(November 18, 2012 at 12:36 am)Rhythm Wrote: Look how quickly we abandon history, claiming to place Babel in time (or Noahs flood) becomes meaningless, all reference to an actual place in time must have been pretext. May as well place it in a time far far in the future. Maybe in a galaxy far, far away.....HG Wells "The Time Machine" places a complicated mechanical toy in the distant past..and there certainly isn't any definitive proof that there weren't complicated mechanical toys in the distant past.

I don't abandon history - just like I don't abandon science when I find a problem with the predictions of QM or the predictions of GR. History is full of "conflicting accounts". In the fifth century BC Herodotus told us that slaves built the Pyramids, and we believed this lie for 2,500 years!

Atheists used to claim that crucifixion wasn't used a roman method of execution, and that there was no evidence of nails being used in crucifixion. They used to point out the fact that there were no depictions of the execution method dated to when it was supposedly in use. As if that isn't "abandoning history"!

Used to used to used to..until what happened Daniel? Now go make that happen with your donkey. Until then it's 4,000bc to now..that's your range,

-not "but the text is wrong", or "but we don't know that they didn't have domesticated donkeys."

Own the evidence you claim. If the narrative leads to an uncomfortable conclusion..oh fucking well, you can either run with it and apply a little integrity or wiggle like an apologist. You've chosen the latter, you -have- abandoned history..because it seems convenient to do so.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't give two fucks if Gen 11 has been "corrupted" at some point with some irresponsible Hebrew scribe inserting "donkeys" where they weren't previously. All that proves is a small alteration to the text, nothing more. I still prefer an early date for the flood. This would mean that God wasn't with the Hebrews only 4,000 years up until Christ but more like 40,000. Ouch, sorry didn't realize that would hurt you rhythm

@Daniel:

I started drinking an hour ago. I suggest you start. I'm drinking tequila. You need not second me. But by all means, drink!

(November 18, 2012 at 7:59 am)apophenia Wrote:


@Daniel:

I started drinking an hour ago. I suggest you start. I'm drinking tequila. You need not second me. But by all means, drink!

From what he's saying I think he's a raging alcoholic.

(November 18, 2012 at 12:32 am)Daniel Wrote: Yes, Gen 12 mentions domesticated donkeys under Abraham....

Is that the part with the grass eating lions ?

(November 18, 2012 at 6:55 am)Daniel Wrote: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't give two fucks if Gen 11 has been "corrupted" at some point with some irresponsible Hebrew scribe inserting "donkeys" where they weren't previously. All that proves is a small alteration to the text, nothing more. I still prefer an early date for the flood. This would mean that God wasn't with the Hebrews only 4,000 years up until Christ but more like 40,000. Ouch, sorry didn't realize that would hurt you rhythm

But look at it from the point of the god inspiration of the authors. All of the authors of the bible claimed inspiration from god, we can presume, since otherwise why would their peers accept their additions? So the point being, even if someone did insert the "donkeys", why would you assume that their guidance by the holy spirit was any less true?

Christians trust their bible authors' claim of divine guidance of their pen, yet do not trust their contemporaries' claims of godly inspired writings.
If you doubt Joe Smith's divine guidance in his biblical writings, then you must come up with a basis to vet the claims of divine inspiration. The simplest and most direct, would be to "Ask god."

The problem with that is, at least for all the christians that I have met, god no longer "Speaks," he only sends good feelings and peace for communication any more. Despite god speaking clearly and conveying complete meaning to all the prophets and major players in the bible, now god has muted himself and only communicates to his flock with telepathically sent warm feelings. I suggest you try this method with your wife next time she asks for a grocery store list. See if you can communicate what you want her to buy with only squeeze, a hug, or a smile.

Once you see that divine authorship is a false claim, the book becomes completely superfluous, not just a inserted reference to "donkeys."

(November 18, 2012 at 6:55 am)Daniel Wrote: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't give two fucks if Gen 11 has been "corrupted" at some point with some irresponsible Hebrew scribe inserting "donkeys" where they weren't previously. All that proves is a small alteration to the text, nothing more. I still prefer an early date for the flood. This would mean that God wasn't with the Hebrews only 4,000 years up until Christ but more like 40,000. Ouch, sorry didn't realize that would hurt you rhythm

Hey, np, you prefer an earlier unknown..because the known quantity doesn't sit with you. That's fine. Lets not pretend we're referencing anything other than a preference you have for shoving a fairy tale farther into the past then that fairy tale itself would suggest. You don't even trust the narrative you have..you'd rather another one. Good for you. This isn't about placing a narrative anywhere in time, it's a matter of excusing a narrative for being a hopeless fuck-up. Again, you've abandoned history, preferring "some-when" in your imagination instead. It isn't me that's hurt by this, because It doesn't matter to me when the cow is said to have jumped over the moon, what it does hurt is any credibility or respect for your position (should you hope to hold either of these things). You'll have to excuse more than donkeys...to try that 40k bc date on btw. In fact...you're going to have to excuse the entirety of the narrative....because the very beginning the human narrative in genesis places you well beyond the mark you would hope for. I've mentioned this to Drich, and it bears repeating to you. The narrative is irreconcilable. No amount of contortion can salvage it as a factual retelling. None. You'll have to abandon it...and amusingly, you have already begun to do so.

Daniel Wrote:So what? It's hardly a personal attack on atheists, he's just expressing his own opinion.

His opinion(which was expressed in a loaded question) is the personal attack. If an atheist started a thread asking Christians why they are so stupid, would you not consider that a personal attack?

Edit: BTW, I am referring to his question in post #3, not the original one.

I respect anyone for their beliefs on one condition:
They don't try to force their beliefs on others. And that includes actively trying to prove that someone elses beliefs are wrong.

I came here with a simple question and was met with a barrage of hate. I am still convinced that, out there somewhere, there are Atheists that are decent people and that are able to gain my respect but you guys are just killing that hope.
ITT: Angry Atheists.