• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
One thing I find interesting about the Bible is that it includes so many problematic ideas yet many intelligent people are able to justify their belief in it - and keep their faith even when there is severe cognitive dissonance (perhaps because there is the threat of hell and the promise of paradise)

So they claim it is 100% moral and historical - that God is 100% loving - though the church tradition is eternal torment for most people, it commands God's people to commit many instances of genocide (Deuteronomy 20:16-17), polygamy for many main OT characters (including 1000 wives and concubines for Solomon) [on that topic I think monogamy was a Roman thing], lots of verses that suggest a flat earth (with no verses against the flat earth), it suggests the universe is 6000 years old - e.g.
“Ultimately, the controversy about the age of the earth is a controversy about the authority of Scripture. If millions of years really happened, then the Bible is false and cannot speak with authority on any issue, even the Gospel.”
Though Old Earth Creationists think the Bible doesn't necessarily support YEC:

2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is God-breathed” - I believe in an intelligent force but I think most of the Bible isn't historical. I find this quote to be very relevant to my idea of "god":
GOD: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch like a safecracker or a pickpocket.

BENDER: Or a guy who burns down the bar for the insurance money.

GOD: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.


So I don't see it as being all-or-nothing like Fundamentalist Christians and some atheists (though I did go from being a YEC to an atheist).

Though the Bible supports all of those intrepretations.
 
Last edited:

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
(though I did go from being a YEC to an atheist).

Interestingly I have wondered - if there are those who are neither old-earth or new-earth believers. I 'm not talking about those who aren't sure either way - I mean about those who take to the idea that the earth is neither, too old or too new - sort of appying the Goldilocks principle analogy, if you will.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
(though I did go from being a YEC to an atheist).
Interestingly I have wondered - if there are those who are neither old-earth or new-earth believers. I 'm not talking about those who aren't sure either way - I mean about those who take to the idea that the earth is neither, too old or too new - sort of applying the Goldilocks principle analogy, if you will.
My current beliefs might qualify.... I believe I'm in a video game that only began relatively recently. I don't think the fossil record was explicitly simulated in the past but instead is virtually generated from recent times - so it seems it happened over many millions of years involving "apparent age".
That way you can start off with humans and birds and flowers, etc, and generate a virtual evolutionary history - rather than starting with amoeba and trying to guide it to humans, etc, or just repeat the simulation a huge number of times until humans, etc, evolve. Maybe the evolutionary tree is loosely based on those who are running the simulation but maybe there is extra variety in our simulation.

fossils2.jpg

As far as other people go, perhaps some "gap theory" and "day age theory" proponents believe in in-between ages for the earth but I don't think specific timeframes are popular.....
 
Last edited:

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
(though I did go from being a YEC to an atheist).
Interestingly I have wondered - if there are those who are neither old-earth or new-earth believers. I 'm not talking about those who aren't sure either way - I mean about those who take to the idea that the earth is neither, too old or too new - sort of applying the Goldilocks principle analogy, if you will.
My current beliefs might qualify.... I believe I'm in a video game that only began relatively recently. I don't think the fossil record was explicitly simulated in the past but instead is virtually generated from recent times - so it seems it happened over many millions of years involving "apparent age".
That way you can start off with humans and birds and flowers, etc, and generate a virtual evolutionary history - rather than starting with amoeba and trying to guide it to humans, etc, or just repeat the simulation a huge number of times until humans, etc, evolve. Maybe the evolutionary tree is loosely based on those who are running the simulation but maybe there is extra variety in our simulation.

View attachment 39217

As far as other people go, perhaps some "gap theory" and "day age theory" proponents believe in in-between ages for the earth but I don't think specific timeframes are popular.....

Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist. A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.

Another example I found fascinating was a surprising result from a chemical process discovered by accident (or divine intervention ;)) by a Dr. Mary H. Sweitzer whereby she was able to remove minerals from a Tyrannosaurus rex bones, revealing, what was left behind after the process, was: soft tissue, showing blood vessels and micro structures, whilst still retatining it's elasticity! She was attacked, poor soul, for some years by some of the science community members, who would be her collegues - accusing her of contaminating her specimens or something similar of that degree. I think IIRC, she challenged them by simply by saying "do the experiments yourselves" One or two did, I think, and they agreed with her. (Just type her name in google)

(The excuses or the new theory that developed, it seemed to me, that was coming from her sceptical collegues - giving the reasons "why" you can still get soft tissue from dinosaur bones, and that is (what they can comprehend): tissues (and DNA?) are more resilient and rugged than first thought, lasting for millions of years. Erm.. ok.)

There were also some other issues, that were topics for debates. Cambrian explosion and the fossil records reliability.
 
Last edited:

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist. A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.
The flood was calculated to have happened at about 2348 BC. YECs believe that all of the dinosaur species were saved on the ark. Then it seems they all become pretty much completely extinct.... the cave paintings, etc, of "dragons" convinced me when I was in high school... e.g.
There should be more evidence though - like recent bones that were taken as souvenirs. Though I think the Bible fits YEC better than OEC - same with the flat earth.
Another example I found fascinating was a surprising result from a chemical process discovered by accident (or divine intervention ;)) by a Dr. Mary H. Sweitzer whereby she was able to remove minerals from a Tyrannosaurus rex bones, revealing, what was left behind after the process, was: soft tissue, showing blood vessels and micro structures, whilst still retatining it's elasticity! She was attacked, poor soul, for some years by some of the science community members, who would be her collegues - accusing her of contaminating her specimens or something similar of that degree. I think IIRC, she challenged them by simply by saying "do the experiments yourselves" One or two did, I think, and they agreed with her. (Just type her name in google)

(The excuses or the new theory that developed, it seemed to me, that was coming from her sceptical collegues - giving the reasons "why" you can still get soft tissue from dinosaur bones, and that is (what they can comprehend): tissues (and DNA?) are more resilient and rugged than first thought, lasting for millions of years. Erm.. ok.)
Here is a YEC look at evolutionist counter-arguments:
There were also some other issues, that were topics for debates. Cambrian explosion and the fossil records reliability.
The Cambrian explosion could be evidence for guided evolution.... not so much for YEC....
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist. A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.
The flood was calculated to have happened at about 2348 BC. YECs believe that all of the dinosaur species were saved on the ark. Then it seems they all become pretty much completely extinct.... the cave paintings, etc, of "dragons" convinced me when I was in high school... e.g.

I don't think that having all the dinosaurs saved on the ark is the universal standard for YEC. I know of those,like myself, that take to the flood itself being very the reason for the dinosaurs extinction. It makes a little more logical sense imo, compared to the dinosaurs, that after being saved, should suddenly then disappear while the humans and other animals from the ark, weren't affected at all.


There should be more evidence though - like recent bones that were taken as souvenirs. Though I think the Bible fits YEC better than OEC - same with the flat earth.

Like the above, you're placing the dinosaurs existence AFTER the flood. That's were we see differently, leading us both in different directions. My reference point on the time-line, is that man and dinosaurs were before the flood event. Hence in this case: there'd be NO souvenirs, or personal treasures, or even evidence of the dwellings, linking to the people of that particular time, before the flood. Those souvenirs, or dwellings if still intact and not destroyed, would be buried suddenly, like the sudden burial of dinosaur herds, that were, discovered unders great masses of sediment.


Another example I found fascinating was a surprising result from a chemical process discovered by accident (or divine intervention ;)) by a Dr. Mary H. Sweitzer whereby she was able to remove minerals from a Tyrannosaurus rex bones, revealing, what was left behind after the process, was: soft tissue, showing blood vessels and micro structures, whilst still retatining it's elasticity! She was attacked, poor soul, for some years by some of the science community members, who would be her collegues - accusing her of contaminating her specimens or something similar of that degree. I think IIRC, she challenged them by simply by saying "do the experiments yourselves" One or two did, I think, and they agreed with her. (Just type her name in google)

(The excuses or the new theory that developed, it seemed to me, that was coming from her sceptical collegues - giving the reasons "why" you can still get soft tissue from dinosaur bones, and that is (what they can comprehend): tissues (and DNA?) are more resilient and rugged than first thought, lasting for millions of years. Erm.. ok.)
Here is a YEC look at evolutionist counter-arguments:

There were also some other issues, that were topics for debates. Cambrian explosion and the fossil records reliability.
The Cambrian explosion could be evidence for guided evolution.... not so much for YEC....

Fair point of view.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
I don't think that having all the dinosaurs saved on the ark is the universal standard for YEC. I know of those,like myself, that take to the flood itself being very the reason for the dinosaurs extinction. It makes a little more logical sense imo, compared to the dinosaurs, that after being saved, should suddenly then disappear while the humans and other animals from the ark, weren't affected at all.
Like the above, you're placing the dinosaurs existence AFTER the flood. That's were we see differently, leading us both in different directions. My reference point on the time-line, is that man and dinosaurs were before the flood event. Hence in this case: there'd be NO souvenirs, or personal treasures, or even evidence of the dwellings, linking to the people of that particular time, before the flood. Those souvenirs, or dwellings if still intact and not destroyed, would be buried suddenly, like the sudden burial of dinosaur herds, that were, discovered unders great masses of sediment.
Genesis 6:19-20:
"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

Otherwise it seems like the flood is a good explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs.....
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
A good bit of investigation ex. :) You have a good point there. I vaguely remembering there were ideas, although I didn't look into it, that strange large creatures were hunted even during the middle ages Like those Legends of Dragons, behemoths and Sea monsters etc..Interestingly worth looking into. If it were the case, let's say - then they could have been hunted to extinction. Similar to animals hunted to extinction in the last hundred years. The dinosaurs would be comparitively smaller in population number, as compared to those previously existing creatures prior to the flood.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
A good bit of investigation ex. :) You have a good point there. I vaguely remembering there were ideas, although I didn't look into it, that strange large creatures were hunted even during the middle ages Like those Legends of Dragons, behemoths and Sea monsters etc..Interestingly worth looking into. If it were the case, let's say - then they could have been hunted to extinction. Similar to animals hunted to extinction in the last hundred years. The dinosaurs would be comparitively smaller in population number, as compared to those previously existing creatures prior to the flood.
On the other hand there are stories of yetis/bigfoot.... and ape-men go against creationism.
YECs used to say the following was a plesiosaur but now they tend to think it is probably just a shark....
250px-Zuiyo_Maru.jpg


