Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: Question about flood
(29-03-2015 09:36 AM)Anjele Wrote:  tl:dgaf

Some day this thread and others like it will provide research material to people studying cognitive dissonance... Sleepy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Question about flood
COTW: "So again, you are emphasizing on there being zero evidence anywhere except in the Bible, but what you (and most) unbelievers fail to realize or acknowledge is the fact that the books in the Bible were originally written as independent, separate books.

The books which makes up the Bible wasn't compiled together until hundreds of years later. So that means that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, most of Paul's letters...were ALL originally independent accounts, which means that we have at least five DIFFERENT sources that are testifying to these things, all written during the life time of Jesus' followers. "

Wow, the level of ignorance defies logic, truly. No no, all of you hundreds of biblical, christian scholars who accept the evidence at hand which shows: Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283)....you are clearly wrong, all of that evidence, all of the forensic analysis of biblical writings...clearly wrong because COTW believes otherwise. The funny thing is, the vast majority of biblical scholars are *gasp* christian, and they WANTED to validate the fairy tale, but alas, the evidence shows otherwise, so they accept it, and focus on "faith"...the "underlying message"...what else can they do? the evidence is contrary to the story...to no surprise to atheists, as we are atheists because we studied the information....sadly it is over COTW's head.

No my consistently ineducable tyro believer, they are not independently written stories written down by the followers of jesus while he was alive, and the fact you even try to assert this puts you at the very height of ignorance. As I have stated before, seek knowledge, you so desperately need it.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view based on the evidendce at hand, lengthy analysis of writing style, age of the writings etc...

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Now this all sounds so familiar, ah, thats right, I made these points before.

Paul also NEVER met jesus. So once again, as I have asserted previously, all writers of jesus, never met him, and wrote these stories based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of heresay. Fact. I have a degree in theology for a reason....to be able to dismantle the myth.

Reference:
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

"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
29-03-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Again, this does not go with the stars being created later. If the earth is older than the stars which were created on day 4, this means that the earth is older than the sun. Can you provide some concrete evidence that shows cosmology is wrong? It does not matter how much time elapsed between days 1 and 4. It still says that the stars came AFTER the creation of the Earth. Prove it.

First off, science is not infallible. What we have is human beings, who are 13.7 billion years removed from the scene trying to tell us how stuff happened. I don't have all of the answers, neither do you, and neither does anyone else.

But what I do know is that the universe began to exist, and it is on that basis alone that we are out of reach of science proving how anything "began".

(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  As far as the Earth goes, yes. Again, you have no foundation at this point because you have yet to establish the Earth being older than the stars.

Earth may not be older than the stars. It says God created the "heavens and the earth", that can be intepreted as long periods of time in between with the "and"..or it could have been all at once. There are interpretations on both sides of the coin, which is why you have guys like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham who are young earth creationists, and you have a guys like Bill Craig and Hugh Ross that are old earth creationists. They are reading the same text, but drawing different conclusions, and as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out.

(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  If there is no sun, we have no light and no sense of "day". Gen 1:8 "God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day." Explain then how there can be light with no light source and no dark without that light source going somewhere. There is no false conclusion here. There can be no day, night, evening, or morning without a light source.

Look, this is a very early stage in the history of the universe. I don't know what kind of light was manifested in Gen 1:3. If there was already light in verse 3 to distinguish day and night...yet in verse 14 God said "Let there be lights in the epanse of the sky to separate the day from the night"...then it is apparent that there was originally two sources of light. What was the other light besides the sun? I don't know.

(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  That is because "day" is a term that humans invented use to describe a 24 hour period. It has no other meaning besides.

There are three different meanings for the term of "day"...it can mean a literal 24 hour period..or it can mean over long periods, the Bible says a day is like a thousand years to God..or it can mean a specific period of time, such as "in the day of Moses". So it isn't as clear-cut as you'd like it to be.

(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  In terms of "light", considering the book was written by primitive goat herders who didn't know that the moon isn't a light source and that vegetation need the sun to live, I think it is a pretty safe bet that we are talking visible light. I have an explanation, you don't.

The same goat herders that was claiming the universe began to exist while your prophets in white labs coats thought the universe was static and eternal.

(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  But if there is no SUN, there can be no light and dark. Apparently, you DON'T know what this means given your first 2 answers.

Apparently there may have been two sources for light, and the sun was one...and you are right, I don't know. We are talking about something that happened 13.7 billion years ago, and I wasn't there...come to think of it, neither were you, or anyone else for that matter.

(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  So lights on top of the light that was apparently there? Again, with no sun, there are no days. Even the damn text itself says that on day 4, the lights were created to separate the night from the day. So again, how do you have night, day, morning, and evening the previous 3 "days" when there is NO SUN? Do you see that?

Again, the sun may not have been the only source of light at that time. I can't prove that there was...and you can't prove that there wasn't.

(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  What scares me is that there are people like you who would kill your kids because the voice in your head tells you to.

Well, under the scenario I was given, this wasn't just a voice, it was the the Almighty God telling me, and when God talks, I listen, and I execute. But what "scares" me is how on atheism, people get all emotional and mushy when talking about killing and rape, yet they can't justify on their worldview why it is objectively wrong. Just a lot of bitching and moaning with no justification whatsoever. That is scary.

(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  If you are supposed to be god's spokesman, god is one bat-shit crazy, intellectually dishonest creep.

And if we are just animals on this speck of dust called earth, then nature must be very very very smart. A process with no mind, no agenda, no purpose, no vision, and is STILL able to create living things from inanimate material, consciousness, morality...nature must be very smart to pull shit off like that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: Question about flood
(29-03-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  COTW: "So again, you are emphasizing on there being zero evidence anywhere except in the Bible, but what you (and most) unbelievers fail to realize or acknowledge is the fact that the books in the Bible were originally written as independent, separate books.

The books which makes up the Bible wasn't compiled together until hundreds of years later. So that means that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, most of Paul's letters...were ALL originally independent accounts, which means that we have at least five DIFFERENT sources that are testifying to these things, all written during the life time of Jesus' followers. "

Wow, the level of ignorance defies logic, truly. No no, all of you hundreds of biblical, christian scholars who accept the evidence at hand which shows: Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283)....you are clearly wrong, all of that evidence, all of the forensic analysis of biblical writings...clearly wrong because COTW believes otherwise. The funny thing is, the vast majority of biblical scholars are *gasp* christian, and they WANTED to validate the fairy tale, but alas, the evidence shows otherwise, so they accept it, and focus on "faith"...the "underlying message"...what else can they do? the evidence is contrary to the story...to no surprise to atheists, as we are atheists because we studied the information....sadly it is over COTW's head.

No my consistently ineducable tyro believer, they are not independently written stories written down by the followers of jesus while he was alive, and the fact you even try to assert this puts you at the very height of ignorance. As I have stated before, seek knowledge, you so desperately need it.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view based on the evidendce at hand, lengthy analysis of writing style, age of the writings etc...

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Now this all sounds so familiar, ah, thats right, I made these points before.

Paul also NEVER met jesus. So once again, as I have asserted previously, all writers of jesus, never met him, and wrote these stories based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of heresay. Fact. I have a degree in theology for a reason....to be able to dismantle the myth.

Reference:
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

Dude, I've already responded to that crap, like 3 times already Laugh out load Yet you keep posting it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: Question about flood
(29-03-2015 10:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-03-2015 09:46 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  COTW: "So again, you are emphasizing on there being zero evidence anywhere except in the Bible, but what you (and most) unbelievers fail to realize or acknowledge is the fact that the books in the Bible were originally written as independent, separate books.

The books which makes up the Bible wasn't compiled together until hundreds of years later. So that means that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, most of Paul's letters...were ALL originally independent accounts, which means that we have at least five DIFFERENT sources that are testifying to these things, all written during the life time of Jesus' followers. "

Wow, the level of ignorance defies logic, truly. No no, all of you hundreds of biblical, christian scholars who accept the evidence at hand which shows: Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283)....you are clearly wrong, all of that evidence, all of the forensic analysis of biblical writings...clearly wrong because COTW believes otherwise. The funny thing is, the vast majority of biblical scholars are *gasp* christian, and they WANTED to validate the fairy tale, but alas, the evidence shows otherwise, so they accept it, and focus on "faith"...the "underlying message"...what else can they do? the evidence is contrary to the story...to no surprise to atheists, as we are atheists because we studied the information....sadly it is over COTW's head.

No my consistently ineducable tyro believer, they are not independently written stories written down by the followers of jesus while he was alive, and the fact you even try to assert this puts you at the very height of ignorance. As I have stated before, seek knowledge, you so desperately need it.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer...do some research. Knowledge is power, and quite liberating.

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view based on the evidendce at hand, lengthy analysis of writing style, age of the writings etc...

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

Now this all sounds so familiar, ah, thats right, I made these points before.

Paul also NEVER met jesus. So once again, as I have asserted previously, all writers of jesus, never met him, and wrote these stories based on the oral retelling, of the oral retelling of heresay. Fact. I have a degree in theology for a reason....to be able to dismantle the myth.

Reference:
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

Dude, I've already responded to that crap, like 3 times already Laugh out load Yet you keep posting it.

Blink

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
29-03-2015, 10:47 AM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 06:27 PM)natachan Wrote:  
(28-03-2015 03:05 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  Hey, serious question to my AF peeps: do we know if this Call of the Wild joker is His_Majesty, who we banned ages ago? Because the arguments are identical, right down to the wording.

I don't think so. While H_M got incoherent towards the end it wasn't nearly as bad as this idiot. CotW never pretended to coherency. Plus H_M was far far more intelligent.

Yeah, this is His_Majesty, and I did get banned from atheistforums. The gods of the forums (the moderators) were claiming that I was committing acts of sin (violating forum rules). They gave me chances to repent of my sins (stop violating forums), but I wanted to continue with my sinning ways, so they banned me from the garden of forums (Garden of Eden, where Adam & Eve were banned from after sinning). You know, they needed someone to pull their executive ranks on...and I was the sacrificial lamb Yes

That is what happened. I wasn't upset either...I said hey, if you are gonna ban me, then FUKIN ban me!!! I went out like a true soldier. I wasn't a member of any forums for a few weeks afterwards, and then, the spirit of God came upon me, and said "find another forum and open up more cans of whoopings"...and I found this one, and here I am Cool

But as I stressed previously, it won't be long before the gods of this forum ban me as well...and once that happens, where will be my next stop? I think I want to go after black atheists...yeah, that's my next tour of assignment Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 10:55 AM
RE: Question about flood
(29-03-2015 10:47 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Yeah, this is His_Majesty, and I did get banned from atheistforums. The gods of the forums (the moderators) were claiming that I was committing acts of sin (violating forum rules). They gave me chances to repent of my sins (stop violating forums), but I wanted to continue with my sinning ways, so they banned me from the garden of forums (Garden of Eden, where Adam & Eve were banned from after sinning). You know, they needed someone to pull their executive ranks on...and I was the sacrificial lamb Yes

And I suppose policemen are "street gods" for insisting that you comply with the law? Dodgy

Well, it's good to see that your arguments haven't changed; seeing that you're incapable of learning rather vindicates our decision to ban you. I took on your misrepresentations of evolution a few pages back but now that I know it's you it's a moot point; I've already wrecked your strawmen back in that AF debate thread that you ended up being disqualified from. I really am just covering old ground, here. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Esquilax's post
29-03-2015, 11:26 AM
RE: Question about flood
(29-03-2015 10:55 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  And I suppose policemen are "street gods" for insisting that you comply with the law? Dodgy

I don't like ultimatums Dodgy

(29-03-2015 10:55 AM)Esquilax Wrote:  Well, it's good to see that your arguments haven't changed; seeing that you're incapable of learning rather vindicates our decision to ban you. I took on your misrepresentations of evolution a few pages back but now that I know it's you it's a moot point; I've already wrecked your strawmen back in that AF debate thread that you ended up being disqualified from. I really am just covering old ground, here. Sleepy

Evolution? What is that?? Ohh, its the theory that reptiles evolved into birds, right? Yeah, moot point for a moot theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 11:40 AM
RE: Question about flood
(29-03-2015 11:26 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  I don't like ultimatums Dodgy

So if a cop told you to stop doing something, you'd behave in the same defiant way you did on AF and keep doing it while taunting the cop? How do you think that'd work out for you?

What I love is that your problem isn't that you're innocent, it's that somebody dared to challenge you when you broke the rules. Rolleyes

Quote:Evolution? What is that?? Ohh, its the theory that reptiles evolved into birds, right? Yeah, moot point for a moot theory.

That "moot theory" has more evidence behind it than you could ever hope to find for your religion. The fact that your only defense has been to make up strawmen speaks volumes to that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Esquilax's post
29-03-2015, 01:24 PM
RE: Question about flood
(29-03-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Again, this does not go with the stars being created later. If the earth is older than the stars which were created on day 4, this means that the earth is older than the sun. Can you provide some concrete evidence that shows cosmology is wrong? It does not matter how much time elapsed between days 1 and 4. It still says that the stars came AFTER the creation of the Earth. Prove it.

First off, science is not infallible. What we have is human beings, who are 13.7 billion years removed from the scene trying to tell us how stuff happened. I don't have all of the answers, neither do you, and neither does anyone else.

