One question for Christians

[Bad Writer]

Here's some light reading for you:

Talk Origins: Problems with the Flood

You should look up the term “elephant hurling” in regards to debate. The handy thing is, whenever you hurl an elephant, I am perfectly justified in hurling one back at you, here’s a refutation (some light reading) of the article you referenced….

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

Any argument for a Global Flood is special pleading at its finest, sir. I mean, I didn't actually expect you to read my hurled elephant (you didn't, did you?), but it was meant as, "You believe in a Flood? I have many reasons why I don't, I care to unfurl them all in this moment, and arguing about it is a silly notion to me."

But you persist. And I'm going to insist.

Size of the Ark: Wood is structurally unsound at that size, especially with the number of animals on board.

Unbelievable amounts of Shit: Shit shit shit, everywhere there's shit. Those 8 family members would be shoveling animal dung all day long.

Food: Storage and amounts would also be an issue. Where do the carnivores get the meat if there is only two of everything...I mean...there was only two of everything, right? Oh, no, the Bible actually contradicts itself again by saying there might have been 7 pairs of each, that is, 14 of each kind of animal. Which brings up the next point:

How many animals on the ark? : You seriously can't tell me you think that Noah put all of the 1 1/2 million kinds of animal on such a small, wooden boat? Then there's that food issue again...

Even the mountains covered: Okay...I know this god of yours can do anything, but where did he get all that water, and where did it go afterwards? I guess it was magic. And if the polar ice caps melted, there's no evidence of that occurring in 2000 B.C., and if the entire earth was flooded, all marine life would have ended because of the water inconsistencies...but they didn't. All plant life would be dead...but it wasn't. This story is stupid, stupid, stupid, and you ARE a special kind of retard if you believe it. Even from a non-scientific standpoint, it is utterly bogus. You want to believe in something that's obviously a fairy tale.

(And I read your piece of shit article that you pasted back at me. Your fundie friends wanna get pissy because we hold the Bible with contempt? Tough. I hold any piece of shit that's held under my nose with contempt, the Bible included. So many plants could have survived? That doesn't account for the ones that may or may not have...or the ones that exist that definitely wouldn't have. Having one land mass before the flood is special pleading as well as heavy speculation. Also, leaving no point or question unanswered is not the same as answering them correctly. This is worse than Christian Apologetics: this is voluntary ignorance.)

If you assume the Bible is wrong, you’ll arrive at old ages for the Earth, that is true, however that does nothing to prove the Bible is actually wrong or that the Earth is actually that old. If you assume the Bible is true it’s easy to arrive at young ages for the Earth. Both sides have to assume the very thing they are trying to prove.

You're ill-informed if you believe that. This argument is true for the former, but it doesn't work that way for the latter. How do you know the hypothesis was that the earth was 6000 years old, but was proven wrong when it turned out to be much, much more? Science turns up wrong hypotheses all the time, which lead to amazing discoveries. You've just proven to me that you have no grounds to argue against science because you have no idea how it comes up with results. Please come down from bullshit mountain, SW.

One hundred percent. And I never said nothing in science is absolute.

Interesting…

“The thing about science is since it is changing all the time, it never claims to be absolutely correct.”- You in Post 334.

You caught me in a contradiction of words.

I should say that it's never so arrogant to assume that it has all the answers concerning everything, but there are definitely certain things we can count on to always be true.

Sitting at my computer desk, I know for a certainty that gravity will cause a pen to fall to the ground every time I release it from my grip. That's an absolute in science. That fact will never change. The only future changes in the physics of gravity we will ever get are going to be supplemental; they won't rewrite the entire science book.

Yeah, that about sums up my thoughts on that. I'm not really sure why you follow up with:

SW: "How does gravity cause the pen to fall? You seem to be assuming that future trials will yield results that are similar to the results of past trials under similar conditions, how do you know this is true?"

I know it's true because of the mass of the earth, which is measurable and directly related to the force of gravity, another measurable phenomenon. We could change the outcome by dropping it on a moving elevator, or dropping it whilst on the moon, or even letting go of the pen while in space. But gravity's relation to the mass of an object and its relative direction and velocity to it are all that matters in this equation. Oh, and we can add in little factors here and there like surface tension against a non-vacuum space and all that jazz.

You can't justify what you don't know. For all we can tell god created a giant firefly in the sky to light the world for that day.

Sure, but that would still give us days without the Sun, so what’s your point?

The bold was my point.

---

According to what we know about standards of evidence, you are doing quite the opposite. Think of a standard like a threshold. Once that line has been crossed, then it's okay for that individual to believe in whatever claim was on the other side. You have not crossed the thresholds of Al-Quran, for instance, because you still do not believe in it. My standards of evidence are very high for outrageous claims; this is why I still do not believe in the Loch Ness monster.

---

I am not talking about standards of evidence; I am talking about standards of scrutiny. I apply more scrutiny to the Bible than any other Holy Book, which means I hold it to a higher standard of evidence. It passes that standard easily.

...

I have a lower standard of evidence for other books and yet they do not even meet it. That’s what I am saying.

Well then you and I are talking about different things, and I can't seem to keep you on track with my point, or you're deliberately avoiding the obvious conclusion, so it's no use to even bother with it anymore

Um...first of all, that's a passage about predestination. More on that later if you feel the need to discuss it. However, what I really want to say is that it's scary how you're okay knowing that God is cool with murdering his creations.

It’s not murder if He’s justified in doing it, and He is. I am fully aware of what Romans 9 is about, and Paul is saying God is justified in building Pharaoh up only to destroy Him. The potter has the right over the clay.

You may think he's justified in doing it, but I abhor his actions, which is why, even if he's real, I will not worship him. He's a murderous twat, and he should be avoided at all costs. I mean, what if you hear a voice in your head that tells you to kill me? Would you kill me if you attributed that voice to God? (I would hope that you doubt that it's from God and instead trust your better judgment.)

---

Sandwiches are demonstrably real; that's the kicker here. That's why the analogy works. (And the man's name was Jimmy, thank you. At least I remembered your boys Science and...well, whoever that other guy was, I remember him .)

---

Very funny, but for billions of people God is demonstrable as well.

Their evidence is special since they can't demonstrate it to others.

Yes, interestingly enough most atheists believe in aliens even though there’s no proof they exist (a bit of special pleading). However, we were talking about people believing they had been abducted by aliens, and those people make up a meniscal amount of the total population.

So I can't, say, compare a belief in a Christian God Jehovah/Jesus to a belief in the Mormon God Elohim? The numbers of believers for each faith is very different from one another, Mormons having fewer, yet they both rely on one thing in order to believe: faith. I would hope that a rational man would use the same standard of evidence when scrutinizing either's religious claims. I hold the same true for stories of alien abductees, for if a person is to believe those stories, it would take a huge leap of faith without demonstrable evidence, even thought there are much fewer alien-probed people out there than there are in the Christian population.

---

I can't demonstrably prove that he's not real, but I have reason to believe that society could potentially be better off without religion. There are many working models as to how a society bereft of religion might look, but I don't subscribe to any one model at the moment as what truly might happen if there were fewer systems of belief (or none at all) in the world.

---

The soviets tried this, and it didn’t work out all too well.

Oh, you mean forcing Atheism on a nation? Man, I'm talking about natural Atheism caused by reason and understanding on a personal level.

Have you seen pictures? Do we have telescopes? The evidence for the existence of the above-named celestial bodies is still demonstrable.

I have also seen alleged pictures of Bigfoot and “Nessy”. It seems like your standards are a bit arbitrary for what you accept as evidence and what you reject as evidence.

You mean, have I seen any peer reviews or reproducible evidence? Please don't throw a strawman at me.

You’re on the branch with me whether or not you like it, I am afraid my friend. I am just trying to pin you down on why you believe it’s ok to believe in some things that are unseen but not others. Do you believe in aliens?

Fair enough, but let it be noted that I'm being held on the branch against my will (let it also be noted that that was just a jab at your god's supposed free will). I don't believe in aliens, but their possible existence intrigues me. Do you think I should believe in aliens, even though there's absolutely no demonstrable proof that they are out there?

I can see that you have a lot of reason to mistrust science (and thank you for providing good, valid reasons). But the differences/changes you are talking about that will occur 50 years ago do not render all science invalid.

I am aware of that, but the scientific understandings that seem to conflict with scripture are precisely the types of scientific theories that change the most and that we are the most unsure about, I do not think that’s a mere coincidence at all.

I'm sorry to hear it, but I think that one is out of my hands. I will say that I don't believe it's a coincidence because these scientific explanations conflict heavily with what fundamental Christians hold true, so there's going to be some unavoidable debate. Weak points and strong points are going to be brought out for both sides.

---

I think what's not being said here is that my atheism actually isn't based in science at all. My atheism is based in doubt. Scientific theories help me understand the world better, but my doubt remains. (Doubt is also what helps improve science, believe it or not.) I can give you scientific evidence that proves the Bible wrong all day long, but I don't need that in order to disbelieve the Bible. I simply don't see a reason to believe it, the same as I don't believe in the tale told by Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.

---

So if this doubt is not based upon anything evidenced would you concede that your atheism is a faith based position?

I don't believe in the use of faith, so no. The disbelief in god(s) is, when restated, a negative belief, or the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is also the standard position that one should take before being convinced with evidence that meets one's standard.

By the way, if you wanted to hear more about my Mormon days, then you should PM, and we'll get more into it that way. We should leave elements of this discussion out of that though, for I would rather this debate stay public.