(February 24, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 24, 2016 at 2:15 pm)Old Baby Wrote: No, you're either being deliberately obtuse or you still don't get it.

What is their to get these are your words sport:

your words Wrote:Even if I believed in bible-based Christianity, I wouldn't believe in yours, because you're an asshole.

Even if you accepted the truth of bible based Christianity, you would not accept anything I had to say about it. Again sport your words.

If you believe "X" is true and I teach "X" you would not believe "X" because I taught it. No other reason has been listed here other than you personally do not like me for your objection of "X".

If this is the case than everything I said in the above quote is valid.

I think you don't quite understand the depth in which you have committed yourself to in your statement, and when I spell everything out you yourself said... Well, it's like you said. You don't care if it is true or not, you will not believe what I have to say simply because i said it. despite whether or not it is true.

No, sport.  I was actually quite clear.  I said that even if you proved to me that Noah's Ark is a historical fact, I still wouldn't believe in YOUR Christianity.

YOUR Christianity.  Get it?

There's more to Christianity than the historicity of your bible stories.  There's something called fruits of the spirit.  These are the characteristics of your God that are supposedly apparent in those who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, which is a product of being born again. 

See, sport, my mind is completely open to facts and evidence.  I'm perfectly willing to consider your evidence for Noah's flood, Samson killing whole armies with jawbones, Ezekiel ascending to heaven in a flaming chariot or whatever.  I'm just not willing to look past the preponderance of evidence for your assholery to believe that your fairy tale beliefs have been of any real benefit to you.

(February 24, 2016 at 1:59 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 7:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Yeah, you're banned for life from my lunch table, Drichy. And don't take that as some kind of victory. You're just a twat.

Oh noooessss, what will I do?!?!?

What makes you think I want you to do anything? Or care?

(February 24, 2016 at 3:14 pm)Old Baby Wrote:

(February 24, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Drich Wrote: What is their to get these are your words sport:

Big cry baby Wrote:Even if I believed in bible-based Christianity, I wouldn't believe in yours, because you're an asshole.

Again sport your words.

If you believe "X" is true and I teach "X" you would not believe "X" because I taught it. No other reason has been listed here other than you personally do not like me for your objection of "X".

If this is the case than everything I said in the above quote is valid.

I think you don't quite understand the depth in which you have committed yourself to in your statement, and when I spell everything out you yourself said... Well, it's like you said. You don't care if it is true or not, you will not believe what I have to say simply because i said it. despite whether or not it is true.

No, sport.  I was actually quite clear.  I said that even if you proved to me that Noah's Ark is a historical fact, I still wouldn't believe in YOUR Christianity.

YOUR Christianity.  Get it?

nuuupe
Your moving the goal posts old sport, that intelectual dishonesty.
I added quote tags to the actual arguement I addressed in the above copy, and I will provide them here again:

Big cry baby Wrote:Even if I believed in bible-based Christianity, I wouldn't believe in yours, because you're an asshole.

Do you see it? The proof of noah's ark and validation of the bible has been taken off the table. You made the statement If you believed in "X" and I taught "X" you would not believe what I taught, the only reason stated was because "You are an ass hole." to go back on what I quoted and change the parameters of the discussion is a dishonesty.

Quote:There's more to Christianity than the historicity of your bible stories.  There's something called fruits of the spirit.  These are the characteristics of your God that are supposedly apparent in those who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, which is a product of being born again. 

See, sport, my mind is completely open to facts and evidence.  I'm perfectly willing to consider your evidence for Noah's flood, Samson killing whole armies with jawbones, Ezekiel ascending to heaven in a flaming chariot or whatever.  I'm just not willing to look past the preponderance of evidence for your assholery to believe that your fairy tale beliefs have been of any real benefit to you.

but again BCB (Big cry baby) You specifically stated then even if you already believed what i believed you would not believe anything I said. which means your measure of truth is based on the 'feelings' you have for the individual providing the narrative.

(February 24, 2016 at 4:50 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 24, 2016 at 3:14 pm)Old Baby Wrote: No, sport.  I was actually quite clear.  I said that even if you proved to me that Noah's Ark is a historical fact, I still wouldn't believe in YOUR Christianity.

YOUR Christianity.  Get it?

nuuupe
Your moving the goal posts old sport, that intelectual dishonesty.
I added quote tags to the actual arguement I addressed in the above copy, and I will provide them here again:

Big cry baby Wrote:Even if I believed in bible-based Christianity, I wouldn't believe in yours, because you're an asshole.

Do you see it? The proof of noah's ark and validation of the bible has been taken off the table. You made the statement If you believed in "X" and I taught "X" you would not believe what I taught, the only reason stated was because "You are an ass hole." to go back on what I quoted and change the parameters of the discussion is a dishonesty.

Quote:There's more to Christianity than the historicity of your bible stories.  There's something called fruits of the spirit.  These are the characteristics of your God that are supposedly apparent in those who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit, which is a product of being born again. 

See, sport, my mind is completely open to facts and evidence.  I'm perfectly willing to consider your evidence for Noah's flood, Samson killing whole armies with jawbones, Ezekiel ascending to heaven in a flaming chariot or whatever.  I'm just not willing to look past the preponderance of evidence for your assholery to believe that your fairy tale beliefs have been of any real benefit to you.

but again BCB (Big cry baby) You specifically stated then even if you already believed what i believed you would not believe anything I said. which means your measure of truth is based on the 'feelings' you have for the individual providing the narrative.

LOL... wow.  Typical, the only way to get around the argument is to construct a huge transparent strawman.  That's deliciously weak.

Reiterating for my own enjoyment.  I was commenting on YOUR Christianity, meaning the authenticity of your Christian born-again experience given the evidence of your rampant assholery, not on the historicity of your claims.  The historicity is beside the point, hence the statement that even if I believed in bible-based Christianity, I wouldn't believe in yours. 

Spin that you fuckwad.

Call me crybaby some more.  I laugh.  You lose.

(February 24, 2016 at 2:22 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 8:52 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Ever had a garden infested with Japanese knotweed, or something similar, which you want to eradicate? Would it make sense to collect samples of every plant and organism in the garden, then sterilise the whole ground before replanting everything - including the knotweed? That's how much sense the flood story makes.

Think salmonella. Let say you spill raw chicken juice in an open silverware drawer, and you get it on everything except the silverware that's in the dishwasher. Do you:

a)put the clean silver from the dishwasher into the drawer with the contaminated stuff hoping that the raw chicken juice won't make everyone sick.

b) throw absolutely everything out and buy everything new?

c)sterilize (wash with water and soap) everything in the drawer being careful not to contaiminate the clean silver you still have?

Or if you need to go back to your garden, you select a herbicide that targets the specific weed, or if it is really bad you get a general purpose herbicide that will kill everything except your select foliage. which again is similar to what God had done.

Truthfully we will never fully understand the evil this world was full of in this life. Humanity was not the only thing God was trying to get rid of. their was a stain brought on by sin that touched just about everything alive in one way or another. It all had to be sterilized.

But according to your religion, nothing was sterilised. Original Sin is allegedly still with us. It's the central selling point of this Jesus thing. And to hear some of your team's mouthpieces, the world is at least as sin-ridden as it was in Noah's day, if not worse. The flood achieved just as much as the evidence it left.

If Noah and his family can take care of thousands of animals, then surely they can take care of several children. They'd also be needed for genetic diversity, something the story made up by the people who wrote the bible didn't account for. Of course the story doesn't account for several things, which is why it's so ridiculous, and people who believe it are equally ridiculous.

tbh if the flood story were real, it still wouldn't get me to worship Yahweh. I'd be rooting for the other team.

(February 24, 2016 at 1:39 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(February 23, 2016 at 4:48 pm)Drich Wrote: Profession does not make on a d-bag. It is how one behaves in said profession that make one a d-bag. Or are you saying out of all the different professions in the world 'geology' is the one profession that keeps narrow minded people from getting jobs? Does it prevent small box thinkers from speak out and making it look like the whole profession supports only one world view?

What the bible describes is a saturation flood not a flash flood. your d-bags are describing the after effects of flash flooding pretending no other flooding would be possible.

http://hillsborough.ifas.ufl.edu/prohort...ration.pdf

I'm mostly just enjoying watching this, since I'm really busy, of late.

However, I had to jump in here... when I worked at the KDHE, the Environment department (mine) shared a floor with the Geology department. Literally every geologist working there whom I met was a Christian, complete with office bibles, pins on lapels, and the various desktop debris that lets them announce their faith to the world. They were among the most religious bunches I met in a science field. All of them knew as much about evolution as I do; in fact, geologists had the timeline and nature of evolutionary history figured out before biologists did.

As for the "flash flood", do a little math, Drich. We'll say that only Mt. Ararat was covered, as a lowball figure, since the story doesn't mention Everest. Mount Ararat is 16,854 feet tall. It rained, according to the story, for 40 days and 40 nights. That's 40 x 24 = 960 hours of rain.

In order for the floodwaters to have covered the mountain in that time, it would have had to rain 17.55 inches of rain per hour that entire time. No flash flood? The heaviest sustained rainfall on record is Tropical Cyclone Denise, at 71" in a 24-hour period, or 2.95 inches per hour, back in 1966.

Even if you say that half the waters were from "the deep", you're still talking 8.775 inches per hour, nonstop, for almost a month and a half, day and night.

No flash flood? Really?

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_we...cords#Rain

Rocket, I'm always impressed with what you have to say.
In this particular instance, I'd love to know:
Where the fuck to you find the energy and motivation to respond to you know who! That part impresses me more!

He must have invented a way to slow down time!

And now he can't undo it, and he has to fill it with something

It's not like he's going to learn anything from Drip.
And I don't think anything can ever sink in to Drip.
All he does when we give him facts is to raise the volume of distortion of his logic.

(February 24, 2016 at 1:39 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: However, I had to jump in here... when I worked at the KDHE, the Environment department (mine) shared a floor with the Geology department. Literally every geologist working there whom I met was a Christian, complete with office bibles, pins on lapels, and the various desktop debris that lets them announce their faith to the world. They were among the most religious bunches I met in a science field. All of them knew as much about evolution as I do; in fact, geologists had the timeline and nature of evolutionary history figured out before biologists did.

As for the "flash flood", do a little math, Drich. We'll say that only Mt. Ararat was covered, as a lowball figure, since the story doesn't mention Everest. Mount Ararat is 16,854 feet tall. It rained, according to the story, for 40 days and 40 nights. That's 40 x 24 = 960 hours of rain.

In order for the floodwaters to have covered the mountain in that time, it would have had to rain 17.55 inches of rain per hour that entire time. No flash flood? The heaviest sustained rainfall on record is Tropical Cyclone Denise, at 71" in a 24-hour period, or 2.95 inches per hour, back in 1966.

Even if you say that half the waters were from "the deep", you're still talking 8.775 inches per hour, nonstop, for almost a month and a half, day and night.

No flash flood? Really?

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_we...cords#Rain

I think I've figured out why the flood gets Christians worked up into such a tizzy. It's because it's one of their few claims that's actually 100% falsifiable (and guess what: it turns out to be false). We can actually evaluate their claims and prove them wrong, and saying "but I just have faith" makes them look even more crazy. I imagine this is why most Christians I know in person either say that this story didn't actually happen, or they are much quicker to invoke magic, instead of trying to keep this story all within the realm of science.