Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David B · 01-06-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Hatsoff,
Okay, what is the evidence, and how much exists, (arch. evidence) (and btw, I am not talking about 'age of the earth' stuff. The Bible never gives the age to begin with, not even in the genealogies) that folks are sure to 99.9% that it contradicts, and shows, the Bible to be in error.

OK, let's not bother with 'age of the earth' stuff.

Let's focus on the literal biblical flood - for which there is ample evidence, from too many sources to cite without exceeding the lifespans of all of us in this thread put together, that it never happened on the one hand, and bears uncanny resemblences to pre biblical (I really hope I'm right about that) flood myths on the other.

In another thread, perhaps.

David B

diana · 01-06-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

hatsoff,
Well, you were the one answering politely, so I asked. Now about the records you noted. Do you have enough evidence to draw any sure conclusion from any of them as to what they are, or are not, showing?

I posted a link to my blog expose on them on the Bible Contradictions thread. Fun stuff.

d

hatsoff · 01-06-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diana

This smiley is in order, I suppose: :devil1:

Oh, geez... did he actually say that, or am I hallucinating?

Christians. Seriously.

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 03:58 PM

Sauron,
That is potentially correct. But the reason it is correct is because I believe the Bible is from God to begin with. I believe the Bible proves that is the case in various ways. Since I start with that, then obviously any conclusion reached by anyone, no matter the 'sources,' that disagrees with that I reject. I use the Bible as an objective standard. Since you do not, then we cannot agree on these points. That is why I asked someone earlier about the standard of 'rightness.' Your standard is evidently sources. My standard is the Bible. Thus, we will always be on opposite sides of the fence.

I presented enough information for any person reading to at least be encouaged to go and study some more. Enough that some doubt may creep in about a position held previously. That was my purpose. I expected some, or few, to just jump in and refute it. However, given that the conclusions of those folks reject God and the Bible, I obviously will never agree with them.

hatsoff · 01-06-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

I start with that

There's your problem. Objectivity requires that you start with nothing.

cjack · 01-06-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

I believe the Bible proves that is the case in various ways. Since I start with that, then obviously any conclusion reached by anyone, no matter the 'sources,' that disagrees with that I reject.

Then what's the point?

I mean, if you're going to categorically reject everything that might possibly conflict with your own 100% certainty that everything in the Bible is literally, figuratively, and in any other sense 100% true, then why in the FSM's name should any of us bother to continue to discuss any of this with you?

Basically, you're saying "here's what I believe, I will never concede even a single point about what I believe, no matter how well argued, no matter how much evidence is presented, and no matter how many times I'm shown to be wrong because I can't be..now why don't you all just give up now and admit that I'm right?"

:banghead:

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 04:15 PM

hatsoff,
I would reject the notion that any person can start with 'nothing.'

There are two positions:

1. God does not exist
2.God does exist

I hold number two. Plenty hold number one. No one is truly objective.

diana · 01-06-2007, 04:15 PM

IIDB is double-triple-quadruple posting again. I hate when that happens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

That is why I asked someone earlier about the standard of 'rightness.' Your standard is evidently sources. My standard is the Bible. Thus, we will always be on opposite sides of the fence.

You're getting there. Our standard is demonstrable *evidence*.

And I've noticed you leaping to use any available evidence or claim that seems to support your presupposed belief, and you're willing to use any argument you believe supports it. When your evidence/claim proves inconclusive or outright false and your arguments get shot to bits, you fall back on "because the Bible says so, then." Is evangelism the only reason you look for any actual arguments or evidence? No, wait. You've stated that you have faith because you believe it is supported with evidence, so that isn't it, either (unless by "evidence" you mean "the Bible"; that is, being translated, "the bible exists, therefore God exists," which--as far as arguments go--isn't so good).

Quote:

I presented enough information for any person reading to at least be encouaged to go and study some more. Enough that some doubt may creep in about a position held previously.

Not really. You presented your position and you were immediately buried in counter-evidence etc, which you apparently couldn't respond to.

d

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 04:19 PM

Diana,
You said, "You're getting there. Our standard is demonstrable *evidence*. "

Not really. If you take that to evolution, no one could believe in it (macro btw, not micro: i.e. change from one type animal to another unrelated one even over billions of years). Such is not demonstrable. Not only that but that applies to the universe. It didn't come from 'nothing.' But no one can demonstrate from whence it came. So it isn't demonstrable evidence upon which one relies to hold a belief.

It really is his interpretation of the evidential side with which he wants to belong. That arises from life experiences and choices made by the individual.

cjack · 01-06-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

If you take that to evolution, no one could believe in it (macro btw, not micro: i.e. change from one type animal to another unrelated one even over billions of years).

Speaking of demonstrable evidence, the above post is demonstrable evidence that you don't understand a thing about evolution.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2007, 03:58 PM	#294
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Sauron, That is potentially correct. But the reason it is correct is because I believe the Bible is from God to begin with. I believe the Bible proves that is the case in various ways. Since I start with that, then obviously any conclusion reached by anyone, no matter the 'sources,' that disagrees with that I reject. I use the Bible as an objective standard. Since you do not, then we cannot agree on these points. That is why I asked someone earlier about the standard of 'rightness.' Your standard is evidently sources. My standard is the Bible. Thus, we will always be on opposite sides of the fence. I presented enough information for any person reading to at least be encouaged to go and study some more. Enough that some doubt may creep in about a position held previously. That was my purpose. I expected some, or few, to just jump in and refute it. However, given that the conclusions of those folks reject God and the Bible, I obviously will never agree with them.

01-06-2007, 04:15 PM	#297
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	hatsoff, I would reject the notion that any person can start with 'nothing.' There are two positions: 1. God does not exist 2.God does exist I hold number two. Plenty hold number one. No one is truly objective.

01-06-2007, 04:19 PM	#299
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Diana, You said, "You're getting there. Our standard is demonstrable evidence. " Not really. If you take that to evolution, no one could believe in it (macro btw, not micro: i.e. change from one type animal to another unrelated one even over billions of years). Such is not demonstrable. Not only that but that applies to the universe. It didn't come from 'nothing.' But no one can demonstrate from whence it came. So it isn't demonstrable evidence upon which one relies to hold a belief. It really is his interpretation of the evidential side with which he wants to belong. That arises from life experiences and choices made by the individual.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.