I feel like it."

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like daniel1948's post
22-03-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 11:39 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The Bible could be true regardless of whether there is any outside books or documents to support it.

"Could be true" is not an argument.

I think I love you...you can stay. Thumbsup

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  "Could be true" is not an argument.

See, this is typical straw man stuff. I wasn't using "could be true" as an freakin' argument...I made that statement because YOU were the one implying and making it seem as if the Bible needs external Biblical sources to corroborate it, as if it can't be true without extra-Biblical sources..and I said that the Bible COULD be true regardless of whether or not there are extra-Biblical sources, which is just the fact of the matter.

So please don't misrepresent what I say, Daniel-son *bows* Big Grin

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  In the case of Jesus we are speaking of an era in which the contemporary culture kept extensive records.

You are making it seem as if the Christian claims were that Jesus used magical powers to overthrow the Roman government...the biggest city that Jesus traveled to was probably Jerusalem, and the rest were small villages and towns, where the average person could NOT read or write, so "extensive records" my ass. Second, you are assuming that just because no records were discovered YET, that no records exists at all. Maybe there were extensive records, but they may have been lost over time, or we haven't discovered them yet.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  A crucified criminal coming back to life would be well documented.

I don't know what "well documented" means. If you need more evidence than four independent biographies of Jesus (which we have), letters an epistles from a man that knew Jesus' followers and lived during the time of Jesus (which we have), and the historicity of the origin of Christianity based on the belief in Jesus, dating back to the 30's AD (which we have), then I am sorry, I can't help you.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  And the Biblical account of the crucifixion itself is contradictory. Different Gospels even place it on different days.

Different days? What? Please explain.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  And of course there's the fact that crucified criminals were NOT taken down and buried. They were left on the cross to be eaten by scavengers. It was part of the punishment in a culture where burial was regarded as essential for the peace of the soul.

Stay off of the infidel sites, bro. If you actually wipe the dust of your Bible and READ the thing, you would find out that Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and PERSONALLY asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him (Matt 27:58).

See how that works???

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Theists always assert that we cannot be moral unless we have a divine moral authority.

Yet, another misrepresentation Facepalm

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  But how do you know your Bible is a correct account of what God wants?

I simply have faith/trust that it is...just like how you have faith/trust in your own naturally evolved cognitive thoughts and views regarding the world, including morality.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  The many contradictions and errors in the Bible demonstrate that it is not a reliable authority.

Show me an alleged contradiction that hasn't already been addressed by good ole fashioned apologetics Cool

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  And even among sects that regard the Bible as the literal Word of God, there is strong disagreement about what it says. So you have no way of knowing whether your interpretation is correct.

True, for the most part, we Christians don't always agree, but there is one thing that 99.9% of us agree on, and that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and salvation is through him alone. As long as we agree on that much, we cool.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Bottom line, you have no more valid basis for your morality than atheists have.

If objective morality exists, then I do.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  You have less, because the belief that you can possibly know the will of a supreme being is clearly delusional.

If the Supreme Being left us his written Word, which has been carefully preserved over thousands of years, then I can possibly know.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  You have claimed that Christianity is "obviously" the true religion, but there is not just one Christianity, there are many, and many of those mutually condemn each other to hell for believing the "wrong" things about the Bible.

I don't know of any Christian sect/denomination that condemns people to hell for believing the wrong things about the Bible. Please enlighten me on which sect that is.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  I would not put my faith in a book written by people who thought that showing spots to a cow would cause her to give birth to spotted calves.

I would not put my faith in any book or worldview written by people who think that long ago, when no one was around to see, animals were making these drastic magical transformations in their body structures.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Or a book that gives contradictory accounts of creation from one chapter to the next.

Or a book or worldview that states that inanimate matter suddenly/gradually came to life and began talking, thinking, laughing, and having sex.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Or a book with so many historical inaccuracies.

Or a book or worldview that states the universe either popped in to being uncaused out of nothing, or that it is eternal in its past.

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Or a book that says God loves us, after having previously quoted God as saying to his most loyal servant (Job) "You are a bug and I'll squish you under my boot if I feel like it."

Or a book or worldview that condemns God for his actions, yet they can't explain the basis and foundations for their personal standards of right or wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2015, 07:30 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  "Could be true" is not an argument.

See, this is typical straw man stuff. I wasn't using "could be true" as an freakin' argument...I made that statement because YOU were the one implying and making it seem as if the Bible needs external Biblical sources to corroborate it, as if it can't be true without extra-Biblical sources..and I said that the Bible COULD be true regardless of whether or not there are extra-Biblical sources, which is just the fact of the matter.

So please don't misrepresent what I say, Daniel-son *bows* Big Grin

The honorific is -san (i.e., さん), but that's the least of what you don't know.

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  In the case of Jesus we are speaking of an era in which the contemporary culture kept extensive records.

You are making it seem as if the Christian claims were that Jesus used magical powers to overthrow the Roman government...the biggest city that Jesus traveled to was probably Jerusalem, and the rest were small villages and towns, where the average person could NOT read or write, so "extensive records" my ass. Second, you are assuming that just because no records were discovered YET, that no records exists at all. Maybe there were extensive records, but they may have been lost over time, or we haven't discovered them yet.

What about a total solar eclipse? What about goddamn zombies? I mean, the Bible sees fit to throw those details in. What are your thoughts on that?

I like the absence of evidence angle of apologetics, I really do. It's a great way to turn a weakness into a strength; as soon as you grant that you can't disprove something, you're tacitly admitting to having no good reasons to actually believe it, but the petulant insistence that anything that cannot be definitively discounted must therefore be entertained as legitimate is kind of adorable...

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  A crucified criminal coming back to life would be well documented.

I don't know what "well documented" means. If you need more evidence than four independent biographies of Jesus (which we have), letters an epistles from a man that knew Jesus' followers and lived during the time of Jesus (which we have), and the historicity of the origin of Christianity based on the belief in Jesus, dating back to the 30's AD (which we have), then I am sorry, I can't help you.

The oldest Biblical texts (from the new testament) are from the second century at best. The oldest fragments are just that - fragments.

This is the overwhelming consensus of any credible historiography.

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  And the Biblical account of the crucifixion itself is contradictory. Different Gospels even place it on different days.

Different days? What? Please explain.

Nah, let's let you explain this one. On what day was Jesus crucified?

Bonus question: in what year was Jesus born?

hint: the four "independent" biographies (which we have Rolleyes ) disagree.

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  And of course there's the fact that crucified criminals were NOT taken down and buried. They were left on the cross to be eaten by scavengers. It was part of the punishment in a culture where burial was regarded as essential for the peace of the soul.

Stay off of the infidel sites, bro. If you actually wipe the dust of your Bible and READ the thing, you would find out that Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and PERSONALLY asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him (Matt 27:58).

See how that works???

Ah, the old "if Bible then Bible" argument.

Why, yes, if we do indeed presuppose the gospel narratives to be true (despite their contradictions) then we would, indeed, conclude them to be true. Which, alas, tells us nothing, beyond save a testament to the credulity of the willing.

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Theists always assert that we cannot be moral unless we have a divine moral authority.

Yet, another misrepresentation Facepalm

(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  But how do you know your Bible is a correct account of what God wants?

I simply have faith/trust that it is...just like how you have faith/trust in your own naturally evolved cognitive thoughts and views regarding the world, including morality.

"I simply have faith".

End of line. Do not pass go.

You know that's not an argument, right? It's a feeling.

And while I do not dispute that you have that feeling, I have encountered many an other devout believer whose feelings contradict yours. Oh, well.

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  The many contradictions and errors in the Bible demonstrate that it is not a reliable authority.

Show me an alleged contradiction that hasn't already been addressed by good ole fashioned apologetics Cool

In what year was Jesus born?

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  And even among sects that regard the Bible as the literal Word of God, there is strong disagreement about what it says. So you have no way of knowing whether your interpretation is correct.

True, for the most part, we Christians don't always agree, but there is one thing that 99.9% of us agree on, and that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind, and salvation is through him alone. As long as we agree on that much, we cool.

Ironically, that's quite a minority position among Christians.

