What are your answers?

[downbeatplumb]

I thought I made it clear that you two have a ban on the supernatural and no level of evidence will satisfy your desire to disprove me

What is the supernatural if not an excuse to not be able to supply proof?
Or do you have some evidence for the supernatural? I very much doubt that you do.

Therefore I have no response for the flood, creation and exodus. I believe they all happened and the Bible is historical and divine.

Then you my dear are deluding yourself.

The myth of the flood is probably the end result of the racial memory of when the mediterainean burst into the black sea.

The Black Sea (around 7,600 years ago)Main article: Black Sea deluge theory

According to Ryan's and Pitman's theories A rising sea flood, recently disclosed and much-discussed refilling of the freshwater glacial Black Sea with water from the Aegean, was described as "a violent rush of salt water into a depressed fresh-water lake in a single catastrophe that has been the inspiration for the flood mythology" (Ryan and Pitman, 1998)[citation needed]. The marine incursion, which was caused by the rising level of the Mediterranean, occurred around 7,600 years ago.

There is no evidence for the exodus, or for jews being enslaved by pharoah, or for slaves working on the pyramids.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it important for you to be able to believe that I have some sort of "ban on the supernatural"? I have a ban on claiming knowledge without evidence. If you can't distinguish fantasy from reality, and it's your faith that's causing this, your faith is bullshit. If there is a god, these things we know, these observations from science are "how he did it". To claim otherwise is to invoke conspiracy, or "demonic mischief". Now, I didn't suggest that your god interacted with the material world (exactly the opposite actually), you did. If you're going to claim that these things happened you should be able to provide some evidence. We have satellite images of tiny trails used as part of the silk road by no more than a few dozen camel trains over hundreds of years. Exodus should be a little easier to find. Similarly, the evidence for a global deluge would be irrefutable and, by definition, found the world over. If genesis was an accurate description of material creation and the origins of life, it would would be easy for us to see this with the observation instruments available to us, from the hubble to genetic sequencing apparatus. Archaeology should be in agreement with the bibles timeline and we should have artifacts that collaborate the text. There should be evidence for this stuff Salty. More than that, if this were the literal truth and ultimate word of god, line for line, there shouldn't be a shred of evidence to the contrary. It's not that I have a ban, it's that while there should be evidence of this (if the myth is true) there is not. All of the evidence we do have points to this myth as exactly that, a myth. If I'm incorrect, if there is evidence, I'd love to see it. So maybe stop projecting some sort of divine struggle into the recesses of my mind and take my request at face value.

It's interesting to note, that if these fossils, and evolution in general were all a demonic forgery, apparently Satan is capable creator god. There's a wonderful book on the evolution of the idea of the devil btw (I'll try and find a link). He very much represents the natural world, and the god's and superstitions of what we're predominantly earth based pagan faiths. Not that much of the devils "persona" is scriptural. That's what makes him an interesting figure in mythology.

As far as conspiracy goes, that won't get very far. There are people whose entire careers have been built by expertly criticizing others theories. Passing through these people has become a right of passage in the scientific establishment. You're not going to get a group of people who will collude with each other when their careers and reputations are attached to the publications they put out (and constantly, mercilessly argued against). There would always be some lone somebody who blew the whole thing for his own sake. Science has built in self correction methods. When science is wrong (and it often has been) it's scientists who later explain why. In the end, no matter how well constructed an argument is, it's the evidence that decides what we go with as our best explanation. Science isn't a personality cult, and there isn't enough money at stake to really seed the sort of ground required for such an over-arching and successful conspiracy.

I am actually a little disappointed. I was rooting for you. Disbelief in evolution, and belief in a literal and historically accurate translation of the bible are not prerequisites to christianity.

[frankiej]

You can't hate something you don't think exists.

I hate Nurse Ratched from One Flew over the Cuckoos nest... I am pretty sure she doesn't exist, but I still hate her.

[salty]

So what happened to your apparent desire to read up on evolution and old Earth theory, salty? What happened to your claims to examine the evidence in an unbiased way? What happened to responding to the reading material we referred you to (at YOUR request)? It's not like we arrogantly walked into your house and insisted you read this stuff, you asked us to provide the literature, we did, and now you turn around and say 'I believe they happened because the Bible said so, fuck your so called 'evidence''. That is known as a circular argument.

It's very disappointing and I hope you can acknowledge how pathetic that is. You've also been dishonest by suggesting to us that you would be open to receiving evidence when clearly that is not the case. It's not very nice, lying to people salty, and I think your God would be very upset with you.

I did not lie to you. I still have the links that people provided about young earth and old earth and I did look over them. I haven't given my opinion because faith does not rely on facts, that's why it's faith. The fact that the earth is round does nothing to impact the personal changes the lord Jesus Christ made in my life. The fact that people get into fatal car accidents every day does nothing to impact the use of cars does it?

Disappointing and pathetic? Dishonest in my pursuit to view the evidence? I have viewed the evidence, but I don't have an obligation to communicate with someone that calls me a liar and then wants to hear my opinion. You obviously can't make up your mind about what you want most: to put me down or to find new ways of calling my beliefs delusional and weak-willed. I find that I'm not rushing back to speak my thoughts to someone that thinks they're trash. I'd rather invest in the people here who are respectable and dignified.

---

---

Is it important for you to be able to believe that I have some sort of "ban on the supernatural"? I have a ban on claiming knowledge without evidence. If you can't distinguish fantasy from reality, and it's your faith that's causing this, your faith is bullshit. If there is a god, these things we know, these observations from science are "how he did it". To claim otherwise is to invoke conspiracy, or "demonic mischief". Now, I didn't suggest that your god interacted with the material world (exactly the opposite actually), you did. If you're going to claim that these things happened you should be able to provide some evidence. We have satellite images of tiny trails used as part of the silk road by no more than a few dozen camel trains over hundreds of years. Exodus should be a little easier to find. Similarly, the evidence for a global deluge would be irrefutable and, by definition, found the world over. If genesis was an accurate description of material creation and the origins of life, it would would be easy for us to see this with the observation instruments available to us, from the hubble to genetic sequencing apparatus. Archaeology should be in agreement with the bibles timeline and we should have artifacts that collaborate the text. There should be evidence for this stuff Salty. More than that, if this were the literal truth and ultimate word of god, line for line, there shouldn't be a shred of evidence to the contrary. It's not that I have a ban, it's that while there should be evidence of this (if the myth is true) there is not. All of the evidence we do have points to this myth as exactly that, a myth. If I'm incorrect, if there is evidence, I'd love to see it. So maybe stop projecting some sort of divine struggle into the recesses of my mind and take my request at face value.

It's interesting to note, that if these fossils, and evolution in general were all a demonic forgery, apparently Satan is capable creator god. There's a wonderful book on the evolution of the idea of the devil btw (I'll try and find a link). He very much represents the natural world, and the god's and superstitions of what we're predominantly earth based pagan faiths. Not that much of the devils "persona" is scriptural. That's what makes him an interesting figure in mythology.

As far as conspiracy goes, that won't get very far. There are people whose entire careers have been built by expertly criticizing others theories. Passing through these people has become a right of passage in the scientific establishment. You're not going to get a group of people who will collude with each other when their careers and reputations are attached to the publications they put out (and constantly, mercilessly argued against). There would always be some lone somebody who blew the whole thing for his own sake. Science has built in self correction methods. When science is wrong (and it often has been) it's scientists who later explain why. In the end, no matter how well constructed an argument is, it's the evidence that decides what we go with as our best explanation. Science isn't a personality cult, and there isn't enough money at stake to really seed the sort of ground required for such an over-arching and successful conspiracy.

I am actually a little disappointed. I was rooting for you. Disbelief in evolution, and belief in a literal and historically accurate translation of the bible are not prerequisites to christianity.

---

When you said you were rooting for me that felt really nice. I don't like disappointing you rhythm, I've actually grown very fond of you. Time will tell if I will respond to the three incidents: the flood, creation and the exodus. It's time for action now and not empty promises. I hope that you have not seen me as a liar, but even so...I still like you and respect you and I thank you for confronting me.

[Violet]

Where do you think all that guilt, anger and pain came from?

Blueberry Muffins.

They aren't seriously evil... but they are responsible for most of the world's guilt, self-anger at their weakness, and pain from constipation.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think you're a liar Salty (at least not intentionally), I think you've been lied too. I understand how important faith is to the faithful. I just wish that the concept would get treated with a little more integrity if people want to pick up the banner. If there is truth in the narrative, it is not dwelling within discredited stories. It's elsewhere.

[ElDinero]

I did not lie to you. I still have the links that people provided about young earth and old earth and I did look over them. I haven't given my opinion because faith does not rely on facts, that's why it's faith. The fact that the earth is round does nothing to impact the personal changes the lord Jesus Christ made in my life. The fact that people get into fatal car accidents every day does nothing to impact the use of cars does it?

Disappointing and pathetic? Dishonest in my pursuit to view the evidence? I have viewed the evidence, but I don't have an obligation to communicate with someone that calls me a liar and then wants to hear my opinion. You obviously can't make up your mind about what you want most: to put me down or to find new ways of calling my beliefs delusional and weak-willed. I find that I'm not rushing back to speak my thoughts to someone that thinks they're trash. I'd rather invest in the people here who are respectable and dignified.

I actually stuck up for you and was perfectly respectful and civilised until it became obvious that you were going to wilfully ignore the things presented to you. To reiterate, you asked us to give you the things to read, so while you don't have an obligation per se, it would be polite to return and continue the discussion.

I've explained why you have been dishonest, so it was hardly an unwarranted attack. And I described your position as pathetic, which it is.

However, as with many people of your ilk, you've given a perfectly satisfactory answer, and one that there's no arguing with. You've created an unfalsifiable position, which means it is literally pointless assessing the evidence, or posting on a forum with people whose primary concern is proof. You have nothing to bring to the table in a discussion or debate, so your presence is unnecessary. You've actually proven beyond a doubt (by explicitly saying it) that you don't care about facts. You've got your faith and by hell you're sticking with it regardless.

If you can't understand why it is pathetic to say 'I don't need facts, I have faith', I have nothing but pity for you. It's a really sad position. You're actually happy to admit that you don't care whether the things you believe are true or not. You're not bothered about knowing anything about the world you live in, where you came from, how you got here or where you're going. You've got one book, and it's the only one you need.

Come back when you've got an actual opinion on things, not just what the only book you've ever (selectively) read tells you is true.

[Violet]

Come back when you've got an actual opinion on things, not just what the only book you've ever (selectively) read tells you is true.

There's nothing any more 'actual' about a unique opinion than one shared with a book.

[ElDinero]

Good point, well made.

[salty]

That book you're describing is the most important book I've ever encountered...El Dinero, did you stick up for me because you thought that I could provide you with the answers you were seeking? Or because perhaps it seemed I would be crossing over to your side when the evidence was given to me. You see, what I am trying to determine is this: do you feel that I have the abilty to speak the truth to you and give you the evidence on the concepts we spoke about?

Yes or no?