Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bigotboy

New member
Originally posted by ex_fundy
And how is it that you know how they were understood 2000 years ago? And did you know that even then there were a variety of interpretations and understandings of various Torah passages? Yep, even 2000 years ago there was NOT universal agreement of such things.

There is not universal agreement on anything. If you have some documentation that Jesus did not think those stories were actual events, please present it. It is easily understood from the Luke reading that Jesus believed the OT scriptures. As for the "destroy them all", there is the "all" of the town and the "all" of mankind. Easily understood from the context.


[/QUOTE]
Oh great, I've been waiting for a chance to respond like Jack. Here goes: Why not? [/QUOTE]

Because.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by attention
If it were only a small amount of animals (those who serve human society, like sheep, cows, horses, and like) it could be credible, but one can't take a pair of every animal on earth. That's for sure. Even nowadays we did not yet discover ALL the animal species, we still discover new ones.

Noah didn't have to take every species on board the ark. How many times do I have to tell you this?

Anyone any idea just about the number of insect species that exist? I bet it would be enough to fill 20 arcs already!!

Noah didn't have to take insects on board the ark either.
 

Bigotboy

New member
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Since my last post I have just seen 8 more pages showing the impossibilities of the Ark.

Yet Jack still sticks to his unfounded fantasy.

You have to admire that degree of determination.. but then I guess Ludd was determined too.

Jack is not unfounded. He is relying on the Bible. (Septuagent). The story as you have described it IS impossible, but that is my point with Ex_ - why do you assume that the conditions you impose on the story are correct ? Why do you assume that every creature alive today was alive then ? How about this idea- suppose Noah only had to have all the creatures that are found in the fossil record ? And even then that may not be a valid assumption, as some may be mutations of others, in which case only the base pair would have been needed.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Since my last post I have just seen 8 more pages showing the impossibilities of the Ark.

Yet Jack still sticks to his unfounded fantasy.

We'll see who's been sticking to unfounded fantasy on Judgement Day.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Nice Jack…

You threw in a threat about my eternal damnation. I love it when fundies eventually resort to that old chestnut !

I always add in my line when I see that..

Sadly when I am finally proven right you will be too dead to know !

Bigotboy,

Fine.. throw in all the special conditions you like.. but then don’t try and pretend the Ark could have happened without divine intervention…then.. if that is the case why didn’t God just zap everyone dead.. why the elaborate impossible flood scenario ???
 

Bigotboy

New member
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

Bigotboy,

Fine.. throw in all the special conditions you like.. but then don’t try and pretend the Ark could have happened without divine intervention…then.. if that is the case why didn’t God just zap everyone dead.. why the elaborate impossible flood scenario ???

The whole point of the Arc narrative is that it could not have happened without divine intervention. I don't know why God didn't zap everyone, but that does not invalidate the event.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Big,

The whole point of the Arc narrative is that it could not have happened without divine intervention. I don't know why God didn't zap everyone, but that does not invaidate the event.

No atheist can ever invalidate something if divine intervention is invoked.. but then there is no point arguing about it at all.

The reason the event is invalidated by God supposedly causing the flood and divinely intervening to save Noah is it just doesn’t make sense. You would have to agree that as a God it would make far more sense to remove the offending problem (ie all the other humans) than kill all plants , animals etc and completely destroy the Earth ecology. To an omnipotent all powerful God the Flood solution would not make sense.

So if things God do seem stupid or senseless you can either conclude that

1. God is an idiot
2. The Story was misreported, misinterpreted or told as a parable
3. God didn’t do it or
4. God doesn’t exist.

As a theist I am sure you would rather go with 2 or 3. As most theists DO when it comes to the flood story.

So WHY as a theist would you want to stick to a story that makes out either your God is dumb or is a pack of lies.
 

D the Atheist

New member
Originally posted by attention
D the Atheist:

What is the use of trying to discredit a fairy tale? In a fairy tale such a thing (supplying water to animals on the imaginary arch of noach) is not a problem. That is why it is a fairy tale.


