Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Rosscoe]

Now go ahead and evidence these claims of miracle production please?
“Faith” belief without evidence, great, so it’s circular reasoning you’d like to add to your numerous collection of fallacious logic abilities, I’ll add them if you’d like?
Maybe educate yourself in the laws of logic and investigate logic fallacies and get back to us?

And no it’s not an assumption, you went looking for the god of the Old Testament, the Bible and Quran and lo and behold, instead of finding Krishna, Vishnu, Thor etc., is the exact meaning of confirmation bias.

Good words, clever thinking but you are wrong.

To know what it is like at the top of Mount Everest;you have to go there. I can describe it, show you a picture even live stream it; but if you want to feel it you have to climb.

Science, logic whatever want to call it, can only explain what is tangible. It cannot explain premonitions, de ja vu etc and a lot of phenomena that is widely accepted as being true. Unless you pursue the experience there is no way of truly knowing.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Good words, clever thinking but you are wrong.

To know what it is like at the top of Mount Everest;you have to go there. I can describe it, show you a picture even live stream it; but if you want to feel it you have to climb.

Science, logic whatever want to call it, can only explain what is tangible. It cannot explain premonitions, de ja vu etc and a lot of phenomena that is widely accepted as being true. Unless you pursue the experience there is no way of truly knowing.

So, all the other gods, religions, beliefs, that directly oppose yours, where do they sit in this pantheon of lived “experience” and “truly knowing”?

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Science, logic whatever want to call it, can only explain what is tangible. It cannot explain premonitions, de ja vu etc and a lot of phenomena that is widely accepted as being true. Unless you pursue the experience there is no way of truly knowing.

Firstly, just because something is widely accepted as being true doesn't make it true. For example, the miasma theory of disease was widely accepted across Europe and Asia for hundreds of years, but that didn't mean it was true. Fortunately, we have science to help us work out what is real and what is unsubstantiated superstition.

Secondly, there are actually a number of scientific hypotheses on premonitions and deja vu. The brain is extraordinarily complex, but scientists learn more about it every day.

 

[Rosscoe]

So, all the other gods, religions, beliefs, that directly oppose yours, where do they sit in this pantheon of lived “experience” and “truly knowing”?

I have not experienced them, so I would not know.

I don’t know what they preach, but imagine for the most part, it is to live a life of peace and be kind to people; so I am not against goodness in any form as the Bible instructs me. I have had Christians tell me that I am going to hell for saying that Jesus is god. It does not bother me because I have a connection and do not need anything else.

 

[Number37]

Not by me, there isn't.

Look, if you're not going to say, "I don't know the answer to your specific question," and you're not going to try to answer my question on the basis that I asked it in good faith - which I did - can you at least refrain from leading me down a rabbit hole and wasting my time?

The short answer is yes.

Recent research suggests the Earth was once covered by a global ocean with very little visible land.

Constraining the Volume of Earth's Early Oceans With a Temperature-Dependent Mantle Water Storage Capacity Model
Junjie Dong, Rebecca A. Fischer, Lars P. Stixrude, Carolina R. Lithgow-Bertelloni

 

[Number37]

I think you’re emotionally irrational given the subject matter, simple as that.
I only really get emotionally irrational about a couple of things and religion ain’t one of them.

If I'm not emotionally irrational given the subject matter, what then?

 

[Rosscoe]

Firstly, just because something is widely accepted as being true doesn't make it true. For example, the miasma theory of disease was widely accepted across Europe and Asia for hundreds of years, but that didn't mean it was true. Fortunately, we have science to help us work out what is real and what is unsubstantiated superstition.

Secondly, there are actually a number of scientific hypotheses on premonitions and deja vu. The brain is extraordinarily complex, but scientists learn more about it every day.

I have read a fair bit about neuroscience. I find it intriguing how we all have the same dreams e.g. falling, being chased and flying. They believe it could be some sort of coping mechanism. I was making a point that science has not reached a point where it can test spirituality and therefore it remains inconclusive not untrue to the scientific community.

 

[carltonchelsea]

I have not experienced them, so I would not know.

I don’t know what they preach, but imagine for the most part, it is to live a life of peace and be kind to people; so I am not against goodness in any form as the Bible instructs me. I have had Christians tell me that I am going to hell for saying that Jesus is god. It does not bother me because I have a connection and do not need anything else.

I have had people of all Abrahamics tell me I’m going to hell, because I don’t believe in Bronze Age middle eastern mythology, I don’t believe in hell, nor do I believe in spiritual resurrection or the heaven/paradise they adhere to.
It’s an abuse to be told either way where I’m going upon my mortal coils demise, just don’t ******* enter the public square for which I pay my part in its existence and legislate your right to tell me where I’m headed and we don’t have a problem, comprendhe?

 

[Rosscoe]

I have had people of all Abrahamics tell me I’m going to hell, because I don’t believe in Bronze Age middle eastern mythology, I don’t believe in hell, nor do I believe in spiritual resurrection or the heaven/paradise they adhere to.
It’s an abuse to be told either way where I’m going upon my mortal coils demise, just don’t ******* enter the public square for which I pay my part in its existence and legislate your right to tell me where I’m headed and we don’t have a problem, comprendhe?

Romans 10:6 is clear on this. I wouldn’t dare say anyone is going anywhere; it’s not my call.

 

[Roylion]

I honestly doubt you would believe a miracle even if you saw one.

I won't see one.

A miracle is essentially what you call it when something occurs that you can't explain and you're too impressed to try and figure out exactly what happened.

