Literal Genesis is incoherent.

[OldWiseGuy]

maybe you could be even sillier if you tried?

He's more right than you think. The ark would have barely floated, being so heavy. Large swells would have washed right over the top of it. The lower in the water the more stable against wind, waves, and strong currents; just ask any naval architect.

 

[Hespera]

He's more right than you think. The ark would have barely floated, being so heavy. Large swells would have washed right over the top of it. The lower in the water the more stable against wind, waves, and strong currents; just ask any naval architect.

the story is a myth but you wont ever figure out that detail

 

[visa]

the story is a myth but you wont ever figure out that detail

The bible said it happened so a good creationist will do whatever it takes to make the reality fit the myth, even if it doesn't make sense it will still fit because the bible doesn't make much sense either.

I think this is very apt because creationists do nothing but try to deceive themselves and each other.
'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive' Sir Walter Scott.

 

[AV1611VET]

The bible said it happened so a good creationist will do whatever it takes to make the reality fit the myth...

Not this 'good creationist' -- and I still take flack for it.

So you might want to change that tune, eh?

 

[Hespera]

The bible said it happened so a good creationist will do whatever it takes to make the reality fit the myth, even if it doesn't make sense it will still fit because the bible doesn't make much sense either.

I think this is very apt because creationists do nothing but try to deceive themselves and each other.
'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive' Sir Walter Scott.

the ethics of deception isnt much an issue i guess.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

the story is a myth but you wont ever figure out that detail

Then why do atheists and others attack the story as if it actually happened, i.e. questioning the 'fairness' of God? If the event never happened all those people and animals lived a long, happy life and died in their sleep at a good old age. It's all good.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The bible said it happened so a good creationist will do whatever it takes to make the reality fit the myth, even if it doesn't make sense it will still fit because the bible doesn't make much sense either.

I think this is very apt because creationists do nothing but try to deceive themselves and each other.
'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive' Sir Walter Scott.

You seem to know alot about how creationists think. Howzat?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why do atheists and others attack the story as if it actually happened, i.e. questioning the 'fairness' of God?

-- Excellent question!

However, over the years here, I've come to believe that they are not sincere in their quest.

Rather, they are venting some frustration out on God and/or His people -- and doing it behind question marks.

That's why you very seldom see a question like: How did God create the universe?

Instead, you'll see it worded something like: According to your myth, how did God create the universe?

In other words, they're really not asking a question, they're making a statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to know alot about how creationists think. Howzat?

They probably saw Jesus Christ, Superstar or The Passion of the Christ, and now they've convinced themselves they're qualified to take on a real creationist.

It's like watching CSI: Miami, then thinking you're some kind of forensics expert.

 

[Hespera]

Then why do atheists and others attack the story as if it actually happened, i.e. questioning the 'fairness' of God? If the event never happened all those people and animals lived a long, happy life and died in their sleep at a good old age. It's all good.

Ok fair enough question i guess.

Its like this.

We of course dont think there is a god, or an ark, any of it.

From the atheist point of view, discussing gods motives and morals is the same as discussing the morals and motives of a character in a movie or novel.

it certainly is not in any way to say that any of the story is real. its just literary criticism.

got it now?

 

[Cabal]

Then why do atheists and others attack the story as if it actually happened, i.e. questioning the 'fairness' of God? If the event never happened all those people and animals lived a long, happy life and died in their sleep at a good old age. It's all good.

It's called debating - reductio ad absurdum, to be precise. Assume the opponent's proposition is true and then show how it fails - which theism does.

 

[Cabal]

Then why do atheists and others attack the story as if it actually happened, i.e. questioning the 'fairness' of God? If the event never happened all those people and animals lived a long, happy life and died in their sleep at a good old age. It's all good.

-- Excellent question!

However, over the years here, I've come to believe that they are not sincere in their quest.

Rather, they are venting some frustration out on God and/or His people -- and doing it behind question marks.

That's why you very seldom see a question like: How did God create the universe?

Instead, you'll see it worded something like: According to your myth, how did God create the universe?

In other words, they're really not asking a question, they're making a statement.

So, in other words, if we take you at your word and assume it did happen, then we're doing it wrong.

If we don't take you at your word but ask you to justify your point of view anyway, then we're doing it wrong.

It's not what we say....

 

[Cabal]

They probably saw Jesus Christ, Superstar or The Passion of the Christ, and now they've convinced themselves they're qualified to take on a real creationist.

It's like watching CSI: Miami, then thinking you're some kind of forensics expert.

Or reading the Bible and thinking you know better than science.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, in other words, if we take you at your word and assume it did happen, then we're doing it wrong.

That'll be the day you (or any non-believer) takes me at my word, assumes it did happen, and gets it right.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or reading the Bible and thinking you know better than science.

I was borned ignit, and I'll die ignit.

 

[Cabal]

That'll be the day you (or any non-believer) takes me at my word, assumes it did happen, and gets it right.

No, you start throwing the "ooh but you don't understand" whine around when people successfully apply reductio ad absurdum to your beliefs. It's an convenient excuse for you, though not a good one. A prime example of this was going on earlier today when you had several people (Wiccan, psudo and me) pointing out that no-one actually has a problem with your argument that there's no empirical evidence for creation ex nihilo, just that there's no good reason to believe it on the basis of no evidence either, and you're still claiming the above....

I was borned ignit, and I'll die ignit.

The appropriate response then is to not make claims in a field where you're shown again and again that you're out of your depth

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's called debating - reductio ad absurdum, to be precise. Assume the opponent's proposition is true and then show how it fails - which theism does.

Well, we are sortof defenseless against mockery and sarcasm.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok fair enough question i guess.

Its like this.

We of course dont think there is a god, or an ark, any of it.

From the atheist point of view, discussing gods motives and morals is the same as discussing the morals and motives of a character in a movie or novel.

it certainly is not in any way to say that any of the story is real. its just literary criticism.

got it now?

'OhYeah? SezYou.', is hardly literary criticism.

 

[Cabal]

Well, we are sortof defenseless against mockery and sarcasm.

Reductio ad absurdum is not necessarily the same thing as mockery and sarcasm - though if beliefs imply ridiculous things, then who's at fault here, the beliefs or the person pointing that out?

 

[super animator]

Reductio ad absurdum is not necessarily the same thing as mockery and sarcasm - though if beliefs imply ridiculous things, then who's at fault here, the beliefs or the person pointing that out?

The person who is carrying the beliefs.