Intelligence is a Curse

[R-e-n-n-a-t]

I'm inclined to agree with the zombie bunny, Rhythm. Nothing can exist without having some physical representation. Otherwise it wouldn't exist. Can you tell I'm a materialist?

[The Grand Nudger]

"There cannot be" is a hell of a claim. How exactly could you know something so specific about something that -cannot be known-? Teapots it is.

If the faithful would stop claiming that their concept interacted with the material world it wouldn't be such a problem, but they don't. "There can be no evidence" of this thing, we, however, know it's innermost thoughts and desires. Bullshit.

[Erinome]

If I hadn't just spent the last entire day at Six Flags with my very hyper children, I would so be calling a couple of ya'll out on some shit. Except for Rhythm.

Rhythm is brilliant.

[Ryft]

Young-earth creationism is unbiblical? To say that is to say that the Bible is unbiblical.

Saying that "the Bible is unbiblical" is as incoherent and meaningless as saying "logic is illogical" or "justice is unjust." The fact that you can type such a thing as "the Bible is unbiblical" with a straight face and think you have said something intelligible is, well, very troubling.

Yes, Aleialoura, young-earth creationism is unbiblical. That means the Bible does not teach it. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Honestly.

You made reference to some of the more nutty branches of Christianity and called their beliefs "unbiblical."

Except for the fact that I did not. I called a singular belief of theirs unbiblical. That means one. Evidently the reading comprehension difficulty is yours.

It's okay that you don't get it.

Aleialoura, nobody gets self-contradicting statements. They are intrinsically meaningless; i.e., they carry their incomprehensibility in themselves.

I'll admit that I was ignorant of who exactly Numbers is. Forgive me.

Forgive you? You only embarrassed yourself—which thus far you seem to have a penchant for.

I assumed that since you were dropping his name ...

Yes, and these are some of the embarrassing things that baseless assumptions produce. I doubt that will stop you from using them, though.

Cited article 1: Michael Huemer, "Scary Bible Quotes."

Cited article 2: Mike Daniels, "Christian parents biblically beat child to death for mispronouncing word," Secular News Daily (2010, February 16).

Which of these two articles support your claim? Daniels reports a horrifying case of child abuse by fundamentalist parents and an author who may have influenced them. And Huemer simply lists "scary" Bible quotes. How does either of these support your claim that "the reason Christians selectively disregard Deuteronomy and Leviticus is because it's no longer a part of our culture" (Msg. 24, para. 3)?

Can anyone else determine how this supports Aleialoura's claim? Feel free to explain how.

The fact that I had to spell that out for you really slowly shows me that your reading comprehension skills are low, and you possibly shouldn't worry about my critical thinking skills.

What you spelled out was abundantly clear. What it does not do, unfortunately, is support your claim that "the reason Christians selectively disregard Deuteronomy and Leviticus is because it's no longer a part of our culture."

[fr0d0]

"There cannot be" is a hell of a claim.

It's called logic Rhythm. Regardez:

Science only covers the empirical realm; it can (and never will) have anything to say about the supernatural, given that the supernatural doesn't follow natural laws, and therefore cannot be reasonably tested or even observed.

What scientific experiment would prove or disprove God's existent anyway?

[The Grand Nudger]

Genesis as material creation would be measurable. "The Great Flood" would be measurable, Exodus would have been a physical event, the "history" put forward by the OT and NT would be a history of the material world. So what again isn't testable? What is it exactly that you're disagreeing with Frodo. Are you a YE/OE C? A believer in biblical inerrancy? These points where "God" is said to have interacted with our world, they would be measurable. You can start there.

[fr0d0]

I there was in fact a great flood, or an exodus, how would that provide evidence of God Rhythm?

Genesis as a material creation would be an unbiblical summation. But Christians do indeed believe that God is the creator. Evidence of creation is everywhere, so we need not bother with the previous two contentious questions I hope you'd agree.

So now, back to the question... how do you propose to test for the supernatural?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're the claimant, not my problem Frodo. Figure it out.

So where are we then? We're invoking god as the cause for the big bang? Indistinguishable from the natural word. The OT is a fairy tale, and were it true (by your own words) would not be evidence for the existence of god. So why do we believe? "Well, we have these stories". Oh, the ones we spoke about above? Hmn, well, evidence? "No, there simply cannot be any".

I don't know about you, sounds kind of weak to me. Hiding behind fuzzy logic as though it were a fortress that safeguards all of your magical creatures from reality?

[fr0d0]

So you're not going to answer the question?

Seems like there are a hell of a lot of unanswered questions around here lately. Surely it isn't because you guys have no reasons at all to back up what you're saying is it?

I already said and showed how scientific evidence would be impossible. Here you are continuously dodging the question you are continually demanding an answer to.

From now on then I shall expect no mention of it again from you.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, okay Statler.