If I were you I'd be worried about the scarcity of miracles these days. This increasing scarcity appears to be further evidence of a worrying long-term decline in God's powers. God used to be able to part seas and flood planets. In the days of the Old Testament he was turning people into pillars of salt and Aaron's rod into a snake. At the time of Jesus, God that omnipotent deity was basically down to party tricks, turning water into wine, catching fish where there was none, curing Peter's mother-in-law of a fever, healing a leper, stopping a woman from bleeding.

Still I suppose he did calm a storm. Those shower squalls on the Sea of Galilee are bad though. I've experienced them myself. I remember holding up my hands on the shore of the Sea of Galilee and the storm miraculously ended.

 

[mcnulty]

Romans 10:6 is clear on this. I wouldn’t dare say anyone is going anywhere; it’s not my call.

You don’t need to tell us. Tell your church. You can be as hideous an individual as you like, but repent and you can get in. As long as you’re baptised of course.

Not to mention limbo...thats some seriously ****ed up s**t.

 

[Roylion]

How much condensation do you reckon enough water to drop sea levels by more than 100m would create?

No idea. But in ice ages, the cooling of the climate leads to more freezing of water which as it locked up in icecaps lowers the sea level.

Ice ages are not evidence of a global flood event.

I didn't attend your 7 geography lesson ( if they're as misleading as your history lessons, thank F),

History and Geography teachers try to strike a balance and be as objective as possible in their teaching of their subjects. Obviously as students move to higher levels, the study of both becomes more analytical. We try not make value judgements, but certainly students are encouraged to examine various pieces of conflicting evidence and make judgements / conclusions based on that evidence. However when the evidence for one conclusion is overwhelming it is difficult not to make certain conclusions.

Now where's your evidence in support of a global flood event? You know...where a global flood occurs over a limited amount of time (the event). let say 40 days? You seem to be a bit reluctant to provide any evidence, other than providing more obfuscation. Do I dare mention your favorite 'st.a...n' word?

Can I conclude that your reluctance means you dont have any?

but I reckon it would either need to condensate a little bit every day for a f'ing long time or it would be coming down in truckloads for a shorter time. Either way....

This makes no sense.

Tell us, what words of wisdom did you provide those unfortunate enough to be in any of your year 7 classes about how all that water got back to whenceforth it came?

It's not that difficult to understand.

 

[Roylion]

Wikipedia is an awesome source of information. No really, it is.

It is. The links to the original sources provided by the footnotes are also invaluable.

 

[Number37]

It is. The links to the original sources provided by the footnotes are also invaluable.

Yeah but you can't copy-paste those originals without first reading and critical thinking. It's easier to pretend to know stuff when you can just copy-paste straight off wiki, any year 7 student could tell you that.

 

[Osho]

I wonder if there was indeed a biblical "global" flood. It is just that, "global" was actually local as "god" thought the world was limited to only a small region. Either "god" was not the smartest bloke running round, or, he hadn't traveled around much, or both.

 

[Number37]

History and Geography teachers try to strike a balance and be as objective as possible in their teaching of their subjects. Obviously as students move to higher levels, the study of both becomes more analytical. We try not make value judgements, but certainly students are encouraged to examine various pieces of conflicting evidence and make judgements / conclusions based on that evidence. However when the evidence for one conclusion is overwhelming it is difficult not to make certain conclusions.

An important part of critical thinking comes from understanding limitations. Any idiot can parrot a conclusion.

 

[Roylion]

It's easier to pretend to know stuff when you can just copy-paste straight off wiki, any year 7 student could tell you that.

Perhaps you should do that before you post more absolute rubbish.

Now where's your evidence in support of a global flood event? You know...where a global flood occurs over a limited amount of time (the event). Let's say 40 days?

Can I conclude that your reluctance means you don't have any?

 

[Rosscoe]

I won't see one.

A miracle is essentially what you call it when something occurs that you can't explain and you're too impressed to try and figure out exactly what happened.

If I were you I'd be worried about the scarcity of miracles these days. This increasing scarcity appears to be further evidence of a worrying long-term decline in God's powers. God used to be able to part seas and flood planets. In the days of the Old Testament he was turning people into pillars of salt and Aaron's rod into a snake. At the time of Jesus, God that omnipotent deity was basically down to party tricks, turning water into wine, catching fish where there was none, curing Peter's mother-in-law of a fever, healing a leper, stopping a woman from bleeding.

Still I suppose he did calm a storm. Those shower squalls on the Sea of Galilee are bad though. I've experienced them myself. I remember holding up my hands on the shore of the Sea of Galilee and the storm miraculously ended.

View attachment 1292551

bringing someone back from the dead, days after their funeral; is the single greatest miracle there ever was.

 

[Number37]

It's not that difficult to understand.

Clearly it is.

 

[Roylion]

An important part of critical thinking comes from understanding limitations. Any idiot can parrot a conclusion.

Perhaps you should take your own advice in hand for yourself.

 

[Roylion]

bringing someone back from the dead, days after their funeral; is the single greatest miracle there ever was.

Yet another claim made without any supporting evidence. I see no evidence in support of that claim that the resurrection was an actual historical event. Could you provide some? Please move beyond the theological works of the Gospels.

 

[Roylion]

Clearly it is.

Obviously it is for you. It's not that difficult to understand for me.

Now where's your evidence in support of a global flood event? You know...where a global flood occurs over a limited amount of time (the event). Let's say 40 days?

Can I conclude that your reluctance means you don't have any?

 

[Rosscoe]

You don’t need to tell us. