Saw this posted on another forum. This is a great analogy for the polarization in this sub-forum and uses cute little bunnies so everyone can understand, too!
That's cute, but that's not how it works, is it?Saw this posted on another forum. This is a great analogy for the polarization in this sub-forum and uses cute little bunnies so everyone can understand, too!
That's cute, but that's not how it works, is it?
Where are the pieces that were used to make Phlogiston?
Where are the six pieces that depict our moon (one showing two moons)?
For every piece on that table that is supposedly in place, how many discarded pieces are under the table; pieces that used to be as clear as that picture of Winnie the Pooh?
That's cute, but that's not how it works, is it?
Where are the pieces that were used to make Phlogiston?
Where are the six pieces that depict our moon (one showing two moons)?
For every piece on that table that is supposedly in place, how many discarded pieces are under the table; pieces that used to be as clear as that picture of Winnie the Pooh?
Yep all the evidence points in one direction but atheists keep saying that it's something other then what the evidence indicates.Saw this posted on another forum. This is a great analogy for the polarization in this sub-forum and uses cute little bunnies so everyone can understand, too!
Just because YOU work that way does not mean everyone else has to do.
But that is your deepest flaw, isn't it? You are simply unable to imagine that other people might not be like you.
You are all forgetting a little thing called 'indoctrination', it's been used since man first started walking on this earth it was first used to keep children alive.This is why illustrations only work so far. People who choose to ignore how the scientific method works find the perceived flaws in the simplified analogy and try to pick it apart on that basis. The analogy is about not accepting something just for the sake of accepting it, but rather questioning what is said when things don't seem to fit the arbitrary explanation.
You wouldn't like to think so.That's cute, but that's not how it works, is it?
Where are the pieces that were used to make Phlogiston?
Where are the six pieces that depict our moon (one showing two moons)?
For every piece on that table that is supposedly in place, how many discarded pieces are under the table; pieces that used to be as clear as that picture of Winnie the Pooh?
The OP is disingenuous though, in that it depicts the duck as clearly visible and conveys the idea that God is just as clearly seen as the reality they are putting together on the table there; when in fact, Paul says:It's not pieces that are discarded, but rather our preconceptions of what the picture is.
Saw this posted on another forum. This is a great analogy for the polarization in this sub-forum and uses cute little bunnies so everyone can understand, too!
How ironic if those two would be rabbits from the Precambrian, eh?The name of the box is called "science".
It only seems disingenuous if you take it in such a literal way, but it would be obvious to most people that the OP is a metaphor.The OP is disingenuous though, in that it depicts the duck as clearly visible and conveys the idea that God is just as clearly seen as the reality they are putting together on the table there;
I would expect an atheist to tell us we're wrong ... wouldn't you?The OP is a perfectly reasonable representation of how <some people> will jump to conclusions about the way things are, and then refuse to accept they might be wrong, even though there was no real reason to think they were right in the first place.
I would expect an atheist to tell us we're wrong ... wouldn't you?
What I don't understand though, is why atheists won't react the exact same way to someone saying Jesus walked on water, to someone saying that, in their opinion, Noah lived in what is now New Jersey.
Have you ever heard an atheist say, "Can you believe that? That guy actually thinks Jesus walked on water!?"
You might expect it since you like to tar all atheists with the same brush, but that would depend on the views of the individual atheist. If you're implying that I said such a thing, show me where.I would expect an atheist to tell us we're wrong ... wouldn't you?
You don't understand it? Desensitisation, most likely. The more frequently one is exposed to something, the less often it provokes a significant reaction.What I don't understand though, is why atheists won't react the exact same way to someone saying Jesus walked on water, to someone saying that, in their opinion, Noah lived in what is now New Jersey.
Have you ever heard an atheist say, "Can you believe that? That guy actually thinks Jesus walked on water!?"
Keyword: good -- right?If you had good reasons for belief that stood up to scrutiny beyond personal subjective experience, then atheists would consider changing sides.
In other words, nothing?What doesn't count as good reasons are Bible quotes, circular logic, and making up useless concepts to explain away discrepancies between reality and dogma (like embedded age).
So? They are, as you said, 'equally absurd' -- yet treated differently.While they are equally absurd things for non-believers, at least Jesus walking on water is explicitly in the Bible, whereas Noah residing in New Jersey is not.
Keyword: good -- right?
In other words, nothing?
So? They are, as you said, 'equally absurd' -- yet treated differently.
Thanks for demonstrating my point.
The name of the box is called "science".
What I don't understand though, is why atheists won't react the exact same way to someone saying Jesus walked on water, to someone saying that, in their opinion, Noah lived in what is now New Jersey.
Keyword: circular -- right?You can't use circular logic to demonstrate a point.
Good.That's logic 101.
Thank heavens I don't, eh?If all you have is circular logic and making stuff up, I'm not interested.
A reality where Jesus can't walk on water, let alone be born of a virgin, right?I would consider Christianity if the Bible was consistent with reality...
Exactly what we would expect from a supernatural Book.... but it's not.
I have a feeling you don't impress too easily; one can't impress someone who's here to vent.When embedded age is the best you can come up with to harmonize reality and the Bible, I'm not impressed.
At least I'm consistent.You missed my point.
-- You're kidding!?Walking on water is explicitly in the Bible.
Good -- and I find you guys' lacks of reaction to it ... ironic.We all know the story.
As I have a right to do.You made up the New Jersey business, which is not explicitly in the Bible.
Ya -- had I not done that, I would have had to pull rank and just say "God did it".Most of what people are reacting to in the New Jersey story is not the story itself, it's the fact that you made it up.