Teaching kids that Behemoth was a dinosaur:
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,130
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
(though I did go from being a YEC to an atheist).
Interestingly I have wondered - if there are those who are neither old-earth or new-earth believers. I 'm not talking about those who aren't sure either way - I mean about those who take to the idea that the earth is neither, too old or too new - sort of applying the Goldilocks principle analogy, if you will.
My current beliefs might qualify.... I believe I'm in a video game that only began relatively recently. I don't think the fossil record was explicitly simulated in the past but instead is virtually generated from recent times - so it seems it happened over many millions of years involving "apparent age".
That way you can start off with humans and birds and flowers, etc, and generate a virtual evolutionary history - rather than starting with amoeba and trying to guide it to humans, etc, or just repeat the simulation a huge number of times until humans, etc, evolve. Maybe the evolutionary tree is loosely based on those who are running the simulation but maybe there is extra variety in our simulation.

View attachment 39217

As far as other people go, perhaps some "gap theory" and "day age theory" proponents believe in in-between ages for the earth but I don't think specific timeframes are popular.....

Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist.
You don't believe the solar system is billions of years old? Why not?


A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.
We know dinosaurs have been extinct for tens of millions of years. We know modern humans have been around a few hundred thousand years at the most. I'm not saying that is theorized or speculated, I am saying we know these things to be facts. Therefore, humans could not possibly have seen or depicted dinosaurs in cave paintings and carvings.


Another example I found fascinating was a surprising result from a chemical process discovered by accident (or divine intervention ;)) by a Dr. Mary H. Sweitzer whereby she was able to remove minerals from a Tyrannosaurus rex bones, revealing, what was left behind after the process, was: soft tissue, showing blood vessels and micro structures, whilst still retatining it's elasticity! She was attacked, poor soul, for some years by some of the science community members, who would be her collegues - accusing her of contaminating her specimens or something similar of that degree. I think IIRC, she challenged them by simply by saying "do the experiments yourselves" One or two did, I think, and they agreed with her. (Just type her name in google)
"I think"? Had you actually spent a few hours reading the papers associated with the discovery you are talking about, you would have found that the discovery in no way contradicts our knowledge that dinosaurs have been extinct for about 65 million years, or that the universe is tens of billions of years old. Heck, just reading the abstracts and conclusions would have stopped you from repeating the crap you just brought up. But you didn't do that, because despite calling yourself Learner you are not actually interested in learning anything.


(The excuses or the new theory that developed, it seemed to me, that was coming from her sceptical collegues - giving the reasons "why" you can still get soft tissue from dinosaur bones, and that is (what they can comprehend): tissues (and DNA?) are more resilient and rugged than first thought, lasting for millions of years. Erm.. ok.)
Read the papers and all will be illuminated. But you know that I know you are not going to do anything like that, because you are allergic to knowledge.


There were also some other issues, that were topics for debates. Cambrian explosion and the fossil records reliability.
All stuff that you are 100 percent ignorant of. What you know about the Cambrian explosion or how fossil records are studied could fit on the head of a tiny pin, with room left over for a dozen angels. But that doesn't stop you from pontificating on the subject, because heaven forbid, you have an opinion, ignorant though you may be.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
2,130
Location
Columbia, SC
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
A good bit of investigation ex. :) You have a good point there. I vaguely remembering there were ideas, although I didn't look into it, that strange large creatures were hunted even during the middle ages Like those Legends of Dragons, behemoths and Sea monsters etc..Interestingly worth looking into. If it were the case, let's say - then they could have been hunted to extinction. Similar to animals hunted to extinction in the last hundred years. The dinosaurs would be comparitively smaller in population number, as compared to those previously existing creatures prior to the flood.
Humans have hunted dinosaurs to extinction? Also, there was no Biblical global flood. That is a fact supported by a huge body of evidence, from geologic records to genetic studies.

Why do I get the desire to repeatedly bang my head against a wall when I read some of your posts?
 
Last edited:

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
A good bit of investigation ex. :) You have a good point there. I vaguely remembering there were ideas, although I didn't look into it, that strange large creatures were hunted even during the middle ages Like those Legends of Dragons, behemoths and Sea monsters etc..Interestingly worth looking into. If it were the case, let's say - then they could have been hunted to extinction. Similar to animals hunted to extinction in the last hundred years. The dinosaurs would be comparitively smaller in population number, as compared to those previously existing creatures prior to the flood.
On the other hand there are stories of yetis/bigfoot.... and ape-men go against creationism.
YECs used to say the following was a plesiosaur but now they tend to think it is probably just a shark....

There have been globally, stories of Giants too. Nephilim didn't die out completely in the flood it seems, according to the existence of the Anakim as described in Numbers 13.

Numbers 13: 32 -33).
32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size.

33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

Interesting construction in Baalbek which happens to be in the Canaan.

There are other places like those discovered in Russia. Of course according to the biblical story the Nepihilim, prior to the flood, were roaming the earth. Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
https://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/04/massive-megalithic-stone-ruins.html
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,974
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist. A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.
The flood was calculated to have happened at about 2348 BC. YECs believe that all of the dinosaur species were saved on the ark. Then it seems they all become pretty much completely extinct.... the cave paintings, etc, of "dragons" convinced me when I was in high school... e.g.

I don't think that having all the dinosaurs saved on the ark is the universal standard for YEC. I know of those,like myself, that take to the flood itself being very the reason for the dinosaurs extinction. It makes a little more logical sense imo, compared to the dinosaurs, that after being saved, should suddenly then disappear while the humans and other animals from the ark, weren't affected at all.


There should be more evidence though - like recent bones that were taken as souvenirs. Though I think the Bible fits YEC better than OEC - same with the flat earth.

Like the above, you're placing the dinosaurs existence AFTER the flood. That's were we see differently, leading us both in different directions. My reference point on the time-line, is that man and dinosaurs were before the flood event. Hence in this case: there'd be NO souvenirs, or personal treasures, or even evidence of the dwellings, linking to the people of that particular time, before the flood. Those souvenirs, or dwellings if still intact and not destroyed, would be buried suddenly, like the sudden burial of dinosaur herds, that were, discovered unders great masses of sediment.
My favorite arguments for the global flood are the ones where they gloss over how the geologic record doesn't include a global wide flood. We have records showing substantial flood events occurring in places at different times (Pacific NW, China), but nothing for a single event, and certainly nothing of the substance suggested in the narrative of The Flood. The narrative doesn't even suggest that the Earth was transformed in this event at all! Yet, pro-flooders say our entire sedimentary rock columns were created at this time.

After the flood, life goes back to normal, sans the whole pure Noah getting drunk off his ass, and there is not even the slightest hint that Noah's family has to deal with a Brave New World, with no plants or trees, and they have start harvesting from scratch. Noah had to rescue animals to protect them, not plants.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Hi ex, that's an intriquing concept, I say genuinely. I am certainly not an old earth creationist. A younger earth could at least solve quite a few issues; like for example: the various ideas or theories that have been topics for debates. Intriguing things like humans painting dinosaur-like creatures, discovered in caves or carvings of similar creatures found around the world. The notion being... dinosaurs were still around when man came onto the scene.
The flood was calculated to have happened at about 2348 BC. YECs believe that all of the dinosaur species were saved on the ark. Then it seems they all become pretty much completely extinct.... the cave paintings, etc, of "dragons" convinced me when I was in high school... e.g.

I don't think that having all the dinosaurs saved on the ark is the universal standard for YEC. I know of those,like myself, that take to the flood itself being very the reason for the dinosaurs extinction. It makes a little more logical sense imo, compared to the dinosaurs, that after being saved, should suddenly then disappear while the humans and other animals from the ark, weren't affected at all.


There should be more evidence though - like recent bones that were taken as souvenirs. Though I think the Bible fits YEC better than OEC - same with the flat earth.

Like the above, you're placing the dinosaurs existence AFTER the flood. That's were we see differently, leading us both in different directions. My reference point on the time-line, is that man and dinosaurs were before the flood event. Hence in this case: there'd be NO souvenirs, or personal treasures, or even evidence of the dwellings, linking to the people of that particular time, before the flood. Those souvenirs, or dwellings if still intact and not destroyed, would be buried suddenly, like the sudden burial of dinosaur herds, that were, discovered unders great masses of sediment.
My favorite arguments for the global flood are the ones where they gloss over how the geologic record doesn't include a global wide flood. We have records showing substantial flood events occurring in places at different times (Pacific NW, China), but nothing for a single event, and certainly nothing of the substance suggested in the narrative of The Flood. The narrative doesn't even suggest that the Earth was transformed in this event at all! Yet, pro-flooders say our entire sedimentary rock columns were created at this time.

After the flood, life goes back to normal, sans the whole pure Noah getting drunk off his ass, and there is not even the slightest hint that Noah's family has to deal with a Brave New World, with no plants or trees, and they have start harvesting from scratch. Noah had to rescue animals to protect them, not plants.
But then you are trying to argue by reasoning while the religious are arguing by faith. Their argument of "thus it written, thus it is" seems much like someone arguing something is true because they read it on the internet and it couldn't be written on the internet if it wasn't true.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
There have been globally, stories of Giants too. Nephilim didn't die out completely in the flood it seems, according to the existence of the Anakim as described in Numbers 13.
The Ark Encounter museum also portrays those giants as part of real history:
1*uLaLGbQ2cjwgDa48BKCJ3w.jpeg



This is another example of what the Bible says taking precedent over what science says.....

The question is are there any bones of these giants from a reputable source?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,974
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
There have been globally, stories of Giants too. Nephilim didn't die out completely in the flood it seems, according to the existence of the Anakim as described in Numbers 13.
The Ark Encounter museum also portrays those giants as part of real history:
1*uLaLGbQ2cjwgDa48BKCJ3w.jpeg



This is another example of what the Bible says taking precedent over what science says.....

The question is are there any bones of these giants from a reputable source?
Man, the Last Supper was more violent that I recall it being. Also, what in the heck is going on with the people in the center?! I thought this was a family joint.
 

SIB

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2022
Messages
129
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I guess I was never a believer so I think of it as like I do when my kids thought I was the most evil parent in the world because I told them no ice cream. I loved them as much as a human could love something. I just couldn't do what I want. If something knows that much more than us, then so be it. It did what it could.

Now, for me, based on what we see, its not omni powered. It may be more powerful than us but it nots all powerful. Otherwise a brain wipe every two weeks would do the job. I kind of think if it was as powerful and loving as they claim the cartoon "Oswald" would fit the bill for our lives.

The bible, to me, was the universe's answer to the question from the first humans "What am I?" It also seems to be better than any test I know in determining how a person sees the world. Just ask them to describe the gods in the bible. More often than not, that is how they see the world.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,820
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated

“Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?”​


Any of the Harry Potter series would definitely qualify. And LOTR, don’t forget LOTR.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation

“Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?”​


Any of the Harry Potter series would definitely qualify. And LOTR, don’t forget LOTR.
A serious reply - I'm not aware of any people who believe those stories are historical - while at the same time having their faith tested by the evidence against that....
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,820
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated

“Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?”​


Any of the Harry Potter series would definitely qualify. And LOTR, don’t forget LOTR.
A serious reply - I'm not aware of any people who believe those stories are historical - while at the same time having their faith tested by the evidence against that....

Sure. But those universes can be just as immersive as Bible stories, due to cohesive, internally (somewhat) consistent writing and the readers’ willingness to set aside common sense and logic in order to facilitate such immersion. They do it because it feels good.
In those regards I see little difference in the “faith” requirement.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Sure. But those universes can be just as immersive as Bible stories, due to cohesive, internally (somewhat) consistent writing and the readers’ willingness to set aside common sense and logic in order to facilitate such immersion. They do it because it feels good.

In those regards I see little difference in the “faith” requirement.
Problems with cohesion and consistency in the Bible (when compared to Harry Potter and LOTR) is a key reason why it can test faith...
e.g.
Then there's the whole thing about God being 100% loving while sending most people to hell forever, etc, etc. The good guys in Harry Potter and LOTR aren't so problematic....
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,820
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The good guys in Harry Potter and LOTR aren't so problematic....
… only because their dark and dirty secrets are less germane to book sales.
And let’s face it - we don’t know what Dumbledore’s backstory will look like in 2000 years.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
The good guys in Harry Potter and LOTR aren't so problematic....
… only because their dark and dirty secrets are less germane to book sales.
And let’s face it - we don’t know what Dumbledore’s backstory will look like in 2000 years.
Though the Bible is the best selling book of all time.... even though the main good guy, God, does lots of things like command genocide (Deut 20) and drown most people in the world, etc.
 

excreationist

Married mouth-breather
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
2,001
Location
Australia
Basic Beliefs
Probably in a simulation
Then how’s come nobody ever talks about JESUS drowning everyone, JESUS damning people to eternal torture, JESUS ripping babies from the womb?

WTF is JESUS now? A PR hack for God?
The Old Testament doesn't explicitly say that God the Father is doing those things either.

BTW John 5:22 says "Also, the Father does not judge anyone. He has given the Son the task of judging."

says "...eternally begotten of the Father..."

i.e. Christians believe that Jesus was around eternally even before the creation of the universe...

Verses in the Old Testament that support the idea that there were multiple parts to God include:

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings so that they are like us"

Genesis 3:22 The Lord God said, “Just like one of us, the man can now tell the difference between good and evil."

John 8:58 “What I’m about to tell you is true,” Jesus answered. “Before Abraham was born, I am!”

There Jesus is saying he is the same person as the God in Moses' stories (Exodus 3:14)
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
There have been globally, stories of Giants too. Nephilim didn't die out completely in the flood it seems, according to the existence of the Anakim as described in Numbers 13.
The Ark Encounter museum also portrays those giants as part of real history:
1*uLaLGbQ2cjwgDa48BKCJ3w.jpeg



This is another example of what the Bible says taking precedent over what science says.....

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation, considering when we learn and discover more information; updating and changing/altering ideas; adding to the accumulation of knowledge. The bible isn't anti-science. Creation is not a true opposing position to science.

The question is are there any bones of these giants from a reputable source?

Reputable source i.e. those being in possession of these bones among other 'out of place artifacts'? Unfortunately, reputable, no. Funny enough, I've seen comments jokingly say on a video about giants. One fellow comments " if you find such bones - hide them before the 'smithsonians' get there..." lol.