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Bottom line, you have no more valid basis for your morality than atheists have.

If objective morality exists, then I do.

I invite you to consider the following. Let us examine human history under the presupposition that some objective morality exists. What does that change?

People still manifestly disagree regardless. The mere presumed existence of an objective morality does not mean that it is obvious to people, nor that they follow it, even were they trying to - one must accept that different people, each believing themselves correct, have reached different conclusions. At most one can be in accord with any "objective" external morality, but that doesn't change their views and conclusions.

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  You have less, because the belief that you can possibly know the will of a supreme being is clearly delusional.

If the Supreme Being left us his written Word, which has been carefully preserved over thousands of years, then I can possibly know.

The Supreme Being's written Word, you say?

You mean the Quran?

No, wait, I know this. The Book of Mormon?

Wait. the Guru Grunth Sahib?

Wait. Damn...

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  You have claimed that Christianity is "obviously" the true religion, but there is not just one Christianity, there are many, and many of those mutually condemn each other to hell for believing the "wrong" things about the Bible.

I don't know of any Christian sect/denomination that condemns people to hell for believing the wrong things about the Bible. Please enlighten me on which sect that is.

You're very boring, did you know that?

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  I would not put my faith in a book written by people who thought that showing spots to a cow would cause her to give birth to spotted calves.

I would not put my faith in any book or worldview written by people who think that long ago, when no one was around to see, animals were making these drastic magical transformations in their body structures.

Do rabbits chew their cud?

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Or a book that gives contradictory accounts of creation from one chapter to the next.

Or a book or worldview that states that inanimate matter suddenly/gradually came to life and began talking, thinking, laughing, and having sex.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEREFORE IT'S NOT TRUE.

hint: that's not an argument. Not that whining about a straw man is particularly productive in any case.

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Or a book with so many historical inaccuracies.

Or a book or worldview that states the universe either popped in to being uncaused out of nothing, or that it is eternal in its past.

Exactly what part of "we don't know" are you misrepresenting here?

Not that your facile naive intuition is worth so much as dog shit when it comes to understanding the universe, but that's another matter.

(22-03-2015 03:27 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Or a book that says God loves us, after having previously quoted God as saying to his most loyal servant (Job) "You are a bug and I'll squish you under my boot if I feel like it."

Or a book or worldview that condemns God for his actions, yet they can't explain the basis and foundations for their personal standards of right or wrong.

If you're talking about specific books, you should probably mention them, so the audience at home can follow along.

Notwithstanding that all of us non-religious people don't, in fact, get all of our ideas from a book like you do.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like cjlr's post
22-03-2015, 10:57 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The honorific is -san (i.e., さん), but that's the least of what you don't know.

I never seen the word spelled out...it sounds like SON...so like I said, SON Laugh out load

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What about a total solar eclipse?

Thallus' account, referenced by Sextus Julius Africanus.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What about goddamn zombies?

Yeah, the Resurrection of the Son of the Living God had a snowball effect on the dead, apparently Big Grin

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I mean, the Bible sees fit to throw those details in. What are your thoughts on that?

The Bible simply recorded what took place, regardless of what atheists living over 2,000 years later in internet forums would think.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I like the absence of evidence angle of apologetics, I really do. It's a great way to turn a weakness into a strength

Well, it would be different if the critics response is "We don't have evidence for X, therefore, I don't see any reason to think that X is true"... now that is the honest/modest way to go about things...instead, the response is always "We don't have evidence for X, therefore, X isn't true"...that, my friend, is living life on the wild side.

Of course, the atheist response is always the latter, because they think they know everything and they want to flex their muscles and show their ass...no modesty whatsoever.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ; as soon as you grant that you can't disprove something, you're tacitly admitting to having no good reasons to actually believe it, but the petulant insistence that anything that cannot be definitively discounted must therefore be entertained as legitimate is kind of adorable...

Well, if God exists, and he chooses to raise people from the dead, then that is his business. All of my doctrinal beliefs comes from background evidence I have for the existence of God, which is independent evidence from the evidence for Christianity. If Christianity is true, then of course, people can rise from the dead.

Now of course, this notion seems absurd to the atheist, but then again, so does the notion of inanimate matter coming to life, to me. So hey.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The oldest Biblical texts (from the new testament) are from the second century at best. The oldest fragments are just that - fragments.

This is the overwhelming consensus of any credible historiography.

This is laughable. Even if we go with the second century time frame of the earliest manuscripts thus far, that is STILL earlier than any other historical document in antiquity...which would include Alexander the Great, whose biographies were written 400 years after his death and historians view these accounts as genuine.

So if you want to put on the skeptics mask when it comes to the Bible, then also put it on when it comes to other works of antiquity, such as Caesar, Alexander the Great, Pliny, Tactius, Herodotus, and many, many more.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Nah, let's let you explain this one. On what day was Jesus crucified?

Well, if the Resurrection was on a Sunday, that would mean that he was crucified on either Thursday, or Friday.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Bonus question: in what year was Jesus born?

I don't know. If he died of age 33, then take whatever year he was crucified, and work backwards -33 years, and there ya go.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  hint: the four "independent" biographies (which we have Rolleyes ) disagree.

Why?

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah, the old "if Bible then Bible" argument.

If someone is using the Bible to ATTACK the Bible, then someone else can use the Bible to DEFEND the Bible. If it is alright with you, it is alright with me.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Why, yes, if we do indeed presuppose the gospel narratives to be true (despite their contradictions) then we would, indeed, conclude them to be true. Which, alas, tells us nothing, beyond save a testament to the credulity of the willing.

Yet, no one shown one contradiction Dodgy

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "I simply have faith". End of line. Do not pass go.

This is called "selective quoting"...where you quote stuff that you think is convenient enough for your agenda, while omitting the rest of the quote, the part that has a negative effect on your agenda.

Notice you quoted the part where I said "I simply have faith". But you left out the part where I said "...just like how YOU have faith/trust in your own naturally evolved cognitive thoughts and views regarding the world, including morality"

When I said I had faith, I was drawing a parallel between the faith that I have, and the faith that he has, to demonstrate that we both have faith in something...but of course, you conveniently left that part out because you knew you couldn't play the "you have faith game" if it was included, which is just a played out quip that atheists have used against theists for about 500 years.

Nice try Thumbsup

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And while I do not dispute that you have that feeling, I have encountered many an other devout believer whose feelings contradict yours. Oh, well.

Oh don't worry, I intellectual spank Christians too.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  In what year was Jesus born?

The Bible does say. Next.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ironically, that's quite a minority position among Christians.

Name me ONE Christian sect or denomination that don't believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I invite you to consider the following. Let us examine human history under the presupposition that some objective morality exists. What does that change?

Everything. If objective morality exists, then it follows that it can only exist if there is a universal lawgiver...God.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  People still manifestly disagree regardless. The mere presumed existence of an objective morality does not mean that it is obvious to people, nor that they follow it, even were they trying to - one must accept that different people, each believing themselves correct, have reached different conclusions. At most one can be in accord with any "objective" external morality, but that doesn't change their views and conclusions.

Does objective morality exists, yes or no? You said all of that and I STILL don't know your position on the subject.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The Supreme Being's written Word, you say?

You mean the Quran?

No, wait, I know this. The Book of Mormon?

Wait. the Guru Grunth Sahib?

Wait. Damn...

The Bible.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You're very boring, did you know that?

*tap dances, and holds out hat for tip*

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do rabbits chew their cud?

I don't know, I don't see any at my current location.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEREFORE IT'S NOT TRUE.

More like: I see no evidence that it happened, or can happen, therefore, there is no reason for me to believe it.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  hint: that's not an argument. Not that whining about a straw man is particularly productive in any case.

This was another parallel that went over your head, just like the first one.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Exactly what part of "we don't know" are you misrepresenting here?

When you say "God didn't do it", you are also saying "Nature did it". Those are the only two games in town, and guess what? One of them did something.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not that your facile naive intuition is worth so much as dog shit when it comes to understanding the universe, but that's another matter.

Try me. You don't want that problem, either.

(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you're talking about specific books, you should probably mention them, so the audience at home can follow along.

I was gonna tell you the same thing regarding those contradictions you are crying about above....but specific books? Hmm, any book that says reptiles evolved in to birds, and that is probably any text book on biology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2015, 01:40 AM
RE: Question about flood
Your entertainment value is priceless.

ROFL

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2015, 03:40 AM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 11:55 AM)TubbyTubby Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 11:39 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Using your own moral standards to base whether or not your moral standards are right or wrong is the moral version of "using the Bible to explain the Bible" Laugh out load
People like you are why we haven't done better as a species. You are a pitiful example of the result of child indoctrination.

You're are an arrogant, irritating, delusional and dangerous fucked up human being and a proper knob-head to boot.

Bravo! Clap
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The honorific is -san (i.e., さん), but that's the least of what you don't know.

I never seen the word spelled out...it sounds like SON...so like I said, SON Laugh out load

Sure - but it's wrong.

Do you care? Being wrong doesn't seem to be much of a concern to you, I guess...

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What about a total solar eclipse?

Thallus' account, referenced by Sextus Julius Africanus.

Sextus Julius Africanus lived in the late 200s. That he was capable of parroting an earlier story doesn't, in fact, lend it credence.

It's problematic that you don't understand the difference.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What about goddamn zombies?

Yeah, the Resurrection of the Son of the Living God had a snowball effect on the dead, apparently Big Grin

So, you're saying that actually happened then, are you?

You're special.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I mean, the Bible sees fit to throw those details in. What are your thoughts on that?

The Bible simply recorded what took place, regardless of what atheists living over 2,000 years later in internet forums would think.

So, yes, then. You literally think the dead of Jerusalem rose from their graves and wandered around for a while. And nobody contemporary whatsoever made any reference to this.

Notwithstanding you never answered my question as to when this apparently remarkable sequence of events occurred.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I like the absence of evidence angle of apologetics, I really do. It's a great way to turn a weakness into a strength

Well, it would be different if the critics response is "We don't have evidence for X, therefore, I don't see any reason to think that X is true"... now that is the honest/modest way to go about things...instead, the response is always "We don't have evidence for X, therefore, X isn't true"...that, my friend, is living life on the wild side.

That's some nice semantic equivocating, my friend.

To have no evidence for, and much against, despite lacking absolute proof against, leads the sane mind - something with which I'd hope you at least have a neighbour's passing acquaintance with? - to accept said evidence.

Can you prove all the other religions wrong, then?

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Of course, the atheist response is always the latter, because they think they know everything and they want to flex their muscles and show their ass...no modesty whatsoever.

Whereas your attention-whoring on a site like this constitutes, what, precisely? Because so far as I can tell you're actually under the delusion that you're actually correct, and to a greater degree than those you pretend to say claim otherwise, to boot.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ; as soon as you grant that you can't disprove something, you're tacitly admitting to having no good reasons to actually believe it, but the petulant insistence that anything that cannot be definitively discounted must therefore be entertained as legitimate is kind of adorable...

Well, if God exists, and he chooses to raise people from the dead, then that is his business. All of my doctrinal beliefs comes from background evidence I have for the existence of God, which is independent evidence from the evidence for Christianity. If Christianity is true, then of course, people can rise from the dead.

Now of course, this notion seems absurd to the atheist, but then again, so does the notion of inanimate matter coming to life, to me. So hey.

Indeed. Let's leave aside for the moment that "inanimate matter coming to life" is not actually what anyone seriously claims.

What an ignorant fool thinks sounds silly is not, in fact, how rational people evaluate empirically testable claims. We have a slightly better methodology - it's called science. You may have heard of it; you're certainly displaying no hesitation in accepting a great many other scientifically-derived truths, what with the whole using a computer over the internet thing.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The oldest Biblical texts (from the new testament) are from the second century at best. The oldest fragments are just that - fragments.

This is the overwhelming consensus of any credible historiography.

This is laughable. Even if we go with the second century time frame of the earliest manuscripts thus far, that is STILL earlier than any other historical document in antiquity...which would include Alexander the Great, whose biographies were written 400 years after his death and historians view these accounts as genuine.

It's a good thing there's more to validity than how old the surviving copies are, then.
(although it is rather, how should we say - laughable? - that you are disingenuous or just outright ignorant enough to claim that it is!)

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  So if you want to put on the skeptics mask when it comes to the Bible, then also put it on when it comes to other works of antiquity, such as Caesar, Alexander the Great, Pliny, Tactius, Herodotus, and many, many more.

That is, in fact, what historians do. That's their job. Whether or not you know the first thing about historiography and historical methods is clearly an open question - not that I don't know which way I'd bet - but once again your ignorance isn't an argument.

A great deal of what Herodotus's works say is considered inaccurate at best, to offer you the simplest of examples. Furthermore the lives of figures like Alexander or Julius Caesar are corroborated by staggeringly vast amounts of direct material evidence. While we are faced with incomplete and unverifiable textual records, that only leaves the details open to interpretation; the basic facts are indisputable by anyone willing to engage with reality.

There is furthermore the fundamental difference between works such as those attributed to, say, Aristotle - where the actual existence of the man is, though plausible if strictly unfalsifiable, irrelevant to the lasting importance of the ideas contained in the texts - and the all-or-nothing nature of anything to be taken as the foundation of a fundamentalist religion.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Nah, let's let you explain this one. On what day was Jesus crucified?

Well, if the Resurrection was on a Sunday, that would mean that he was crucified on either Thursday, or Friday.

Good non-answer.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Bonus question: in what year was Jesus born?

I don't know. If he died of age 33, then take whatever year he was crucified, and work backwards -33 years, and there ya go.

You don't know, eh?

I do find it interesting that you're so invested in the apparent truth of a story you can't even call up the details of.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  hint: the four "independent" biographies (which we have Rolleyes ) disagree.

Why?

The references in the Gospels to the reign of Herod and the census of Quirinius cannot both be true. This is what people refer to as a contradiction.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah, the old "if Bible then Bible" argument.

If someone is using the Bible to ATTACK the Bible, then someone else can use the Bible to DEFEND the Bible. If it is alright with you, it is alright with me.

Pointing out that it contradicts itself is a valid argument.

Insisting that it's true because it's true is not, in fact, an argument.

Do you understand the difference?

A text that is wholly consistent might be true, but it must be compared against external sources and outside evidence. A text that is inconsistent can be established as such without any outside material. And if it is inconsistent it cannot - by definition - be completely and literally true.

Do you understand the difference?

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Why, yes, if we do indeed presuppose the gospel narratives to be true (despite their contradictions) then we would, indeed, conclude them to be true. Which, alas, tells us nothing, beyond save a testament to the credulity of the willing.

Yet, no one shown one contradiction Dodgy

You're... not actually listening to what anyone else says, are you?

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "I simply have faith". End of line. Do not pass go.

This is called "selective quoting"...where you quote stuff that you think is convenient enough for your agenda, while omitting the rest of the quote, the part that has a negative effect on your agenda.

Notice you quoted the part where I said "I simply have faith". But you left out the part where I said "...just like how YOU have faith/trust in your own naturally evolved cognitive thoughts and views regarding the world, including morality"

I left that out because what other people believe is not directly relevant to what you believe, your pathetic straw man notwithstanding.

If you are, in the end, making recourse to vapid statements of "faith" then you are tacitly admitting that all the aforementioned rigamarole about external evidence doesn't actually matter to you, because it's neither the source nor the support for your beliefs - faith is.

Do you see why that's relevant? By making that statement you obviate nearly every point you've just tried to make.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  When I said I had faith, I was drawing a parallel between the faith that I have, and the faith that he has, to demonstrate that we both have faith in something...but of course, you conveniently left that part out because you knew you couldn't play the "you have faith game" if it was included, which is just a played out quip that atheists have used against theists for about 500 years.

And here I can quite confidently assert that you don't actually understand how other people think.

The "faith" you stubbornly insist other people have is faith only the broadest colloquial sense. A belief in, at a random example, the validity of evidence based empiricism as a means of discerning reality, is not on the same order as the fingers-in-ears chanting you profess to have.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And while I do not dispute that you have that feeling, I have encountered many an other devout believer whose feelings contradict yours. Oh, well.

