Exposing Atheistic Myths

[James Brown]

It is interesting. Supposedly all the dinosaurs were flash-fossilized due to the intense hydropressures.

But acorns needed only the sun to start shining again for them to sprout as if nothing untoward had happened.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is interesting. Supposedly all the dinosaurs were flash-fossilized due to the intense hydropressures.

But acorns needed only the sun to start shining again for them to sprout as if nothing untoward had happened.

Apparently, the atheistic myth was that these two suggestions are not complimentary and actually conflict with one another. Apparently, this myth has been shattered.

 

[Rhea]

It is interesting. Supposedly all the dinosaurs were flash-fossilized due to the intense hydropressures.

But acorns needed only the sun to start shining again for them to sprout as if nothing untoward had happened.

Apparently, the atheistic myth was that these two suggestions are not complimentary and actually conflict with one another. Apparently, this myth has been shattered.

... like an acorn smashed by a dinosaur fossil.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well the waters didn't recede in just a day which would obviously give the wrong erroneous impression, and seeds for example could lay dormant for quite a few years. Only takes a few days to gemnate and weeks and months to grow depending on plants. Trees could lay dormant - still have life in them while rooted under water for a few months, whille the outer-layers although dead-ish, becomes a somewat protective barrier (briefly saying).

What's happened to faith here? Why is it necessary to find a scientific explanation for something as patently religious as a Noah fable? It's either part of religious creed or it isn't. Isn't belief in Noah a faith position? Since when does faith require scientific validation?

Faith requires that a person is no more obligated to explain the Noah fable in scientific terms than is necessary to scientifically explain how and where their magic being abides.

 

[steve_bank]

All that water had to come from somewhere ago to somewhere.

As the old to the old TV series Outer Limits went, 'we control the horizontal and we control the vertical' on your TV. Biblical god changes reality as it suits he, she, or it.

All that flood water covering all mountains would likely have affected the Earth's wobble noticably/

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

All that water had to come from somewhere ago to somewhere.

As the old to the old TV series Outer Limits went, 'we control the horizontal and we control the vertical' on your TV. Biblical god changes reality as it suits he, she, or it.

All that flood water covering all mountains would likely have affected the Earth's wobble noticably/

One peculiar creationist bit of bullshit was that the mountains of Noah's era were not very tall. They only arose to today's heights after the flood. Really! Problem solved.

 

[southernhybrid]

I still want to know how Noah and his family got rid of all that animal shit! It's really difficult for me to understand how an intelligent person can believe some of these Biblical myths as literal truth. Yet, I've known intelligent people who do take all that stuff literally.

And of course, the other thing is why would an all powerful, loving god destroy most of its creation? What kind of an asshole would do that?

If I were capable of believing in a god, it certainly wouldn't be a god that has such a tremendous ego that it punishes people so severely, instead of nurturing them and helping them be better people. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Atheos]

Well in fairness what you believe about a god is irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether or not it actually exists. A god wouldn't have to be nice in order to exist. It could be raising humans much like a beef farmer raises cattle. Maybe the ones that gratuitously kiss its ass are the tastiest.

 

[James Brown]

It's quite possible that the cattle thinks the rancher loves them.

"He gives us food, he gives us shelter, he gives us medicine when we're sick. He loves us unconditionally!"

"I saw him lead Betsy into the trailer last week, and we haven't seen her since. What happened to Betsy?"

"The rancher needed another angel back at the Big House. Betsy is now sleeping on soft hay and being hand-fed by the Rancher and the Rancher's Wife."

"I'm so grateful to the Rancher for bringing us into this wonderful world. I can't wait to join him at the Big House!"

 

[Elixir]

It's quite possible that the cattle thinks the rancher loves them.

"He gives us food, he gives us shelter, he gives us medicine when we're sick. He loves us unconditionally!"

"I saw him lead Betsy into the trailer last week, and we haven't seen her since. What happened to Betsy?"

"The rancher needed another angel back at the Big House. Betsy is now sleeping on soft hay and being hand-fed by the Rancher and the Rancher's Wife."

"I'm so grateful to the Rancher for bringing us into this wonderful world. I can't wait to join him at the Big House!"

Cattle have enough sense to become anxious when they are loaded nose to tail and rib to rib into a massive stock trailer.
Not so, the southern evangelical sheeples.

 

[Treedbear]

I still want to know how Noah and his family got rid of all that animal shit! It's really difficult for me to understand how an intelligent person can believe some of these Biblical myths as literal truth. Yet, I've known intelligent people who do take all that stuff literally.
...

The Bible doesn't mention the inconvenient fact that Noah built the ark and tended the animals with the help of a bunch of illegal immigrants. That's why they exist today.

 

[Treedbear]

It's quite possible that the cattle thinks the rancher loves them.

"He gives us food, he gives us shelter, he gives us medicine when we're sick. He loves us unconditionally!"

"I saw him lead Betsy into the trailer last week, and we haven't seen her since. What happened to Betsy?"

"The rancher needed another angel back at the Big House. Betsy is now sleeping on soft hay and being hand-fed by the Rancher and the Rancher's Wife."

"I'm so grateful to the Rancher for bringing us into this wonderful world. I can't wait to join him at the Big House!"

Re: "The Island".

 

[Treedbear]

As to laws, yet again reality does not conform to science, laws are tested mathematical description of reality.o.

If that is the case then my original point was quite valid. If laws are derived from reality, then it makes no sense to talk about a new phenomenon you haven't previously encountered as the "breaking of physical laws". If a phenomenon happened at all, then it hasn't broken any laws, it just needs to be incorporated into your existing sense of nature and natural laws. Which for a theist is obviously a theistic one. The idea that a theist would see God as a law-breaker, let alone that miracles can only be called such if God has broken some sort of law, is silly and does not correspond with what most theists I have ever met, regardless of tradition, generally think. Rather, most would consider the "law of the universe" to be God's to enact as he or she chooses.

Let's say a comet is headed for Earth and Jupiter is diverted from the path predicted by the known physical laws so that it intercepts the comet and saves the Earth from certain destruction. It's no different than any other alleged miracle. Energy had to be added to the universe in order for the event to happen. The problem is the same as the one Descartes encountered in explaining how a dualistic self interacted with the physical self. There needs to be a rational explanation.

There's that "had to be" along with the "laws" and "must" and "fixed" already in play. Even if there are, for unexplained and inexplicable reasons, laws that matter and energy must follow, how can we know what those laws are except by observing what does and does not happen? Unless we know something about the ultimate source of fundamental order in the universe, science can only ever be a descriptive enterprise.

There still needs to be a rational explanation, even if it contradicts an established theory. And once we discover it the God of the Gaps loses his attraction. For me that's the most convincing argument against God existing. There is strong anthropological evidence that human beings want to believe that they are the purpose of all Creation. And they need an anthropic loving God to substantiate that claim. History provides the repeatable evidence that this is so.

 

[skepticalbip]

I still want to know how Noah and his family got rid of all that animal shit! It's really difficult for me to understand how an intelligent person can believe some of these Biblical myths as literal truth. Yet, I've known intelligent people who do take all that stuff literally.

And of course, the other thing is why would an all powerful, loving god destroy most of its creation? What kind of an asshole would do that?

If I were capable of believing in a god, it certainly wouldn't be a god that has such a tremendous ego that it punishes people so severely, instead of nurturing them and helping them be better people. It just doesn't make any sense.

This is a good example of why I think Last Tuesdayism is a much better belief system if someone insists on believing in a god. The tales Christianity gives us are too self contradictory, too subject to refutation by simple observation and reasoning, and generally raises more questions than they answer. Last Tuesdayism has none of those problems - any past memories we have or religious story we believe was just a silly memory that god programmed into our minds last Tuesday.

 

[Atheos]

I still want to know how Noah and his family got rid of all that animal shit! It's really difficult for me to understand how an intelligent person can believe some of these Biblical myths as literal truth. Yet, I've known intelligent people who do take all that stuff literally.

And of course, the other thing is why would an all powerful, loving god destroy most of its creation? What kind of an asshole would do that?

If I were capable of believing in a god, it certainly wouldn't be a god that has such a tremendous ego that it punishes people so severely, instead of nurturing them and helping them be better people. It just doesn't make any sense.

This is a good example of why I think Last Tuesdayism is a much better belief system if someone insists on believing in a god. The tales Christianity gives us are too self contradictory, too subject to refutation by simple observation and reasoning, and generally raises more questions than they answer. Last Tuesdayism has none of those problems - any past memories we have or religious story we believe was just a silly memory that god programmed into our minds last Tuesday.

HERETIC!!!! Last Thursdayism is the only true religion. Where's my Bic? I have a stake to light.

 

[Lion IRC]

I still want to know how Noah and his family got rid of all that animal shit! It's really difficult for me to understand how an intelligent person can believe some of these Biblical myths as literal truth. Yet, I've known intelligent people who do take all that stuff literally.
...

I take the Flood account literally.

Can you "literally" show me where in the "literal" text it says there was an insurmountable problem with animal dung?

Show me where exactly in the text it literally states (mathematically) the total number of animals.
Does the text state that they were all ADULT animals? Does it say whether or not the any of the animals were in a state of hibernation? (A confined space. Deep inside the cold and dark hull of the Ark.)

 

[skepticalbip]

I still want to know how Noah and his family got rid of all that animal shit! It's really difficult for me to understand how an intelligent person can believe some of these Biblical myths as literal truth. Yet, I've known intelligent people who do take all that stuff literally.
...

I take the Flood account literally.

Can you "literally" show me where in the "literal" text it says there was an insurmountable problem with animal dung?

Show me where exactly in the text it literally states (mathematically) the total number of animals.
Does the text state that they were all ADULT animals? Does it say whether or not the any of the animals were in a state of hibernation? (A confined space. Deep inside the cold and dark hull of the Ark.)

I take it then that you believe that none of the characters anywhere in the Bible ever took a shit or pissed? I don't recall the Bible ever stating that any of them ever did.

 

[atrib]

I still want to know how Noah and his family got rid of all that animal shit! It's really difficult for me to understand how an intelligent person can believe some of these Biblical myths as literal truth. Yet, I've known intelligent people who do take all that stuff literally.
...

I take the Flood account literally.

Can you "literally" show me where in the "literal" text it says there was an insurmountable problem with animal dung?

Show me where exactly in the text it literally states (mathematically) the total number of animals.
Does the text state that they were all ADULT animals? Does it say whether or not the any of the animals were in a state of hibernation? (A confined space. Deep inside the cold and dark hull of the Ark.)

I don't have any evidence to support the claim. Moreover, all the evidence we have tells us the Biblical flood
(1) is logistically impossible, and
(2) did not happen (based on geological and genetic information available to us).

I don't want to address these key issues. So let me try to distract people by making up shit and hoping that enough people bite so that the key issues are not discussed.

Is that a fair summary of your position? If the contention is that god did everything with magic and Noah and the animals were just along for the ride, none of this shit matters anyway. Why can't Christians just be honest about their faith?

 

[Rhea]

I still want to know how Noah and his family got rid of all that animal shit! It's really difficult for me to understand how an intelligent person can believe some of these Biblical myths as literal truth. Yet, I've known intelligent people who do take all that stuff literally.
...

I take the Flood account literally.

Can you "literally" show me where in the "literal" text it says there was an insurmountable problem with animal dung?

Show me where exactly in the text it literally states (mathematically) the total number of animals.
Does the text state that they were all ADULT animals? Does it say whether or not the any of the animals were in a state of hibernation? (A confined space. Deep inside the cold and dark hull of the Ark.)

I don't have any evidence to support the claim. Moreover, all the evidence we have tells us the Biblical flood
(1) is logistically impossible, and
(2) did not happen (based on geological and genetic information available to us).

I don't want to address these key issues. So let me try to distract people by making up shit and hoping that enough people bite so that the key issues are not discussed.

Is that a fair summary of your position? If the contention is that god did everything with magic and Noah and the animals were just along for the ride, none of this shit matters anyway. Why can't Christians just be honest about their faith?

That’s what I heard...

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, wait. I take it literally, meaning if there's no problem listed, i can ignore the logical consequences of any event and exploit the loophole assume magic?
So, Lion's usual game of keep-away.