Entertaining the thought, let's say. I can imagine that such bones existing - IF ever they were to be displayed in public view - this would cause such a MAJOR conflict with the conventional history, which has been taught in academia through the centuries, which no doubt, will have some effect on some reputations. Can you imagine, this would require such a gargantuan "overhaul." ALL those libraries in all the universities in the world - all those books, portraying the conventional history of man, now gets moved to the section for 'children stories'? Such a task.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,820
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says
Science is a methodology. It doesn't "say" anything. What you "think science says" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
But -
The hypothesis that dinosaurs and giants had gladiator-style fights lacks any evidentiary support. It can be dismissed with the same confidence as the hypothesis that there is a purple unicorn living in my garage.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,820
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The Old Testament doesn't explicitly say that God the Father is doing those things either.

BTW John 5:22 says "Also, the Father does not judge anyone. He has given the Son the task of judging."

You didn't answer the question:
"Then how’s come nobody ever talks about JESUS drowning everyone, JESUS damning people to eternal torture, JESUS ripping babies from the womb?"

the Bible is the best selling book of all time....

Maybe. But I bet LOTR sold more copies in its first 68 years than the bible did in its first 680 years!
In 2000 years at this rate, it'll knock that shabby tome right off its perch!
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation
That’s the EXACT opposite of what science is.

Reality doesn’t care what you think.

Science, the methodology, is neutral to a variety of scientific opinions - just like your opinion of what you think reality is...
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation
That’s the EXACT opposite of what science is.

Reality doesn’t care what you think.

Science, the methodology, is neutral to a variety of scientific opinions - just like your opinion of what you think reality is...
No. Science is a methodology where opinions (hypothesis) are tested. If testing shows them to be wrong or unsupported then they are dropped from further consideration.. If testing does not show them to be wrong then they still continue to be tested and maybe later will be shown to be wrong. e.g. relativity is still being tested where Newtonian mechanics that had not failed testing for a few hundred years eventually did fail in the extremes which made way for relativity.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says
Science is a methodology. It doesn't "say" anything. What you "think science says" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

Now now, I didn't say science says or confirms what I believe in. I'm was saying, that our understanding of our universe, changes from time to time.
But -
The hypothesis that dinosaurs and giants had gladiator-style fights lacks any evidentiary support. It can be dismissed with the same confidence as the hypothesis that there is a purple unicorn living in my garage.
Not really the same is it now? I mean...to state the obvious, the differences between the two. The ancient buildings of collossal size, e.g,. Baalbek, and those structures in Russia actually EXIST. There pics of large skulls floating about but of course depends on the source. Controversial this may be, there's something there at leastst to debate about. Whereas your 'purple unicorn' which you confidently "reasoned" to be equally comparable without anything of a similar tangible degree, but rather your "purple unicorn" comparable as thin air, seems rather over confident.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation
That’s the EXACT opposite of what science is.

Reality doesn’t care what you think.

Science, the methodology, is neutral to a variety of scientific opinions - just like your opinion of what you think reality is...
No. Science is a methodology where opinions (hypothesis) are tested. If testing shows them to be wrong or unsupported then they are dropped from further consideration..
Well, what I'm alluding to for example: reality, as our friend highlights. There are several potential models or ideas as candidates, still being considered.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
10,617
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says
Science is a methodology. It doesn't "say" anything. What you "think science says" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

Now now, I didn't say science says or confirms what I believe in. I'm was saying, that our understanding of our universe, changes from time to time.
But -
The hypothesis that dinosaurs and giants had gladiator-style fights lacks any evidentiary support. It can be dismissed with the same confidence as the hypothesis that there is a purple unicorn living in my garage.
Not really the same is it now? I mean...to state the obvious, the differences between the two. The ancient buildings of collossal size, e.g,. Baalbek, and those structures in Russia actually EXIST. There pics of large skulls floating about but of course depends on the source. Controversial this may be, BUt, there's something there at last to debate about. Whereas your 'purple unicorn' which you confidently "reason " to be comparable without any thing similar is rather over confident?
So, people have always wanted to build big shit.

Mostly it's because they had small penises, I expect.

Baalbek was built in the Hellenistic period by a well understood culture that utterly lacked 'giants'.

Your fanciful attributions to giants is a testament to your lack of any perspective or reality on history.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation
That’s the EXACT opposite of what science is.

Reality doesn’t care what you think.

Science, the methodology, is neutral to a variety of scientific opinions - just like your opinion of what you think reality is...
No. Science is a methodology where opinions (hypothesis) are tested. If testing shows them to be wrong or unsupported then they are dropped from further consideration..
Well, what I'm alluding to for example: reality, as our friend highlights. There are several potential models or ideas as candidates, still being considered.
I think maybe you are confusing philosophy for science.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says
Science is a methodology. It doesn't "say" anything. What you "think science says" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

Now now, I didn't say science says or confirms what I believe in. I'm was saying, that our understanding of our universe, changes from time to time.
But -
The hypothesis that dinosaurs and giants had gladiator-style fights lacks any evidentiary support. It can be dismissed with the same confidence as the hypothesis that there is a purple unicorn living in my garage.
Not really the same is it now? I mean...to state the obvious, the differences between the two. The ancient buildings of collossal size, e.g,. Baalbek, and those structures in Russia actually EXIST. There pics of large skulls floating about but of course depends on the source. Controversial this may be, BUt, there's something there at last to debate about. Whereas your 'purple unicorn' which you confidently "reason " to be comparable without any thing similar is rather over confident?
So, people have always wanted to build big shit.
Erm... yeah sure, and I suppose you know what limits there are, for humans of our scale, to be able to build structures of such colossal weight? At least compare the Romans buildings on top - that was of a certain size compared - which was merely due to their limitation to build a certain size of structure. Use your loaf and yer eyes.