Oh don't worry, I intellectual spank Christians too.

It's adorable that you think so.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  In what year was Jesus born?

The Bible does say. Next.

If the Bible says, then why, further up in this very post, would you say that you don't know?

That's a special kind of special, all right...

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Ironically, that's quite a minority position among Christians.

Name me ONE Christian sect or denomination that don't believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind.

This is what we call selective quoting.
(you know, an actual example of it)

I was of course referring to your claim that it was all right for that to be the only thing Christians need agree on. Since most denominations hold a staggering array of additional tenets, most of which are mutually exclusive.

There was this little tiff a while back called the Reformation - maybe you've heard of it? Everybody involved was most certainly in accord with the belief that the death of Jesus enabled their salvation, but, funny thing, they still found an awful lot to disagree about. Now, there are of course a lot more such examples, but I tried to pick a big one you'd be familiar with.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I invite you to consider the following. Let us examine human history under the presupposition that some objective morality exists. What does that change?

Everything. If objective morality exists, then it follows that it can only exist if there is a universal lawgiver...God.

That doesn't, in fact, follow. You've just blindly asserted that.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  People still manifestly disagree regardless. The mere presumed existence of an objective morality does not mean that it is obvious to people, nor that they follow it, even were they trying to - one must accept that different people, each believing themselves correct, have reached different conclusions. At most one can be in accord with any "objective" external morality, but that doesn't change their views and conclusions.

Does objective morality exists, yes or no? You said all of that and I STILL don't know your position on the subject.

If you look directly upwards while thinking on it, you may see my point passing above you.

Since the precise point I was making was that it is irrelevant to the actual beliefs and behaviours of real human beings.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The Supreme Being's written Word, you say?

You mean the Quran?

No, wait, I know this. The Book of Mormon?

Wait. the Guru Grunth Sahib?

Wait. Damn...

The Bible.

Oh, you.

And I suppose the equal devotion billions of others grant to those (and other) texts as divinely-inspired and literal truth can be explained by ... ?

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You're very boring, did you know that?

*tap dances, and holds out hat for tip*

No dice.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Do rabbits chew their cud?

I don't know, I don't see any at my current location.

The answer to that question is no, despite what the old testament says.

Incidentally, you needn't have found an actual rabbit to test that. There's this thing called the internet which you must perforce be familiar with, since you're already using it. It can actually answer questions like that for you!

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEREFORE IT'S NOT TRUE.

More like: I see no evidence that it happened, or can happen, therefore, there is no reason for me to believe it.

You know, that is a fairly good parsing of the exact reason so many people think you're spouting off nonsense.

The key difference being, when you deny scientific claims because you don't understand them, all it does is reveal your ignorance. The evidence is, in fact, out there waiting for you.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  hint: that's not an argument. Not that whining about a straw man is particularly productive in any case.

This was another parallel that went over your head, just like the first one.

Friendo, I know exactly what hackneyed misrepresented false equivalence you're trying to conjure up, and it just won't hold water. Sorry.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Exactly what part of "we don't know" are you misrepresenting here?

When you say "God didn't do it", you are also saying "Nature did it". Those are the only two games in town, and guess what? One of them did something.

I suppose I should point out that those are not, in fact, necessarily contradictory claims.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not that your facile naive intuition is worth so much as dog shit when it comes to understanding the universe, but that's another matter.

Try me. You don't want that problem, either.

I guess it's a good thing smart people go beyond feels and intuition when it comes to investigating the rest of the universe, then.

(22-03-2015 10:57 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 07:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  If you're talking about specific books, you should probably mention them, so the audience at home can follow along.

I was gonna tell you the same thing regarding those contradictions you are crying about above....but specific books? Hmm, any book that says reptiles evolved in to birds, and that is probably any text book on biology.

Well, since birds did evolve from reptiles, you're not off to a very good start there.

Incidentally, why do you think that particular claim is not true?

For that matter, why limit your objections to biology? Surely you can find large parts of modern physics or chemistry to deny, too, if you try hard enough. Or could you find some astronomy to deny? Some geology?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: