Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2015, 09:43 AM
RE: Question about flood
(23-03-2015 09:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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?

Sorry - the geology-denier job posting was already filled by Q. (flood threads q.v.)

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
23-03-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: Question about flood
Okay... going to come back to a couple of things posted that made me wonder a little.

(22-03-2015 12:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yeah, we can always be "better" animals, right? Laugh out load

Consider

Except... by the definitions of evolution... things can, in a way/effect, actually become 'better' animals.

(22-03-2015 12:20 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I can say the same thing to you, after all, it is as a child that you learn about shit like evolution.

Consider

Now, this sentence has me wondering.

Call_of_the_Wild how do you perceive the study and or theory of evolution?

Do you some how see scientists as saying "Okay, we've got the evolution theory sorted. Pack it on the shelf and lets go find another theory to test."

As in the theory of evolution is done. it's finished with. It's over, nothing more to learn here. ?

I'm kind of interested in trying to get to the understanding of what you're trying to mean by your post above.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2015, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2015 11:56 AM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: Question about flood
(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.

That is the best point you have made so far. True, rabbits don't live under rocks.

(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.

Please provide a detailed argument as to WHY none of these books are right and yours is.


(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.

Great, now follow your own statement and provide actual proof that the claims made in the gospels actually are true. You have no reason to believe that someone walked on water, or raised a dead guy, or made the blind see without modern techniques. You have literally zero reason to believe any of these things so by your own statement, they shouldn't be believed.

(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.

So which is more likely: that nature did something or that magic was involved? How often has anything in history NOT turned out to have a natural explanation?

Edit: Also, you would NOT accept it if he had said "nature did it" without any explanation so why should we accept it if you say "god did it"? If he did say nature did it you couldn't WAIT to ask him for the evidence of how it happened and would take any issue with it because it affects your worldview yet you bitch and dodge when we ask you the same thing. If nature did it, it is totally prudent to ask HOW. If god did it, it is also prudent to ask HOW!! If you say god did it and we ask how, all we typically get back is, "well I have faith" or "the bible says so" or some garbage like that (this is not just from you). Neither of these answers is an explanation, they are a cop-out. Jeez. At least Q TRIES to explain himself.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
23-03-2015, 11:58 AM
RE: Question about flood
Tapped the wrong button sorry.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: Question about flood
(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Please provide a detailed argument as to WHY none of these books are right and yours is.

Well, the case for the Resurrection, for starters.

(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Great, now follow your own statement and provide actual proof that the claims made in the gospels actually are true. You have no reason to believe that someone walked on water, or raised a dead guy, or made the blind see without modern techniques. You have literally zero reason to believe any of these things so by your own statement, they shouldn't be believed.

As I said before, I believe in miracles based on independent arguments for the existence of God...and if these arguments are true, then walking on water, or raising a dead guy, etc...an omnipotent Being doesn't even break a sweat doing these things.

(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  So which is more likely: that nature did something or that magic was involved? How often has anything in history NOT turned out to have a natural explanation?

Inanimate matter coming to life <------how is this NOT magic?

(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Edit: Also, you would NOT accept it if he had said "nature did it" without any explanation so why should we accept it if you say "god did it"?

Based on the rationale of the arguments that are presented FOR the existence of God. If you know anyone that refuted any of these arguments, then give me the post #.

(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  If he did say nature did it you couldn't WAIT to ask him for the evidence of how it happened and would take any issue with it because it affects your worldview yet you bitch and dodge when we ask you the same thing.

Um, dude...first of all, I've been presenting and defending at least 5 arguments for the existence of God...and I became a member of the forum to do just that...so the idea that I am "bitching and dodging when you ask me the same thing" is utterly false.

(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  If nature did it, it is totally prudent to ask HOW. If god did it, it is also prudent to ask HOW!!

Well, ask HOW then. If you ask me how, I will say I don't know...but my arguments are not basing on the knowledge of HOW God did it, it is based on the fact that God HAD to have done it because it couldn't have been otherwise.

(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  If you say god did it and we ask how, all we typically get back is, "well I have faith" or "the bible says so" or some garbage like that (this is not just from you). Neither of these answers is an explanation, they are a cop-out. Jeez. At least Q TRIES to explain himself.

You, my friend, are living in the past. Christians don't talk like that anymore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2015, 05:17 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2015 05:21 PM by TheBear.)
RE: Question about flood
(23-03-2015 11:46 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  So which is more likely: that nature did something or that magic was involved? How often has anything in history NOT turned out to have a natural explanation?

Yabut, the Bible says!

Seriously, those are the core questions that need to be asked.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2015, 05:53 PM
RE: Question about flood
Yeah that's always been my argument. There have been many things in history that people thought had supernatural causes which turned out later to have rational and natural explanations.

There has never been something which has had a rational and natural explanation that turned out to be supernatural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2015, 06:19 PM
RE: Question about flood
sigh, is this delusional ineducable tyro troll still here? I would bother to eviscerate each and every posit he has made in the last three pages, but it would be a time suck. He is the typical tap dancing apologetic xtian who waves aside the boatload of superior countering evidence and chooses instead feelings Rolleyes

My fav so far was his idiotic reasoning that because africanus mentioned something it must be true. Lets look at africanus...

Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay. Born 160 CE and died 240 CE....yup, hearsay at its finest. Good enough for Cartilage of the Wild to gobble up though Thumbsup

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately for believers, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 min max, so it wasn’t that, and there were two renowned historians who recorded each and every eclipse, as well as any other astronomical oddity....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
23-03-2015, 06:20 PM
RE: Question about flood
(22-03-2015 02:00 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(22-03-2015 01:58 PM)daniel1948 Wrote:  "Could be true" is not an argument.

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

Thanks, Anjele. If you are female and moderately attractive I want to meet you.

Now, back to the subject...

We have a real disconnect between Call_of_the_Wild and most of the rest of us. Mr. Wild has decided that the Bible is the Word of God™ and therefore cannot be wrong. He has further decided that his own understanding of the Bible must be the correct one. Therefore, when facts refute the Bible, well, the facts must be wrong. How does he know all this? Faith! He has faith, so he must be right.

Never mind that the hundreds of millions of fossils so far disinterred from the Earth showing clear and irrefutable lines of gradual shift from one species to another (archaeopteryx to modern birds, Australopithecus to Homo Sapiens, a land quadruped that might remind someone vaguely of a wolf to whales and dolphins, and many thousands more, showing the evolution, baby step by baby step; since this all disagrees with his own particular interpretation of the Bible, well, all those fossils must be wrong.

Never mind that the Romans never allowed crucified criminals to be buried, the Bible says that Joseph went to Pilate and asked nicely to be able to bury this particular criminal, and the Bible says that Pilate allowed it, well, that must be true. No confirming evidence? The Bible don't need no confounded confirming evidence, because it's the inerrant Word of God™.

Facts cannot influence faith. That's the definition of faith: Belief against and in spite of all evidence. Christians actually pride themselves on rejecting all evidence that contradicts their faith. They actually like it when there are more facts that disprove their beliefs, because the more facts you can reject, the more evidence you can deny, the stronger, and therefore better, is your faith.

None of this means that Call is a bad person. He actually seems to comport himself pretty well, given the attitude of some of our more enthusiastic posters. He, like all believers in any and all religions, is clearly delusional, but ever since the five years I spent working in a homeless shelter, I have somewhat of a fondness for the mentally impaired.

There was this one guy at the shelter who owned the Burlington Northern Railroad. Or at least he seemed to think he did. And then there was the guy who thought he owned all of downtown Dallas, TX, though he was always trying to bum cigarettes from the other guys, and made himself unpopular by cheating at checkers. Some of them used real words, but never seemed to make them into a comprehensible sentence. I liked these guys. I see a kind of kinship between these guys and a theist who would come onto an atheist forum just to show how firmly his faith can stand in the face of massive evidence against him. If I was still a drinker (I'm not: alcohol didn't really agree with me) I'd happily sit down and have a beer with Mr. Wild and argue about whether the God of the Bible or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the real creator of the universe. (How can you not believe in a god who has a beer volcano in heaven?)

So don't be too hard on my pal here. He's completely delusional, but that's not always such a bad thing.

"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
[+] 2 users Like daniel1948's post
23-03-2015, 06:50 PM
RE: Question about flood
(23-03-2015 05:53 PM)TheStraightener Wrote:  Yeah that's always been my argument. There have been many things in history that people thought had supernatural causes which turned out later to have rational and natural explanations.

There has never been something which has had a rational and natural explanation that turned out to be supernatural.

The answer to no question about the universe has ever turned out to be magic. Not once, not ever.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: