DESTROY NOAH'S ARK

[Minimalist]

But there is evidence.

Your bible is not evidence. Your bible is the claim and there is not a fucking thing to support it. We know how the world works. I'll take a first year geology student over some shithead with an advanced theology degree. You have to understand that your bullshit does not hold water....(pun intended.)

[Jacob(smooth)]

That's a good start, but to truly reflect Huggy's argument here, we wouldn't just be disputing someone who believed your wife was innocent, but who believed that pirate gremlins came and caved in your skull. Because apparently, not knowing the answer to a question means that we can't identify blatantly impossible answers, or answers for which there is no evidence that agents within that argument even exist.

If you don't know the answer to a thing, you simply can't dispute the existence of pirate gremlins!

Not accurate. It would actually be a choice between pirate gremlins (religious version), or the skull spontaneously caving in by itself (scientific version).

I was referring to the fact that just because something is not impossible does not make it plausible or acceptable as an explanation.

To make that metaphor fit, the police would simply turn up and find me with a caved in skull. The police say, "we don't know yet what happened". You say "well, the choices are that the skull spontaneously caved in itself, or pirate gremlins. Since skulls caving in by themselves is unlikely, therefore pirate gremlins".

One last time. Just because we may not KNOW what happened does not mean one must pluck a hypothesis out of the air. We have some clues. Redshift, the expanding universe etc. Enough to tantalize us with an answer but not yet enough to form a solid theory. But just because we don't know the full answer to something does not raise the pirate gremlin theory from not impossible to remotely likely.

---

So explain the bible dove-tailing together so perfectly, not being evidence.

The various authors had access to the rest of the books right? If the correlations between what was written of Jesus had been written WITHOUT SIGHT of the prophecies he was purported to fulfill, you might have a point. But they weren't! They were penning a Book for a new religion, of COURSE they're going to tie up the story arcs.

How else can I put this.

Lets say there is an OT prophecy that the second coming would have green hair, 11 fingers and a wart on his nose. Knowing about this, I write a book which says MY GRANDAD (now deceased) had green hair, 11 fingers and a wart on his nose.

Would you consider this book evidence that my grandad was the second coming? Of course not, you'd assume that I'd read the prophecies, and written up a character to fit them. Perhaps to make money off book sales. Would you consider my book to be evidence that my grandad fulfilled that prophecy? I doubt it.

You remember the council of nicea? Its easy to make the accounts dovetail when you have a huge raft of source material to choose from and you get to drop the ones which DON'T fit. You used the analogy of a puzzle, the people who collated the bible had access to a huge number of pieces which the authors had made to try to fit the gaps, most of which they discarded.

[Esquilax]

Not accurate. It would actually be a choice between pirate gremlins (religious version), or the skull spontaneously caving in by itself (scientific version).

Have you even been reading your own conversation? You were saying that if we don't know the answer, we have no basis for disagreeing with your chosen answer, which is clearly the conversation I was following on from in my post you quoted. The real choice would be between an honest "we don't know yet," and your "definitely pirate gremlins!"

The whole point was to show how ridiculous your suggestion was that, if we don't know the actual answer, we have no method with which we can determine which other answers can't be true.

So explain the bible dove-tailing together so perfectly, not being evidence.

Oh, that one's easy: only someone ignorant of the content of the bible could ever call it perfect. It's loaded with contradictions, for one. It's demonstrably wrong in other areas (Show an animal something striped and it'll have striped offspring? Really?) And that's when it's not recommending moral atrocities...

It's not perfect. It takes a lot of bluster to claim that it is.

[downbeatplumb]

So explain the bible dove-tailing together so perfectly, not being evidence.

Have you read other books?
They all do that.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

R u soft ass baby shit.. really.. read ur fucking book. It a fairy tale with disgusting stories that bronze aged people thought of.

I rest my case....

If you call "utter nonsense backed up with a lack of anything that considered a coherent or verifiable thought" a 'case'.

:-| Because your logic is faulty, and you have a strong propensity to redefine any word to ensure that your point of view is deemed to be the 'correct' one, you can safely be dismissed as a loon.

---

I can say with absolute certainty that there is no evidence for your fucking god.

But there is evidence.

Nope. There isn't. Everything you posted from the bible (apart from being horseshit) is just a re-hasing of the claim, not the evidence you're looking for.

I suggest reading this book, as you seem to struggle with it:

[Sejanus]

Why aren't we all buck-toothed and playing banjos?

Speak for yourself.

[Zen Badger]

What pisses me off the most is how the bible freaks reject evolution and an old universe despite mountains of evidence yet hold forth deranged dross like the flood myth as indisputable fact despite the absence of any fucking evidence at all.
It's times like this that I'm reminded of Wendy Wright.

[Minimalist]

They have mastered "stupid," Z/B.