Mostly it's because they had small penises, I expect.

Baalbek was built in the Hellenistic period by a well understood culture that utterly lacked 'giants'.

Your fanciful attributions to giants is a testament to your lack of any perspective or reality on history.

I have a lack of perspective? Hmm says the fellow, somewhat lacking in the spatial reasoning perspective.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says
Science is a methodology. It doesn't "say" anything. What you "think science says" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

Now now, I didn't say science says or confirms what I believe in. I'm was saying, that our understanding of our universe, changes from time to time.
But -
The hypothesis that dinosaurs and giants had gladiator-style fights lacks any evidentiary support. It can be dismissed with the same confidence as the hypothesis that there is a purple unicorn living in my garage.
Not really the same is it now? I mean...to state the obvious, the differences between the two. The ancient buildings of collossal size, e.g,. Baalbek, and those structures in Russia actually EXIST. There pics of large skulls floating about but of course depends on the source. Controversial this may be, BUt, there's something there at last to debate about. Whereas your 'purple unicorn' which you confidently "reason " to be comparable without any thing similar is rather over confident?
So, people have always wanted to build big shit.
Erm... yeah sure, and I suppose you know what limits, for human of our scale, to be able to build structures of such collosal weight.? At least compare the Romans buildings on top - that where only of a certain size compared - which was to their limitation to build of a certain size. Use your loaf and yer eyes IOWs.
That is rather confusing reasoning. By that reasoning, humans are much, much larger than ever in Earth's history since we now build constructions much, much larger and more massive than humans have ever built before.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says
Science is a methodology. It doesn't "say" anything. What you "think science says" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

Now now, I didn't say science says or confirms what I believe in. I'm was saying, that our understanding of our universe, changes from time to time.
But -
The hypothesis that dinosaurs and giants had gladiator-style fights lacks any evidentiary support. It can be dismissed with the same confidence as the hypothesis that there is a purple unicorn living in my garage.
Not really the same is it now? I mean...to state the obvious, the differences between the two. The ancient buildings of collossal size, e.g,. Baalbek, and those structures in Russia actually EXIST. There pics of large skulls floating about but of course depends on the source. Controversial this may be, BUt, there's something there at last to debate about. Whereas your 'purple unicorn' which you confidently "reason " to be comparable without any thing similar is rather over confident?
So, people have always wanted to build big shit.
Erm... yeah sure, and I suppose you know what limits, for human of our scale, to be able to build structures of such collosal weight.? At least compare the Romans buildings on top - that where only of a certain size compared - which was to their limitation to build of a certain size. Use your loaf and yer eyes IOWs.
That is rather confusing reasoning. By that reasoning, humans are much, much larger than ever in Earth's history since we now build constructions much, much larger and more massive than humans have ever built before.
Well of course you can build large structures today which have reiforced internal skeletons, and modern robust materials specially designed with modern means - they can build tall buildings of lesser weight but still be robust. But the collosal size of those ancient structures, gargantuan brick on top of brick, are of pure solid mass. The weight of just one block is tremedous, an incredible structural feat even today!
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
...
Erm... yeah sure, and I suppose you know what limits, for human of our scale, to be able to build structures of such collosal weight.? At least compare the Romans buildings on top - that where only of a certain size compared - which was to their limitation to build of a certain size. Use your loaf and yer eyes IOWs.
That is rather confusing reasoning. By that reasoning, humans are much, much larger than ever in Earth's history since we now build constructions much, much larger and more massive than humans have ever built before.
Well of course you can build large structures today which have reiforced internal skeletons, and modern robust materials specially designed with modern means. But the collosal size of those ancient structures, gargantuan brick on top of brick, were pure solid mass. The weight of just one is tremedous!
You really need to stop watching those "ancient astronaut" shows. They will rot your brain.

We know how the Romans built their massive structures and how they moved unimaginably massive stones because they left records of how they did. The constructions earlier than the Romans were likely done using similar techniques. Today we have better techniques so can build even more impressive structures; not because we are giants or even because we have extraterrestrial help.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
...
Erm... yeah sure, and I suppose you know what limits, for human of our scale, to be able to build structures of such collosal weight.? At least compare the Romans buildings on top - that where only of a certain size compared - which was to their limitation to build of a certain size. Use your loaf and yer eyes IOWs.
That is rather confusing reasoning. By that reasoning, humans are much, much larger than ever in Earth's history since we now build constructions much, much larger and more massive than humans have ever built before.
Well of course you can build large structures today which have reiforced internal skeletons, and modern robust materials specially designed with modern means. But the collosal size of those ancient structures, gargantuan brick on top of brick, were pure solid mass. The weight of just one is tremedous!
You really need to stop watching those "ancient astronaut" shows. They will rot your brain.

That's good advice but of course, I think the ancient aliens got some of the ideas from the bible. i.e., it was the other way round.
We know how the Romans built their massive structures and how they moved unimaginably massive stones because they left records of how they did. The constructions earlier than the Romans were likely done using similar techniques. Today we have better techniques so can build even more impressive structures

Are you telling me that, the Romans could build structures of the same collosal size as Baalbek or like the ones in Russia? Non of that size were ever built by Romans - they don't exist!.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
7,304
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
...
Erm... yeah sure, and I suppose you know what limits, for human of our scale, to be able to build structures of such collosal weight.? At least compare the Romans buildings on top - that where only of a certain size compared - which was to their limitation to build of a certain size. Use your loaf and yer eyes IOWs.
That is rather confusing reasoning. By that reasoning, humans are much, much larger than ever in Earth's history since we now build constructions much, much larger and more massive than humans have ever built before.
Well of course you can build large structures today which have reiforced internal skeletons, and modern robust materials specially designed with modern means. But the collosal size of those ancient structures, gargantuan brick on top of brick, were pure solid mass. The weight of just one is tremedous!
You really need to stop watching those "ancient astronaut" shows. They will rot your brain.

That's good advice but of course, I think the ancient aliens got some of the ideas from the bible. i.e., it was the other way round.
We know how the Romans built their massive structures and how they moved unimaginably massive stones because they left records of how they did. The constructions earlier than the Romans were likely done using similar techniques. Today we have better techniques so can build even more impressive structures

Are you telling me that, the Romans could build structures of the same collosal size as Baalbek or like the ones in Russia?
Yes.
Non of that size were ever built by Romans - they don't exist!.
Now you are talking about what they wanted to build, not what they could build if they had the desire to do so. China built the great wall which is over 13,000 miles long and there are records of how they did it.

ETA:
As an example of the Roman's ability to move massive stones, the Lateranense Obelisk was moved from where it stood in Egypt to the port, loaded on a barge, transported across the Mediterranean, unloaded and set up in Rome where it still stands today. The obelisk is 32 meters (~105 feet) high and weighs 455 tons. Since they could do that, it should be obvious that they could handle even more massive stones.
 
Last edited:

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,820
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
your 'purple unicorn' which you confidently "reasoned" to be equally comparable without anything of a similar tangible degree
Bullshit.
Unicorns are frequently depicted in ancient scrawl, and resemble horses which unarguably exist, 99% down to the finest detail. Purple is a subjective descriptor, referring to a vast spectrum of colors between blue and red. I had a red roan horse, and a friend has a blue roan.his name is even Blue. How can you be so sure that anything between those colors cannot occur, along with a single horn? Obviously, the fact that none seem to exist isn’t an obstacle to your wishful thinking, so why are you imposing it on mine? That’s utter hypocrisy. Or maybe you simply doubt that the capacity of my garage is sufficient?
I don’t think you have offered anything that makes dinosaurs battling gladiators any more likely, and in fact that is a less likely scenario as it would leave far more evidence than would my purple unicorn, and that evidence is lacking. Not one single Dino bone of any species that can be reliably dated to the last hundred thousand-or even ten million - years. Any population of dinosaurs contemporary with humans would leave plenty of evidence. But none exists, and neither does your fantasy.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
3,261
Location
Between two Cities
Basic Beliefs
Christianity and Common Sense
your 'purple unicorn' which you confidently "reasoned" to be equally comparable without anything of a similar tangible degree
Bullshit.
Unicorns are frequently depicted in ancient scrawl, and resemble horses which unarguably exist, 99% down to the finest detail. Purple is a subjective descriptor, referring to a vast spectrum of colors between blue and red. I had a red roan horse, and a friend has a blue roan.his name is even Blue. How can you be so sure that anything between those colors cannot occur, along with a single horn?
Ok, I see,... anyways... the horse-like depictions of the unicorn is a later invention of the middle ages. A poor reason for the unicorn to be used as an argument (as atheists tiresomely often use). The description of a unicorn as according to the bible is NOT a horse-like creature!

Obviously, the fact that none seem to exist isn’t an obstacle to your wishful thinking, so why are you imposing it on mine? That’s utter hypocrisy. Or maybe you simply doubt that the capacity of my garage is sufficient?
I don’t think you have offered anything that makes dinosaurs battling gladiators any more likely, and in fact that is a less likely scenario as it would leave far more evidence than would my purple unicorn, and that evidence is lacking. Not one single Dino bone of any species that can be reliably dated to the last hundred thousand-or even ten million - years. Any population of dinosaurs contemporary with humans would leave plenty of evidence. But none exists, and neither does your fantasy.

The colour of the unicorn is irrelevant then, ok. Oddly enough, unicorns i.e. the single horn creature DOES exist actually. Like for example the single horn Rhinoceros. Is this what the bible was on about? Much more likely than the horsey-thing from the middle-ages, fairy-tale era, imo.

I suppose, the 'pink or purple unicorn "argument", should be countered and made redundant, when the theist simply responds with unicorns ( 'aka' the single horns 'aka' rhinos) DO exist.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom