Crazy Bible Stories

[Keith&Co.]

Oh my fucking god! Not this old nonsense again. Do you know how mountains are formed? Do you know how scientists date rock formations? You keep embarrassing yourself every fucking time you post. I know 10 year old children who know more about the natural world than you do. Really!

Whale bones.

Did i miss your citation for your example?

 

[DBT]

Its always a faith-trust for me, what else is it as a believer? Take it as a " I know where you stand now" or taking into acoount. Shouldn't stop the discussion being mutually reasonable.

I believe what you mean to say is that “You don’t know what you are talking about, but you have faith you are right.”

Not quite. Faith i.e. trusting something is true, doesn't mean " knowing-nothing-at-all!" There is no commandment to say "thall shalt be stupid!!

(Ok I can be at times but not always, I say with reasonable fairness)

Trusting that something is true won't make it true. Faith is a conviction of truth held without the support of evidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not quite. Faith i.e. trusting something is true, doesn't mean " knowing-nothing-at-all!" There is no commandment to say "thall shalt be stupid!!

(Ok I can be at times but not always, I say with reasonable fairness)

Trusting that something is true won't make it true. Faith is a conviction of truth held without the support of evidence.

And, far too frequently, faith is conviction of the truth of a belief against overwhelming evidence and reason to the contrary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Its always a faith-trust for me, what else is it as a believer? Take it as a " I know where you stand now" or taking into acoount. Shouldn't stop the discussion being mutually reasonable.

I believe what you mean to say is that “You don’t know what you are talking about, but you have faith you are right.”

Not quite. Faith i.e. trusting something is true, doesn't mean " knowing-nothing-at-all!" There is no commandment to say "thall shalt be stupid!!

(Ok I can be at times but not always, I say with reasonable fairness)

That isn’t correct. Faith, in the context you are speaking of, would be better known as arrogant pride. We aren’t talking about unknowns here. We are talking about sciences that are very well established.

Your “faith” states you believe in something that isn’t generally accepted based on the observations of millions of scientists in a reproducible manner, because the book you follow suggests otherwise and you want that alternative to be true. They are all wrong, and you are right. That is arrogance. Christopher Columbus shared such arrogance, though got lucky with the presence of the New World.

Quite arrogant. Do you know that the forefathers of almost all of our science tried to use their knowledge and observations to prove the Bible and its god? They couldn’t do it. But you think asking a question or a dozen of already explained poor understandings of science will finally break the dam of reproducible, rock solid scientific observation.

That isn’t faith, that is arrogance.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well you again didn't read the bible, most of the water came from under not from the sky.

Where did it all go?

OR....

Why is there so much water still left?

Where did the rest of it go?

 

[Learner]

OR....

Why is there so much water still left?

Where did the rest of it go?

Back to where it came from I assume?

 

[Learner]

That isn’t correct. Faith, in the context you are speaking of, would be better known as arrogant pride. We aren’t talking about unknowns here. We are talking about sciences that are very well established.

We're not talking about the same faith then. What unkowns do you mean? Unseen forces? I was talking about having faith and still being able to be rational within mutual reasonable boundries (for lack of better phrasing). Like the posts where steve-b mentions about rotting corpses after a receding flood - I made a different sugestion within reason - because we know about real living things that die. Different from making any suggestion that God made those dead people/animals flash-vanish before the waters receded. The only aspect of religion used here is in the hypothetical, that the flood took place.

Your “faith” states you believe in something that isn’t generally accepted based on the observations of millions of scientists in a reproducible manner, because the book you follow suggests otherwise and you want that alternative to be true. They are all wrong, and you are right. That is arrogance. Christopher Columbus shared such arrogance, though got lucky with the presence of the New World.

Well yes it would be natural as human beings go, I would want the alternative to be conclusively true. That inner-bias, shall we say, is true for either side. Oddly enough many scientists who have made their contributions were religious too. A number of scientists today are still theists.

Quite arrogant. Do you know that the forefathers of almost all of our science tried to use their knowledge and observations to prove the Bible and its god? They couldn’t do it. But you think asking a question or a dozen of already explained poor understandings of science will finally break the dam of reproducible, rock solid scientific observation.

That isn’t faith, that is arrogance.

Well they should be admired with utmost respect although the science would not have flown them acroos the atlantic let alone to the moon as the scientists today - among them are scientists existing, who still hold to their beliefs.

I accept there could be an arrogance of some degree depending on a variety of particulars with each individual... and what they have claimed as faith who may have the follwong attributes: being in denial, being delusional, or as you say, having arrogant pride.

 

[DBT]

The word faith is often used loosely in reference to a number of concepts, 'good will' - ie - a transaction done in 'good faith,' trust, hope, confidence.....but the essential meaning of 'faith' or to have faith is a belief held without the support of evidence - 'she has faith that her injured son will pull through'' - ''he has faith in God'' etc, etc.