The problem is that the story is realy misinterpreted if it is believed literally. Noach could in NO POSSIBLE way have gathered all the species of animals in all the continents, there is NO POSSIBLE way that a gigantic catastrophe on earth would have flooded ALL LAND (including mountains) etc. etc.

Could not agree with you more attention. There would have to have been a great number of serious local inundations, as widespread flood myths attest to and as our own knowledge of the many floods in our own time do also.

I would even guess at instances of ancient farming cultures placing there stock (Maybe even only breeding stock) on rudimentary floating devices and heading off to find dry land if the flood was inundatory :)enough.

It is also easy to see how future generations most likely sat around smoke hazed campfires at night, relating and expanding such stories into fabulous accounts.

Story telling is a big part of human entertainment.

People such as Jack are these modern versions of the storytellers continuing to promote the myths as truths. And as Jack mentions every now and then, there are very negative consequences to not believe in the literal interpretation of these myths. Jack is not only motivated to believe the unbelievable by fear (With a tough of hopeful reward thrown in), but he adds to the overall culturally induced fear that the gullible feel already.

That is not a good thing.
 

SOTK

New member
Originally posted by Heino
Would you find it equally amusing for a bunch of fundamentalist evangelicals to hang out on an atheist forum, or in my case, a biology forum, and tell all of us that we are brainwashers trying to shove evolution down others' throats?

I am not talking about other forums that you go to. I am talking about THEOLOGYonline, and I am addressing the atheists or non-believers, which includes you, that are currently hanging out here claiming that they are here for the pursuit of truth. Your debates here are all well and good, but I haven't read many remarks from atheists which would back up the notion that they are looking for truth. Hey, at least I am being honest with myself and all of you. I made up my mind a long time ago what I consider to be truth, and from what I've read most of the atheists here have as well.

Originally posted by Heino It is very simple. There is a debate between an ATHEIST and Bob Enyart, a Christian. Obviously, not just Christians have an interest in such a debate. Some atheists were invited to participate in the forum, and even I got an email announcing the debate. There is nothing dubious about it.

I haven't said anything about the debate going on between Bob and Zakath, have I? Now that you brought that up, yes, I agree with you. There is nothing dubious about coming here to read that debate. However, debating is usually a matter of contest, is it not? Winning. Again, be honest. If you aren't gonna change your beliefs and are here just for an old fashioned duel, than stop trying to tell all of us that you really care about truth, because it's your own truth or belief that you really care about. Not ours. Again, I bring this up because most of you (atheists) try blowing smoke by stating you care and want to learn something. Yeah, right. That is sooooo evident in all of your posts.

Originally posted by Heino What about the people who got invited by the hosts of these forums? When one is invited to an interesting discussion, would it not make sense to show up?

See above response.

Originally posted by Heino I should add that there are many non-Christian forums out there, with fundamentalist christians harrassing the non-Christians. Having seen many myself, I do not consider what goes on here to be harrassment by any means. I do not feel threatened by atheists, because they haven't said anything threatening yet. I have seen a few rude fundamentalists, though.

Hey, I am not talking about other forums, but I will state that I don't find that hard to believe at all. There are all kinds of Christians. Some, unfortunately, will leave the non-believer with a sour taste in their mouth. I am not the type to go and engage with people that hold the opposite belief of mine with the intention of being malicious. It happened to me before I was a Christian. I feel that what God has to offer sells itself and having some fear of Judgement Day didn't hurt me none either. I only "go there" with the unbeliever when they give me the green light. Let's take a look at harassment.

Main Entry: ha·rass
Pronunciation: h&-'ras, 'har-&s
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: French harasser, from Middle French, from harer to set a dog on, from Old French hare, interj. used to incite dogs, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German hier here -- more at HERE
Date: 1617
1 a : EXHAUST, FATIGUE b : to annoy persistently
2 : to worry and impede by repeated raids <harassed the enemy>
synonym see WORRY
- ha·rass·er noun
- ha·rass·ment /-m&nt/ noun

Hmmm...to annoy persistently? Harass the enemy? This seems to me, in my opinion, to be the exact intention most of you have. Harass. Not all of you though. I've talked with some atheists before who I knew to have an honest interest or curiosity in my belief and that made for a productive discussion. Again, if you are interested, great! If you know that you are not going to change your mind, ever, than be honest with yourself and us why you are here. If you are here to annoy or harass, than I recommend getting a life.

Originally posted by Heino Possibly because they see the same criticisms over and over again from people like yourself, and give the same responses to them again and again. It makes sense, doesn't it?

The only thing I'm criticizing is the atheist's motivation for being here. I don't plan to get into criticizing atheist's beliefs, because almost every single discussion I've read or been apart of is counterproductive. The atheist has no intention of changing their beliefs and nor do any Christian. Again, why are you really here? If it is because you are openminded and do want to learn from the theist, than my hat is off to you.

Originally posted by Heino I am not ticked off. In fact, I think that Jack is the only person here who might be ticked off, as he is being rude to me, and I am not even a atheist. I believe that a bunch of interesting scientific topics are being discussed. For example, I learned yesteday that gravity can dilate time, just like velocity does. When I did a google search after reading Jack's comments, I found a bunch of fascinating material that I had never read before. Thanks to Jack for bringing up that topic, by the way.

I don't presume to know what Jack feels or doesn't feel. If he is irritated or ticked off at you, it could be that he shares the same feelings that I have. Like I continue to state, most atheists are here to irritate and that get's old. With many atheists here, the minute the discussion begins they start putting down theists.

Originally posted by Heino Well, how does one expect to have a "debate" about the existence or non-existence of God, without atheists? You cannot "debate" without opposing views, can you not?

Again, if you are debating to win, that's one thing. If you are debating because you hope to learn, that's another and more productive as well. If you are debating knowing that you don't give a rip about what the other person believes and are being dishonest by stating that you do want to learn, you will have just become a part of many atheists here at TOL.

Originally posted by Heino I think you need to calm down, take a breath deeply, then realize what the debate is about. There has to be atheists here, because we are discussing the existence or non existence of God.

Thanks for the advice. Regardless of how I might sound, I am not in the least bit upset. I believe in being real and honest. I agree that in a debate of the existence or non existence of God both sides have to be here. If you (the atheist or non-believer) are here debating to win, than fine. Competing is great. Just don't feed me a line stating you (the atheist or non-believer) cares about the pursuit of truth when everybody here can see that's bull.
 

D the Atheist

New member
Originally posted by SOTK4ever
I made up my mind a long time ago what I consider to be truth, and from what I've read most of the atheists here have as well.

SOTK4ever,

It is this preoccupation with the concept of a “truth” out there that is so upsetting to this Atheist.

Just think about this statement. As an Atheist I accept that there are “true” statements, “false” statements and “indeterminate” statements.

This thing you call “truth” is ethereal nonsense and as far as I am concerned is a part of religious nothingness presented to confuse the unwary. If it isn’t’, explain it precisely.

This is a genuine request.
 

Corky the Cat

BANNED
Banned
SOTK4ever,

With respect, I have never met a debater in my life who doesn't think he is right.

You seem to be of the opinion that these boards should be a place just for theists and where poor deluded atheist can came come to learn the true path. That does not appear to be the case. In fact, from what I observe, people seem to enjoy the debating and heated discussion, theists and atheists alike.

The arguments aren't limited to theist v atheist either. I've read heated banter between Christians regarding how they interpret the meaning of scripture. Quite hilarious actually :D

So you have to ask your self, who has the closed mind here? It's simple really. If you don't like having your beliefs questioned then don't read threads like this. Or, grow a thicker skin.

Peace

Corky
 

attention

New member
Originally posted by SOTK4ever
Thanks for the advice. Regardless of how I might sound, I am not in the least bit upset. I believe in being real and honest. I agree that in a debate of the existence or non existence of God both sides have to be here. If you (the atheist or non-believer) are here debating to win, than fine. Competing is great. Just don't feed me a line stating you (the atheist or non-believer) cares about the pursuit of truth when everybody here can see that's bull.

I would frimly disagree with your last statement, since it does matter what the truth is.

Despite many others who claim that the truth can not be know, I do have claimed that truth can be known.

It is arguable and also my position that we don't have absolute knowledge about everything, and never will arrive at that, but this does not mean we are left in the dark when it comes to the existence of this higher being thing.

I have presented here many reasons why it should be considered a known fact that there is no higher being, and that the objective existence of such a being should be denied.

Further I presented some good argumentation how the questions of origin (of the universe, life and consciousness) should be dealt with, at the basis of the incomprehensibility of a begin from nothing.

I am not arguing for the sake of winning, but for presenting reasons and arguments that make sense.
 

Corky the Cat

BANNED
Banned
Yes, “everybody must get stoned”, but I would add, “everybody must be straight sometimes!”

DTA, have you heard the song? It's rather funny, and old. 60's I think.

But yeah, lol, plenty of time for straight when we're in hell :thumb:
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Nice Jack…

You threw in a threat about my eternal damnation.

I didn't threaten anything. It's interesting, however, that my statement would make you feel threatened.

Sadly when I am finally proven right you will be too dead to know !

Like I said -- we'll see...
 

Heino

New member
Originally posted by SOTK4ever
I am not talking about other forums that you go to.
This is the only forum I go to (so far).
I am talking about THEOLOGYonline, and I am addressing the atheists or non-believers, which includes you,
Why do you think I am an atheist or a non-believer? I believe I have stated several times that I am a Christian (A Lutherin). I may believe in evolution, but being a Christian is not incompatible with my belief in Jesus Christ. I believe that God made evolution to work the way it does. It is a marvelous and awe-inspiring work of His.
that are currently hanging out here claiming that they are here for the pursuit of truth.
Can people hang out here "for the pursuit of truth" if they come here as unbelievers or merely disagree with you?
Your debates here are all well and good, but I haven't read many remarks from atheists which would back up the notion that they are looking for truth.
Maybe you should learn who the atheists are, first. After all, you mis-read me as one!
Hey, at least I am being honest with myself and all of you.
I think that everyone here is pretty honest so far (I have been here only 1 week). I even value your honesty, even if it seems to be angry. At least you let people know how you feel, which is good to communication, and I appreciate that.
I made up my mind a long time ago what I consider to be truth, and from what I've read most of the atheists here have as well.
Everyone does. Nobody can predict when their opinions might change or when they will have a "revelation". We all have made up our minds about our beliefs for the time being now. Later on, we may change our beliefs after the result of a discussion. I think it is fair to let people believe what they do, and just let the discussion go freely.

I hope you are not really as upset as you seem from your posts.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by Bigotboy
The whole point of the Arc narrative is that it could not have happened without divine intervention. I don't know why God didn't zap everyone, but that does not invalidate the event.

I've already explained why. It's so there would be evidence left behind (the sedimentary layers, all the dead things buried in the rock, etc.) of God's judgment on the Earth. If He had just zapped everybody dead on the spot, within a few generations people would have just started denying that it had ever happened.
 

Heino

New member
Originally posted by Corky the Cat
SOTK4ever,

With respect, I have never met a debater in my life who doesn't think he is right.
Quite true! Did not Mark Twain say something like that?
So you have to ask your self, who has the closed mind here? It's simple really. If you don't like having your beliefs questioned then don't read threads like this. Or, grow a thicker skin.
I have browsed a few threads, and there are plenty of other threads which SOTK4 can go without too many unbelievers.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by Heino
Why do you think I am an atheist or a non-believer?

He's not the only one that thinks you are.

I believe I have stated several times that I am a Christian (A Lutherin).

I find that very difficult to believe, given that I've never met anyone who couldn't spell the name of their own religion. I believe you're a Lutheran about as much as I believe you're a biologist. Which is to say, not at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top