(March 3, 2015 at 8:25 pm)Cato Wrote: Not accurate. He rode two donkeys, so he was really into animal gangbangs.

Not quite the three way this Jesus had in mind. But who am I to judge?

(March 3, 2015 at 10:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I also posed a question about coral castle to reality salesman which he conveniently ignored.
I'm outnumbered, what's your guys excuse?

My excuse, if I am obligated to produce one, is that I was unable to distinguish your question from a rhetorical one. But if there's even a chance that you honestly care about my answer, here it is...are you ready?...I don't know.
Just as I admitted that I was not Krauss and could not produce the proofs myself that justify his claims, just like I can't explain the pyramids, just as I can't prove to you in this moment that the world is round. Here's where you and I will not see eye to eye...

I assign confidence in by beliefs that are proportional to the evidence. First hand demonstrable evidence holds more sway than that which I cannot personally verify as a result of one shortcoming or another. I cannot explain the architectural composition of your coral castle, but I can see that it is comprised entirely of natural materials. So, while I cannot and would not claim to give you instructions on how to build one, I can reasonably conclude that a natural explanation exists. It seems you are content on accepting Magic. We all depend on deference in our understanding of the world and it is through our mutual deference that we are able to enjoy the contributions of one another.


There is no point that a supernatural explanation becomes a more reasonable explanation for any example of a thing that either one of us cannot comprehend or personally explain. Arguing from ignorance keeps you ignorant. I said that your old book did not hold the answers to the origins of the universe. You then thought that you were right about your conclusion if you could get me to admit that people of an older generation were capable of doing something that I didn't understand, well...you've mistaken. That is not what was demonstrated and the reason I didn't answer your "question" was because it seemed stupid. So...there ya go. I hope it was worth the wait.

(March 3, 2015 at 10:11 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: As if I have the time to respond to every single post. Earlier I asked you guys to answer a yes or no question....still haven't received an answer.
I also posed a question about coral castle to reality salesman which he conveniently ignored.
I'm outnumbered, what's your guys excuse?

Our excuse is that you're lying: you were given an answer to your first question at least twice that I can recall, it was just in greater detail than the dishonest binary you were trying to construct, and so you're pretending it never happened. But you literally quoted Cato's answer to that question to me, so it's not like you're unaware; you're just being a bastard.

As to your actual "argumentation" so far, you have this weird habit of acting as though, if you can demonstrate that a word or concept has multiple sets or uses, that therefore the set or use you want to be true is automatically the only one applicable within the context of the discussion. With regards to your claim that faith is synonymous with trust, even accepting that they are synonyms doesn't automatically mean that the usage of the word within the bible is the "trust" usage; you'd need to demonstrate that, where you seem content to simply try to smuggle that premise in by "winning" the first point, as though that means all other consequent points are yours by default. You did the same thing with regards to the global flood and orbital shifts, trying to drag a "yes" answer to the question of whether that is possible, while scrabbling desperately away from the highly pertinent point that even if it were possible, we still know for a fact that it hadn't happened in the past, which was the original point under discussion. You're not going to be able to palm those cards here.

Additionally, I'm still waiting on an explanation of how you know your interpretation of the bible is the correct one that doesn't rely on you pointing to your interpretation of the bible some more. You whine about other people not answering your questions, but that one's still hanging.

(March 3, 2015 at 10:24 pm)dyresand Wrote: It's simple just answer their damn question.
And you proved theists are pretty much dishonest and not worth the time of day trying to reason with.

And I'll ask once again, what QUESTION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

(March 3, 2015 at 10:27 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: You mean the one that I answered? Twice?

Liar.

Your answer to a "yes or no" question was with neither a "yes" or "no".
Not a clear yes or no to be seen.
In case you were wondering, this is how you answer yes /no questions.

(March 3, 2015 at 11:07 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 3, 2015 at 10:24 pm)dyresand Wrote: It's simple just answer their damn question.
And you proved theists are pretty much dishonest and not worth the time of day trying to reason with.

And I'll ask once again, what QUESTION ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

(March 3, 2015 at 10:27 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: You mean the one that I answered? Twice?

Liar.

Your answer to a "yes or no" question was with neither a "yes" or "no".

---

(March 1, 2015 at 12:41 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The moon shifting in its orbit would not create a worldwide flood. It would create a worldwide rotating tidal bulge until the secondary effects took place. Unless you are stating that what your god meant by "worldwide flood" was "rotating tidal bulge," this natural phenomena doesn't explain what you think it does.

I am not intimating that a planetary body cannot shift its orbit. I am, however, saying that planetary bodies don't jump orbits for no reason, and that not every orbit is viable, and that bodies don't magically shift back into their previous orbit for no reason.

I am also saying that the secondary effects of shifting the moon into an orbit 5% of its current orbit would fracture the Earth's crust and boil off the atmosphere, kill every single living thing on the planet whether they were in an ark or not and leave both the earth and the moon misshapen.

Unless goddidit. In that case, why the moon orbit explanation? Why not just *poof* water, *poof* no water, *poof* wipe, wipe, wipe, no evidence left over. Mass murder, god style.

---

Not a clear yes or no to be seen.
In case you were wondering, this is how you answer yes /no questions.

---

(February 28, 2015 at 8:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Yes

(March 6, 2014 at 11:16 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Do I deny slavery exists and is condoned by YWH in the Bible?
Yes

(March 6, 2014 at 11:16 am)Huggy74 Wrote: No

yes

---

Dishonesty Huggy Dishonesty you already got caught lying why keep digging a bigger hole for yourself to fall in.

(March 3, 2015 at 11:07 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Your answer to a "yes or no" question was with neither a "yes" or "no".
...
Not a clear yes or no to be seen.

Why do you insist on being a fucking liar? The question was:

Huggy74 Wrote:[A]re you saying that it is impossible for a planetary body to shift in its orbit? A yes or no answer will suffice.

(March 1, 2015 at 12:41 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I am not intimating that a planetary body cannot shift its orbit.

How does my answer not directly address that question? Are you so obtuse that to you, a direct response to the question, not phrased in your false yes/no dichotomy, is not an answer? I refuse to believe that you are that dumb. But you are making it really fucking hard to hang on to that.

Literally "Are you saying this?" followed by "I am not saying this."

(March 3, 2015 at 11:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: How does my answer not directly address that question? Are you so obtuse that to you, a direct response to the question, not phrased in your false yes/no dichotomy, is not an answer? I refuse to believe that you are that dumb. But you are making it really fucking hard to hang on to that.

Literally "Are you saying this?" followed by "I am not saying this."

He doesn't want details or qualifiers, or a nuanced answer. What he wants is a simple Y/N that he can shunt into one of the two dishonest strawmen he had constructed before he asked the question. He just wants your help in constructing the strawman beforehand, but I see no reason for any of us to play into this legalistic nonsense.

(March 3, 2015 at 11:04 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: There is no point that a supernatural explanation becomes a more reasonable explanation for any example of a thing that either one of us cannot comprehend or personally explain. Arguing from ignorance keeps you ignorant. I said that your old book did not hold the answers to the origins of the universe. You then thought that you were right about your conclusion if you could get me to admit that people of an older generation were capable of doing something that I didn't understand, well...you've mistaken. That is not what was demonstrated and the reason I didn't answer your "question" was because it seemed stupid. So...there ya go. I hope it was worth the wait.

My point was that Ancient people possessed knowledge that we currently do not have (as evidenced by the pyramids etc.), they weren't dummies.

Would you at least agree to that?

(March 3, 2015 at 11:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Additionally, I'm still waiting on an explanation of how you know your interpretation of the bible is the correct one that doesn't rely on you pointing to your interpretation of the bible some more. You whine about other people not answering your questions, but that one's still hanging.

And I answered you. The Bible is it's own interpreter.
When you rely on man to interpret what he thinks the Bible says, you tend to end up with a new denomination.

Quote:2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

I'll address your earlier statement.

(March 2, 2015 at 10:16 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Actually, I kinda do need to act like that, because in your book when the bible says "day" it can mean some other length of time, but only when you seem to want it to.

Quote:Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Quote:2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

You know time is relative, so why are you surprised that God (who is eternal) measures time differently?

Quote:Genesis 2
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Quote:Genesis 5
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

I can't explain it any simpler.

---

(March 3, 2015 at 11:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 3, 2015 at 11:21 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: How does my answer not directly address that question? Are you so obtuse that to you, a direct response to the question, not phrased in your false yes/no dichotomy, is not an answer? I refuse to believe that you are that dumb. But you are making it really fucking hard to hang on to that.

Literally "Are you saying this?" followed by "I am not saying this."

He doesn't want details or qualifiers, or a nuanced answer. What he wants is a simple Y/N that he can shunt into one of the two dishonest strawmen he had constructed before he asked the question. He just wants your help in constructing the strawman beforehand, but I see no reason for any of us to play into this legalistic nonsense.

I just gave examples of you guys doing the exact same thing to me, yet I have no problems giving the Yes or no answer.

You guys can ask Y/N questions, but can't answer them yourselves.
Pretty hypocritical, no?

(March 3, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You know time is relative, so why are you surprised that God (who is eternal) measures time differently?

Quote:Genesis 2
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Quote:Genesis 5
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

I can't explain it any simpler.

Looks more like a gaping contradiction, to me.

You purblind fool. You poor, purblind fool.

(March 3, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: And I answered you. The Bible is it's own interpreter.

Only if you don't read the bible with your human eyes, and contain the information in your human brain. If you're doing either of those things, then you are interpreting the bible when you read it.

Quote:When you rely on man to interpret what he thinks the Bible says, you tend to end up with a new denomination.

You're a man, and you're telling me what you think the bible says. And you, like all those other men, seem incapable of doing anything but assuming that your interpretation is perfectly correct. I get that you believe the things that you believe, but just conducting yourself like your beliefs are automatically correct doesn't tell us how you know those beliefs are correct, and that's all you're doing. "The bible is its own interpreter" contains within it the hidden premise that what you are representing the bible to be is the correct interpretation; whether you shop out responsibility to the bible itself or not, you still have a set of beliefs, and those beliefs are not shared by other christians. From an outside perspective, without just presupposing that you're absolutely right on every point, how do I differentiate between the right perspective, and the wrong ones?

Just pointing back to the bible doesn't resolve this question, as all the other competing interpretations are doing exactly the same thing. You're answering a "how do you know?" question with a "what you claim to know," answer. The contents of your beliefs are not the reason you believe them.

Quote:Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

So how are we supposed to know when the bible is talking about some undetermined length of time when it says "day," versus when it's talking about an actual 24-hour period? You're very happy to tell us which you think it is, but you completely freeze up whenever you're asked how you know that's the correct usage. Sometimes you refer back to faith, which is effectively just "because I said so," with an amateurish attempt to tack on additional divine authority.

Quote:I just gave examples of you guys doing the exact same thing to me, yet I have no problems giving the Yes or no answer.

You're the most evasive one here.

Quote:You guys can ask Y/N questions, but can't answer them yourselves.
Pretty hypocritical, no?

No, it's not hypocritical to refuse to play into your attempts to build strawmen. The difference is that when you give an answer that expands upon the point beyond a simple yes or no, we go from there. When we give you an answer that does the same, you just pretend no answer was given until you get the simple yes or no that you want in order to continue on your predetermined script, regardless of what our actual position might be.