Evolution is just a theory!

[joshua 1 9]

I know very well of what I am convinced....

You are convinced of what, that there is no God? Did you reject God or did God reject you?

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's so overwhelming that it's safe to call it a fact that no such flood ever took place.

Yes there is overwhelming evidence to show that Noah's flood was not a world wide flood. As far as we know the flood was local. We know that science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. So when you ask for scientific evidence then we are limited by what Science is able to verify.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes there is overwhelming evidence to show that Noah's flood was not a world wide flood. As far as we know the flood was local. We know that science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. So when you ask for scientific evidence then we are limited by what Science is able to verify.

Are you saying that we get better knowledge from claims that can't be verified? Do you think we could learn more if we just believed stuff that was made up on the spot?

 

[bhsmte]

Are you saying that we get better knowledge from claims that can't be verified? Do you think we could learn more if we just believed stuff that was made up on the spot?

You just described one of the most commonly used defense mechanisms, for fundies.

 

[Loudmouth]

You just described one of the most commonly used defense mechanisms, for fundies.

Defense mechanisms aside, it really shows a huge difference in how people view the world. From my point of view, in order to learn something about the world you have to use scrutiny and really test your ideas. For some theists, they are just the opposite. The last thing they want to do is have their evidence scrutinized. In fact, the less scrutiny the better. They see the limitations of verification as a problem. I see it as a basic minimum.

 

[bhsmte]

Defense mechanisms aside, it really shows a huge difference in how people view the world. From my point of view, in order to learn something about the world you have to use scrutiny and really test your ideas. For some theists, they are just the opposite. The last thing they want to do is have their evidence scrutinized. In fact, the less scrutiny the better. They see the limitations of verification as a problem. I see it as a basic minimum.

When a personal belief must be protected and that is the priority, that is what you get.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Are you saying that we get better knowledge from claims that can't be verified? Do you think we could learn more if we just believed stuff that was made up on the spot?

Bazinga I got you. That was a quote from Talk Origin. You will have to take it up with them.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

The point was that science is limited in what they can verify.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are convinced of what, that there is no God? Did you reject God or did God reject you?

I can't reject that which I don't even consider to be real.

Did you reject santa? Or did you just stop believing santa is real?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes there is overwhelming evidence to show that Noah's flood was not a world wide flood.

What a loaded statement....
Phrased specifically and carefully as to smuggle in "well, there certainly was a 'noah's flood', it just wasn't global".

The only correct part is that this flood has been proven to never have happened.

As far as we know the flood was local.

As far as we know, floods happen every day and don't require any supernatural shenannigans to be explained.

We know that science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question.

Is it?

So, would you jump from the Eiffel Tower without a parachute?
I mean... you just said that science can't establish truths, right?
So why wouldn't you jump from the Eiffel Tower without a parachute?

What do you factually expect to happen if you do?

So when you ask for scientific evidence then we are limited by what Science is able to verify.

And this limit is called "reality".

 

[Colter]

I can't reject that which I don't even consider to be real.

Did you reject santa? Or did you just stop believing santa is real?

For me I figured out Santa wasn't real. As for God I figured out that he is real, I know him in spirit. Santa diminished, my relationship with God grows.

 

[Colter]

In my theology there was a basis of truth for the narratives of the Hebrew writers. They culled from many sources in Mesopotamian oral tradition based thought life to construct a somewhat coherent story for the child like mind of the Bronze Age audience.

* Life was created, but it evolved from an original implantation once the planet reached the stage in it's own development wherein it could sustain life.

* The first spiritual rulers of the world arrived nearly 500,000 years ago, "The Prince of this world". After a period of time he fell into sin and default lead by the fallen celestial administrator Lucifer. It was a catastrophic betrayal of trust.

* Nearly 150,000 years later (from A.D. 1934, 37,848 years ago) the second world rulers arrived, fully versed and warned about what had happened as the "crafty beast" was still here, still allowed time to repent of his sin.

* The traditions of a 6 day creation come from the fact that Adam and Eve spent the first six days after their arrival surveying their new garden home prepared for them by loyalist from the previous regime who had maintained possession of "the tree of life". They were already educated about the many forms of life they would find on the planet. "One feature of the narrative, the sudden appearance of the sun and moon, may have taken origin in the traditions of the onetime sudden emergence of the world from a dense space cloud of minute matter which had long obscured both sun and moon." UB

 

[DogmaHunter]

For me I figured out Santa wasn't real. As for God I figured out that he is real, I know him in spirit. Santa diminished, my relationship with God grows.

You didn't answer the question.

Would you say that you "reject" Santa, or do you just not believe the dude is real?

To use the word "reject", one implies that the entity is real but "rejected".
So the word is not applicable here.

I just don't believe gods exist.
Just like you don't believe all the gods you don't believe in exist.

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Colter]

You didn't answer the question.

Would you say that you "reject" Santa, or do you just not believe the dude is real?

To use the word "reject", one implies that the entity is real but "rejected".
So the word is not applicable here.

I just don't believe gods exist.
Just like you don't believe all the gods you don't believe in exist.

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

My parents promoted the magical myth of Santa, they should NOT have done that! I guess that, as I matured as a kid, I just figured it out with my own common sense. The same goes for elements of the Bible, I just sort of intuitively knew from a very early age that there was myth woven into factual events. Primitive man was and still is a mythmaker.

Its ok to have doubts about God or even to sincerely not believe.

I'm sure Jesus had doubts at times about his identity, about which way to go, which coarse of action to take, but his doubts never became a religion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My parents promoted the magical myth of Santa, they should NOT have done that! I guess that, as I matured as a kid, I just figured it out with my own common sense. The same goes for elements of the Bible, I just sort of intuitively knew from a very early age that there was myth woven into factual events. Primitive man was and still is a mythmaker.

Its ok to have doubts about God or even to sincerely not believe.

I'm sure Jesus had doubts at times about his identity, about which way to go, which coarse of action to take, but his doubts never became a religion.

And you continue to evade the question.

Do you "reject" santa, or do you just not believe santa is real?

Do you understand how saying "reject Santa" carries an implication that Santa is actually real, but that you "reject" him and thus don't want anything to do with him?
And how that is a false representation of how you approach the whole Santa thing? You don't "reject" santa because you can't "reject" those things that you simply don't consider to be real.

Please acknowledge the point being made if you agree, instead of trying to derail into nonsense that has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

You claimed that I "reject god".
I'm correcting you.

Please acknowledge the point being made instead of running away from it.

Thanks.

 

[Colter]

And you continue to evade the question.

Do you "reject" santa, or do you just not believe santa is real?

Do you understand how saying "reject Santa" carries an implication that Santa is actually real, but that you "reject" him and thus don't want anything to do with him?
And how that is a false representation of how you approach the whole Santa thing? You don't "reject" santa because you can't "reject" those things that you simply don't consider to be real.

Please acknowledge the point being made if you agree, instead of trying to derail into nonsense that has nothing to do with the point I'm making.

You claimed that I "reject god".
I'm correcting you.

Please acknowledge the point being made instead of running away from it.

Thanks.

Oh, I missed that point that you claim I'm running away from. I don't believe in Santa as opposed to believing he is real, yet reject Santa as a possibility.

So the term reject was not the right term for me to use. I will frame it another way. I think that you believe that God does not exist but cannot prove it, so your doubt has become a doctrine of doubt, a kind of religion as you have come to this religious forum to promote, as opposed to just being natural, content in disbelief (not rejecting) not seeking out religious people to argue with.

 

[joshua 1 9]

What a loaded statement....
Phrased specifically and carefully as to smuggle in "well, there certainly was a 'noah's flood', it just wasn't global".

What reason can you give me as to why I should trust your opinions about the Bible? The Bible needs to be understood.

The story of Noah's flood needs to be understood. We call this a translation. Sometimes they use the word "Paraphrase" or Bible commentary. We need to translate the Ancient Hebrew into a modern language that everyone can understand. So we have two words used in the Hebrew one is Adamah and the other is Erets. Both of these words: Adamah & Erets are translated earth in the English. Only Adamah is usually translated: "ground". The ground that God used when He created or made Adam. So when the Bible is rightly understood then it is clear that Noah's flood covered Adamah, the area in Eden. NOT Erets the flood did NOT cover the whole world. This is what needs to be properly understood. IF you understood the Bible then you would agree with the Bible. If you do NOT understand the Bible then of course your not going to agree with what you do not understand. 2 Tim 2 15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth".

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0776&t=KJV

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0127&t=KJV

Gen 6:7

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth (Adamah); H127 both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh, I missed that point that you claim I'm running away from. I don't believe in Santa as opposed to believing he is real, yet reject Santa as a possibility.

You changed the terminology in there.
"Rejecting the possibility of Santa" is not the same as "rejecting Santa".

So the term reject was not the right term for me to use.

Thank you.

I will frame it another way. I think that you believe that God does not exist but cannot prove it

You think wrong.

"I believe gods do not exist"

is not the equivalent of

"I don't believe gods exist".

I subscribe to the latter and consider the first to be rather meaningless.

, so your doubt has become a doctrine of doubt,

That makes no sense.

a kind of religion as you have come to this religious forum to promote, as opposed to just being natural, content in disbelief (not rejecting) not seeking out religious people to argue with.

Me being on this forum has nothing to do with "promoting" my disbelieve, but rather to engage in discussion with people who believe differently then I do.

On this forum, christianity is the central topic. On other forums I frequent, the central topic is something else.

You should stop making assumptions about people.

 

[Colter]

You changed the terminology in there.
"Rejecting the possibility of Santa" is not the same as "rejecting Santa".



Thank you.



You think wrong.

"I believe gods do not exist"

is not the equivalent of

"I don't believe gods exist".

I subscribe to the latter and consider the first to be rather meaningless.



That makes no sense.



Me being on this forum has nothing to do with "promoting" my disbelieve, but rather to engage in discussion with people who believe differently then I do.

On this forum, christianity is the central topic. On other forums I frequent, the central topic is something else.

You should stop making assumptions about people.

You said "That makes no sense." You made a conclusion a before all the facts are in, yet you cannot prove that God doesn't exist, so it becomes then a form of belief or religion when promoted.

To be clear, I reject Santa,..... but don't feel the need to go to Santa forums with some BS about just wanting dialogue with them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What reason can you give me as to why I should trust your opinions about the Bible?

I wasn't giving any opinion about the bible.

I was only pointing out the fallacy in your loaded statement.

The Bible needs to be understood.

The bible is quite irrelevant to me.
I feel no need to "understand" this book, just like you don't feel any need to understand the mythology of hindu's, muslims, ancient Romans, scientologists, etc.

Your religious beliefs are quite irrelevant to those not part of your religion.
Surely you can understand that.

IF you understood the Bible then you would agree with the Bible.

I always chuckle when a theists says that. You can't even fathom the possibility of someone actually understanding the bible and not believe in it anyway.

I see the same behaviour in all religions.
Muslims tell me the exact same thing about the Quran.

I just shrug my shoulders and move on.

Your bible is just a story and no matter what it says, it still requires valid extra-biblical evidence in support of it.

As a result, your bible is quite irrelevant. If a certain bizar phenomena took place in the past and you have extra-biblical supportive evidence thereof, then you don't need your bible. Instead you can just show me the evidence directly.

I don't need someone from the bronze age's "interpretation" of that event.

If you do NOT understand the Bible then of course your not going to agree with what you do not understand.

Any theist can say the exact same thing about his/her particular scripture.
A muslim can say that about the quran.
A hindu can say that about the bagavad ghita.
Etc.

2 Tim 2 15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth".

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0776&t=KJV

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0127&t=KJV

Gen 6:7

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth (Adamah); H127 both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

I'm not a christian. Why do you think bible verses are going to impress me?

 

[Colter]

What reason can you give me as to why I should trust your opinions about the Bible? The Bible needs to be understood.

The story of Noah's flood needs to be understood. We call this a translation. Sometimes they use the word "Paraphrase" or Bible commentary. We need to translate the Ancient Hebrew into a modern language that everyone can understand. So we have two words used in the Hebrew one is Adamah and the other is Erets. Both of these words: Adamah & Erets are translated earth in the English. Only Adamah is usually translated: "ground". The ground that God used when He created or made Adam. So when the Bible is rightly understood then it is clear that Noah's flood covered Adamah, the area in Eden. NOT Erets the flood did NOT cover the whole world. This is what needs to be properly understood. IF you understood the Bible then you would agree with the Bible. If you do NOT understand the Bible then of course your not going to agree with what you do not understand. 2 Tim 2 15 "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth".

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0776&t=KJV

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H0127&t=KJV

Gen 6:7

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth (Adamah); H127 both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Flag on the field! God does not, did not, nor will he EVER repent of anything he has done, is doing or will ever do. That right there is a human characterization because the story is mostly human myth used as a device for Hebrew genealogy.