It is ambiguity of common usage that some theists rely on in order to justify faith....'oh, but we have faith that the chair won't break when we sit on it' and other absurdities.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

OR....

Why is there so much water still left?

Where did the rest of it go?

Back to where it came from I assume?

So the magic water magically appeared and then magically returned to its magical place of origin. And this is the explanation for a religious fairy tale having actually happened for which there is no evidence in the scientific record.

It's very possible that someone was reading Velikovsky's accounting of biblical events and that you subconsciously absorbed this silliness. His explanations are identical to yours. For him, Venus was the proof. And for you the oceans - or what's left of them - are the proof.

 

[Learner]

The word faith is often used loosely in reference to a number of concepts, 'good will' - ie - a transaction done in 'good faith,' trust, hope, confidence.....but the essential meaning of 'faith' or to have faith is a belief held without the support of evidence - 'she has faith that her injured son will pull through'' - ''he has faith in God'' etc, etc.

It is ambiguity of common usage that some theists rely on in order to justify faith....'oh, but we have faith that the chair won't break when we sit on it' and other absurdities.

The bible uses a lot of the variants of the word faith in the proper places. No doubt it may be confusing but not a major deal imo.

 

[Learner]

Back to where it came from I assume?

So the magic water magically appeared and then magically returned to its magical place of origin. And this is the explanation for a religious fairy tale having actually happened for which there is no evidence in the scientific record.

It's very possible that someone was reading Velikovsky's accounting of biblical events and that you subconsciously absorbed this silliness. His explanations are identical to yours. For him, Venus was the proof. And for you the oceans - or what's left of them - are the proof.

If the world is covered 72% water on a big sized globe. The scale usually shown, is that the oceans are but a mere thin layer covering the earth, it seems. Its not so silly to have that opinion (an assertion if you want) that 28% of the water ( not 28% size of the total earth mass) could recede below.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Back to where it came from I assume?

So the magic water magically appeared and then magically returned to its magical place of origin. And this is the explanation for a religious fairy tale having actually happened for which there is no evidence in the scientific record.

It's very possible that someone was reading Velikovsky's accounting of biblical events and that you subconsciously absorbed this silliness. His explanations are identical to yours. For him, Venus was the proof. And for you the oceans - or what's left of them - are the proof.

If the world is covered 72% water on a big sized globe. The scale usually shown, is that the oceans are but a mere thin layer covering the earth, it seems. Its not so silly to have that opinion (an assertion if you want) that 28% of the water ( not 28% size of the total earth mass) could recede below.

Lots of proven and accepted scientific observations started out being ridiculed, such as continental drift and evolution via natural selection. But these "absurd claims" had evidence to back them up, even if they were not widely accepted. The scoffers were simply biased and ignorant, certainly understandable, even forgivable.

But there is absolutely no evidence or physical mechanism or observed phenomenon that 30,000 feet of water spewed over the earth and then receded back down the drain. This is just religious silliness at its finest.

 

[skepticalbip]

If the world is covered 72% water on a big sized globe. The scale usually shown, is that the oceans are but a mere thin layer covering the earth, it seems. Its not so silly to have that opinion (an assertion if you want) that 28% of the water ( not 28% size of the total earth mass) could recede below.

Lots of proven and accepted scientific observations started out being ridiculed, such as continental drift and evolution via natural selection. But these "absurd claims" had evidence to back them up, even if they were not widely accepted. The scoffers were simply biased and ignorant, certainly understandable, even forgivable.

But there is absolutely no evidence or physical mechanism or observed phenomenon that 30,000 feet of water spewed over the earth and then receded back down the drain. This is just religious silliness at its finest.

Better is that we know that there is no solid dome over the Earth and no 'water above' for it to keep out. Learner's problem is that he is attempting to act the Biblical apologist but doesn't know the Biblical cosmology.

I find it ironic that Biblical apologists continually add to or subtract from what is in the Bible in their apologetics even though, according to Revelations, such amendments will condemn them.

Proverbs is a bit less severe. There is just warning not to add to god's words "lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar."

 

[Keith&Co.]

I find it ironic that Biblical apologists continually add to or subtract from what is in the Bible in their apologetics even though, according to Revelations, such amendments will condemn them.

i really do think the stricture in Revelation refers to the book of Revelation, alone. 'Keep yer durty paws off my manuscript.'
But there are two 0ther places in scripture which clearly say not to add to scripture, at all, unless divinely inspired.
Comes up evrry so often in discussions ahout the Book of Mormon.

 

[DBT]

...

 

[DBT]

The word faith is often used loosely in reference to a number of concepts, 'good will' - ie - a transaction done in 'good faith,' trust, hope, confidence.....but the essential meaning of 'faith' or to have faith is a belief held without the support of evidence - 'she has faith that her injured son will pull through'' - ''he has faith in God'' etc, etc.

It is ambiguity of common usage that some theists rely on in order to justify faith....'oh, but we have faith that the chair won't break when we sit on it' and other absurdities.

The bible uses a lot of the variants of the word faith in the proper places. No doubt it may be confusing but not a major deal imo.

Do you have examples?

 

[Learner]

If the world is covered 72% water on a big sized globe. The scale usually shown, is that the oceans are but a mere thin layer covering the earth, it seems. Its not so silly to have that opinion (an assertion if you want) that 28% of the water ( not 28% size of the total earth mass) could recede below.

Lots of proven and accepted scientific observations started out being ridiculed, such as continental drift and evolution via natural selection. But these "absurd claims" had evidence to back them up, even if they were not widely accepted. The scoffers were simply biased and ignorant, certainly understandable, even forgivable.

But there is absolutely no evidence or physical mechanism or observed phenomenon that 30,000 feet of water spewed over the earth and then receded back down the drain. This is just religious silliness at its finest.

Better is that we know that there is no solid dome over the Earth and no 'water above' for it to keep out. Learner's problem is that he is attempting to act the Biblical apologist but doesn't know the Biblical cosmology.

I find it ironic that Biblical apologists continually add to or subtract from what is in the Bible in their apologetics even though, according to Revelations, such amendments will condemn them.

Proverbs is a bit less severe. There is just warning not to add to god's words "lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar."

The irony is ....

I believe in the flood! No words added or taken away!

 

[Learner]

The word faith is often used loosely in reference to a number of concepts, 'good will' - ie - a transaction done in 'good faith,' trust, hope, confidence.....but the essential meaning of 'faith' or to have faith is a belief held without the support of evidence - 'she has faith that her injured son will pull through'' - ''he has faith in God'' etc, etc.

It is ambiguity of common usage that some theists rely on in order to justify faith....'oh, but we have faith that the chair won't break when we sit on it' and other absurdities.

The bible uses a lot of the variants of the word faith in the proper places. No doubt it may be confusing but not a major deal imo.

Do you have examples?

You can pretty much get the context by the full verse or several verses together. Even if one was to mix a variant of the word, it would probably still make sense.. that is to say that if it doesn't make sense then its probably the wrong variant. Not a real issue. You seem to have deduced a few in context yourself??

 

[skepticalbip]

Better is that we know that there is no solid dome over the Earth and no 'water above' for it to keep out. Learner's problem is that he is attempting to act the Biblical apologist but doesn't know the Biblical cosmology.

I find it ironic that Biblical apologists continually add to or subtract from what is in the Bible in their apologetics even though, according to Revelations, such amendments will condemn them.

Proverbs is a bit less severe. There is just warning not to add to god's words "lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar."

The irony is ....

I believe in the flood! No words added or taken away!

As I recall, you claimed that more water came from 'below' which the Bible does not say. Now you are saying that the water went back into the Earth. You need to understand Biblical cosmology to understand where the Bible says the waters came from and went. This would mean that you either have to reject the current understanding of the universe or conclude that the writers of the Bible didn't understand the universe and were just doing their best to describe what they thought it was but failed.

 

[Lion IRC]

If the world is covered 72% water on a big sized globe. The scale usually shown, is that the oceans are but a mere thin layer covering the earth, it seems. Its not so silly to have that opinion (an assertion if you want) that 28% of the water ( not 28% size of the total earth mass) could recede below.

Lots of proven and accepted scientific observations started out being ridiculed, such as continental drift and evolution via natural selection. But these "absurd claims" had evidence to back them up, even if they were not widely accepted. The scoffers were simply biased and ignorant, certainly understandable, even forgivable.

But there is absolutely no evidence or physical mechanism or observed phenomenon that 30,000 feet of water spewed over the earth and then receded back down the drain. This is just religious silliness at its finest.

Better is that we know that there is no solid dome over the Earth and no 'water above' for it to keep out. Learner's problem is that he is attempting to act the Biblical apologist but doesn't know the Biblical cosmology.

I find it ironic that Biblical apologists continually add to or subtract from what is in the Bible in their apologetics even though, according to Revelations, such amendments will condemn them.

Proverbs is a bit less severe. There is just warning not to add to god's words "lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar."

It's actually YOU who is adding to the bible.

"30,000 feet of water spewed over the earth and then receded back down the drain."
"solid dome over the Earth"
"water above' for it to keep out."

Does the bible say that subterranean water was sole cause of flooding? No.
Does the bible say solid dome to keep the water out? No.

The bible says (Hebrew) raki'a which means expansion. An expanse.
The firmament is the heavens as in;

“Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,"

A spherical earth with a dome expanse above described as firmament to fairly plainly describe the obvious fact that sky and earth are separated.