Crazy Bible Stories

[Jimmy Higgins]

As our poster friend quite rightly pointed out about rejecting or not rejecting parts of the bible. Simply ... I became Christian from other areas of the bible not the flood. I accept it as truth! The Details I am learning more.

Talk about intellectually dishonest responses.

It's all true, I just haven't gotten to that part yet.

I can defend/ or argue the faith with what I currently have available whilst still learning.

Like I said, intellectually dishonest retort. You are free to have faith in whatever you want. You are not free to claim, and expect anyone to respect said claim, that your faith is correct and your education will eventually reach the point where it disproves all known geology.

 

[Learner]

I can defend/ or argue the faith with what I currently have available whilst still learning.

Like I said, intellectually dishonest retort. You are free to have faith in whatever you want. You are not free to claim, and expect anyone to respect said claim, that your faith is correct and your education will eventually reach the point where it disproves all known geology.

Its always a faith-trust for me, what else is it as a believer? Take it as a " I know where you stand now" or taking into acoount. Shouldn't stop the discussion being mutually reasonable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can defend/ or argue the faith with what I currently have available whilst still learning.

Like I said, intellectually dishonest retort. You are free to have faith in whatever you want. You are not free to claim, and expect anyone to respect said claim, that your faith is correct and your education will eventually reach the point where it disproves all known geology.

Its always a faith-trust for me, what else is it as a believer? Take it as a " I know where you stand now" or taking into acoount. Shouldn't stop the discussion being mutually reasonable.

I believe what you mean to say is that “You don’t know what you are talking about, but you have faith you are right.”

 

[DBT]

It seems crazy that stories such as Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are still taken literally in this day and age by some folks.

 

[Lion IRC]

Argument from incredulity.

 

[DBT]

Argument from incredulity.

No, it's the absence of evidence, therefore probability, for Adam and Eve, the great flood, etc, stories being literal events that makes it irrational to believe that they were actual literal events.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Argument from incredulity.

No, it's the absence of evidence, therefore probability, for Adam and Eve, the great flood, etc, stories being literal events that makes it irrational to believe that they were actual literal events.

No, no, Lion's right. It's just that it's a terribly poor argument from incredulity.

I mean, you forgot the argument!

You're supposed to say, "this is not true BECAUSE I am incredulous" or "this is untrue BECAUSE You should be incredulous." You just say "I am incredulous." You didn't finish the 'argument from' part. Kind of amazing that Lion recognized it even without that whole fallacy part of the logical fallacy.

 

[Lion IRC]

"It seems crazy"

This is argument from incredulity writ large.

 

[Lion IRC]

"It seems crazy"

This is argument from incredulity writ large.

 

[James Brown]

Perhaps. It seems crazy that the world is made up of tiny balls of energy too small to see, but evidence has been provided to confirm it.

What's the evidence that the Garden of Eden and the Global Flood are factually correct? Wouldn't presenting that evidence counter an argument from incredulity?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Kinda reminds me of the idiots who can't distinguish 'argument, with insult' as discrete from 'argument from insult.'
Not every insult is an ad hominem fallacy. Unless you have a really sensitive chip on your shoulder.


Expressing incredulity is not the same as using incredulity as the basis for rejecting a proposition.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perhaps. It seems crazy that the world is made up of tiny balls of energy too small to see, but evidence has been provided to confirm it.

What's the evidence that the Garden of Eden and the Global Flood are factually correct? Wouldn't presenting that evidence counter an argument from incredulity?

Yeah, the statement ‘it seems crazy’ is written in context of a mountain of evidence both scientific, archeological, and historical that say these things didn’t happen.

It wasn’t stated in a vacuum.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well you again didn't read the bible, most of the water came from under not from the sky.

Where did it all go?

It seems crazy that stories such as Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are still taken literally in this day and age by some folks.

It's easier to believe a silly story than to have enough curiosity to know better. Emotions come easy. Intellect is still emerging in homo sapiens.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Well you again didn't read the bible, most of the water came from under not from the sky.

Where did it all go?

It seems crazy that stories such as Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark are still taken literally in this day and age by some folks.

It's easier to believe a silly story than to have enough curiosity to know better. Emotions come easy. Intellect is still emerging in homo sapiens.

When your entire religion, world view, and hope for a future life eternal in heaven rest solely and only on silly tall tales, one's intellectual wilful ignorance is going to be hard to overcome and stubborn. And these people can also argue it must be true because these tales are so ancient and it must be true because so many people believe them.

 

[Learner]

Well you again didn't read the bible, most of the water came from under not from the sky.

Where did it all go?

OR....

Why is there so much water still left?

 

[Learner]

Well the most obvious is ... bible-sense is not fathomable in the modern world even if it were to be true. The "best explanation" (within fathomable) is what you mean of course.

Not really. The global flood is completely indefendable.

Times change and I've seen datings of findings move about, to fit various other elements which would be contradicting otherwise. Whale bones found way up in the mountains, means moving the age of the whale bones back to match the estimated age of the mountain to when it arose for example. Or IIRC the theory they shifted up those mountains after a considerable time by earth rumbles and tremors or earth / plates shifting. Perhaps its acceptable that both happened and there are two defenders of these ideas.

Oh my fucking god! Not this old nonsense again. Do you know how mountains are formed? Do you know how scientists date rock formations? You keep embarrassing yourself every fucking time you post. I know 10 year old children who know more about the natural world than you do. Really!

Whale bones.

 

[Learner]

Its always a faith-trust for me, what else is it as a believer? Take it as a " I know where you stand now" or taking into acoount. Shouldn't stop the discussion being mutually reasonable.

I believe what you mean to say is that “You don’t know what you are talking about, but you have faith you are right.”

Not quite. Faith i.e. trusting something is true, doesn't mean " knowing-nothing-at-all!" There is no commandment to say "thall shalt be stupid!!

(Ok I can be at times but not always, I say with reasonable fairness)

 

[atrib]

Its always a faith-trust for me, what else is it as a believer? Take it as a " I know where you stand now" or taking into acoount. Shouldn't stop the discussion being mutually reasonable.

I believe what you mean to say is that “You don’t know what you are talking about, but you have faith you are right.”

Not quite. Faith i.e. trusting something is true, doesn't mean " knowing absolutely nothing-at-all"! There is no commandment to say "thall shalt be stupid!! (Ok I can be at times but not always)

You continue to post but you can't find the time to respond to any of my posts that expose your lack of understanding of how the natural world works. Who could have predicted that?

 

[Learner]

I thought my response to your post #96 was suffice pointing out where I was with previous discussion - not a good job I now see, you missed it.

Besides ... regarding so called exposed - if it were the case I was "professing to know all while not knowing a thing" .. I could find various answers on google and post it.

Or... I simply update (which iwould be the case) on what's current on mountains and post it. It doesn't conflict with the whale-bone post.

What use is that logically (asking how mountains are formed) to your argument?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well you again didn't read the bible, most of the water came from under not from the sky.

Where did it all go?

OR....

Why is there so much water still left?

You never did mention how you know the bulk came from below the sky....