But what I do know is that the universe began to exist, and it is on that basis alone that we are out of reach of science proving how anything "began".
Never said science was infallible, nor even implied it. Science continually looks at new data and adjusts itself accordingly to that data. Try it sometime if you can.


(29-03-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  As far as the Earth goes, yes. Again, you have no foundation at this point because you have yet to establish the Earth being older than the stars.

Earth may not be older than the stars. It says God created the "heavens and the earth", that can be intepreted as long periods of time in between with the "and"..or it could have been all at once. There are interpretations on both sides of the coin, which is why you have guys like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham who are young earth creationists, and you have a guys like Bill Craig and Hugh Ross that are old earth creationists. They are reading the same text, but drawing different conclusions, and as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out.

Please read what you actually wrote again. You JUST stated, yet again, that the earth is OLDER than the stars. There is nothing in cosmology that supports that the Earth "may be" and plenty of it that says it is not. It does not matter if the stars are 1 year or 1 billion years here, the point is that it clearly says the Earth was before the stars. Is English not your 1st language? All of these clowns you name still fail to see that the book says that the earth was first, then the stars.

(29-03-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  If there is no sun, we have no light and no sense of "day". Gen 1:8 "God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day." Explain then how there can be light with no light source and no dark without that light source going somewhere. There is no false conclusion here. There can be no day, night, evening, or morning without a light source.

Look, this is a very early stage in the history of the universe. I don't know what kind of light was manifested in Gen 1:3. If there was already light in verse 3 to distinguish day and night...yet in verse 14 God said "Let there be lights in the epanse of the sky to separate the day from the night"...then it is apparent that there was originally two sources of light. What was the other light besides the sun? I don't know.

And yet you are claiming that you do know. As far as we are aware, the only light is on the electromagnetic spectrum. I am taking this "light" that you are referring to is about like the "kinds" of animals Ham refers to.

(29-03-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  That is because "day" is a term that humans invented use to describe a 24 hour period. It has no other meaning besides.

There are three different meanings for the term of "day"...it can mean a literal 24 hour period..or it can mean over long periods, the Bible says a day is like a thousand years to God..or it can mean a specific period of time, such as "in the day of Moses". So it isn't as clear-cut as you'd like it to be.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that the book says the stars came after the earth.

(29-03-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  In terms of "light", considering the book was written by primitive goat herders who didn't know that the moon isn't a light source and that vegetation need the sun to live, I think it is a pretty safe bet that we are talking visible light. I have an explanation, you don't.

The same goat herders that was claiming the universe began to exist while your prophets in white labs coats thought the universe was static and eternal.
You are also aware that it was the nerds in lab coats that showed that this assertion was not true. Also, the bible is not the only text that talks of an origin story.

(29-03-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  But if there is no SUN, there can be no light and dark. Apparently, you DON'T know what this means given your first 2 answers.

Apparently there may have been two sources for light, and the sun was one...and you are right, I don't know. We are talking about something that happened 13.7 billion years ago, and I wasn't there...come to think of it, neither were you, or anyone else for that matter.

OK Mr. Ham.

(29-03-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  So lights on top of the light that was apparently there? Again, with no sun, there are no days. Even the damn text itself says that on day 4, the lights were created to separate the night from the day. So again, how do you have night, day, morning, and evening the previous 3 "days" when there is NO SUN? Do you see that?

Again, the sun may not have been the only source of light at that time. I can't prove that there was...and you can't prove that there wasn't.

Way to shift the burden of proof there. It doesn't work like that.

(29-03-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  What scares me is that there are people like you who would kill your kids because the voice in your head tells you to.

Well, under the scenario I was given, this wasn't just a voice, it was the the Almighty God telling me, and when God talks, I listen, and I execute. But what "scares" me is how on atheism, people get all emotional and mushy when talking about killing and rape, yet they can't justify on their worldview why it is objectively wrong. Just a lot of bitching and moaning with no justification whatsoever. That is scary.

This is the most honest part of any post you have ever had.

(29-03-2015 10:23 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 12:01 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  If you are supposed to be god's spokesman, god is one bat-shit crazy, intellectually dishonest creep.

And if we are just animals on this speck of dust called earth, then nature must be very very very smart. A process with no mind, no agenda, no purpose, no vision, and is STILL able to create living things from inanimate material, consciousness, morality...nature must be very smart to pull shit off like that.

And you seem to feel that you speak to god's intelligence. If that is the case, god is one dumb cookie.

"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
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: