• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The phenomenon and the explanation

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,585
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,010.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What the heck is "Gad" in that context?
Hoshen-Breastplate-big.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,201
10,092
✟281,903.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
From personal experience I can say that sometimes it's just not worth the trouble to go through the many many supposed evidences of a claim. I'm not going to study all the hundreds of thousands of data points to still believe there was not much confirmation bias or other sloppy science involved in a politically advantageous (think, money) and conscience relieving (think, "I'm just another animal!").

I still have huge areas of disbelief unanswered in my skepticism toward Darwinian Evolution.
I've taken the liberty of splitting the above quote into two paragraphs, to better illustrate my point.
  • In the first you indicate an unwillingness to study the vast array of information that is said to support evolution.
  • In the second you note that many of your questions about Darwinian Evolution remain unanswered.
I leave it as an exercise for the student to recognise what your problem may be.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,362
69
Pennsylvania
✟943,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I've taken the liberty of splitting the above quote into two paragraphs, to better illustrate my point.
  • In the first you indicate an unwillingness to study the vast array of information that is said to support evolution.
  • In the second you note that many of your questions about Darwinian Evolution remain unanswered.
I leave it as an exercise for the student to recognise what your problem may be.
I leave it to you, then, to figure out why you don't believe.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,201
10,092
✟281,903.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I leave it to you, then, to figure out why you don't believe.
I've remarked often on CF that I consider belief to be one of the most ridiculous of human practices, betraying an almost obscene arrogance. It's an opinion.

I accept evolution because it is the only currently available explanation that accounts for a plethora of observation and experiment regarding the diversity of life on the planet. Present contrary evidence that convincingly refutes that explanation and I shall no longer accept current evolutionary theory. Making assertions that rely upon the contested origin of Scripture and personal revelation just don't make the cut for acceptance - though I can see how they could satisfy the belief of some.

By the way, it's against forum rules to apply a "funny" award to a post as a piece of sarcasm. Please feel free to remove that from my post.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,585
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,010.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I've remarked often on CF that I consider belief to be one of the most ridiculous of human practices, betraying an almost obscene arrogance.
God Save the Queen

Are these guys being arrogant, in your opinion?

 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,585
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,010.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Non sequitur or deliberate troll?
Good answer.

I have a feeling if he went up to that soccer team and told them they were being "obscenely arrogant," they'd non his sequitur in a hurry.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,201
10,092
✟281,903.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
God Save the Queen

Are these guys being arrogant, in your opinion?

Several years ago I was discussing with an Egyptian friend his perception of various nationalities. In terms of arrogance he had narrowed down the worst offenders to Americans, British and French, in alphabetical order. He found it difficult to be sure, but he felt the medal probably went to the British; he just wasn't sure why he felt that way. I offered to explain it to him.
"So, you feel the French often behave as if they were the best?"
He nodded agreement.
"And the Americans, well obviously, they think they are the best?"
Another affirmative nod.
"But the British, we British, we know we are the best."
He leapt to his feet, pointing with delight. "That's it. That's it exactly."

In my post I was noting the arrogance of belief, wherein the believer, often based on scant evidence, holds firmly to a viewpoint. Such certainty; such arrogance. In contrast in my short tale above my tongue is firmly in my cheek.

But to answer your question, I've watched the video and I don't think there is anything arrogant about a Swedish manager of an English national team wearing glasses, or a German commentating on a football match. I'm puzzled as to why you would think so. As to the English players, minimg to the national anthem when you know you can't sing is an example of humility, not arrogance.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
14,282
6,362
69
Pennsylvania
✟943,583.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
By the way, it's against forum rules to apply a "funny" award to a post as a piece of sarcasm. Please feel free to remove that from my post.

My bad. Thanks for letting me know. I was somehow not aware of that rule. Done.

I've remarked often on CF that I consider belief to be one of the most ridiculous of human practices, betraying an almost obscene arrogance. It's an opinion.

I accept evolution because it is the only currently available explanation that accounts for a plethora of observation and experiment regarding the diversity of life on the planet. Present contrary evidence that convincingly refutes that explanation and I shall no longer accept current evolutionary theory. Making assertions that rely upon the contested origin of Scripture and personal revelation just don't make the cut for acceptance - though I can see how they could satisfy the belief of some.

I quote here your remarks concerning mine concerning Darwinian evolution:

I've taken the liberty of splitting the above quote into two paragraphs, to better illustrate my point.
  • In the first you indicate an unwillingness to study the vast array of information that is said to support evolution.
  • In the second you note that many of your questions about Darwinian Evolution remain unanswered.
I leave it as an exercise for the student to recognise what your problem may be.

You seem to ignore the obvious: How many agnostics, skeptics and atheists come here demanding believers show them the evidence they refuse to look for themselves, of many claims: supposed contradictions in the Bible, supposed contradictions against science, origins of Bible themes, not to mention proofs of God's existence? I can hardly get more than a remark from most of the non-believing in response to the cosmological argument.

To a degree, I agree with you concerning 'belief' = 'opinion'. So the same applies to what you believe. Like your accepting of Darwinian Evolution, I could easily say the same for my accepting of the existence of First Cause, the cosmological argument. The fact that it is as solid as the law of causation is not even necessary for it to correspond with your belief in evolution.

While I find it admirable for those who have no other anchor for their opinions, that they should want falsifiable evidence before accepting a thing, the notion that falsifiable evidence is the only trustworthy source of fact —particularly for those less organized mentally, or less educated— comes across as a little bit arrogant too.

If we were all as logical as those unbelievers who come here to argue, we might all decide that there is no possibility for anything to happen except whatever does happen. Or some of us might consider the possibility that today is the only day there ever was.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,585
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,010.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Several years ago I was discussing with an Egyptian friend his perception of various nationalities.
It's interesting you mention this because, some years ago, I met a man who told me he was from Egypt, and I responded by saying, "Oh. You're from Mizraim, aren't you?"

And you should have seen the smile on his face.

He told me not many people know that, and I told him I got that name from the Bible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,585
52,504
Guam
✟5,127,010.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As to the English players, minimg to the national anthem when you know you can't sing is an example of humility, not arrogance.
How nice.

Telling them they're stooping to miming an "obscenely arrogant" anthem in the name of humility. :rolleyes:

I suppose next you're going to tell me that's not a cross on their flag? it's a Johari window? :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
9,201
10,092
✟281,903.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
My bad. Thanks for letting me know. I was somehow not aware of that rule. Done.
Thank you. I wasn't offended, but I thought you might use it on someone who would take offence.

You seem to ignore the obvious: How many agnostics, skeptics and atheists come here demanding believers show them the evidence they refuse to look for themselves, of many claims: supposed contradictions in the Bible, supposed contradictions against science, origins of Bible themes, not to mention proofs of God's existence? I can hardly get more than a remark from most of the non-believing in response to the cosmological argument.
When I've looked into some of the claims you mention I've found the argument for the contradictions more convincing than the arguments against. I'm reasonably comfortable with my objectivity and if you want to present the strongest refutation of any single contradiction I will give it due attention.
As to the First Cause- Cosmological Argument I generally consider matters of Origin to be way above my pay grade. I leave that to the many millions on the planet who are smarter than me. I am inclined to say that your affection for the "law of causation" is quaint, but worry that sounds patronising - not my intent.

the notion that falsifiable evidence is the only trustworthy source of fact —particularly for those less organized mentally, or less educated— comes across as a little bit arrogant too.
I've not yet been shown an effective alternative method. I'd delight in having one. I've read many claims, but no one has come up with the goods.
If we were all as logical as those unbelievers who come here to argue, we might all decide that there is no possibility for anything to happen except whatever does happen.
That may well be the case. Does that trouble you? If so, why?

Or some of us might consider the possibility that today is the only day there ever was.
Yes, that might be the case. It's worked out moderatly well for me. Hopefully for you too.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0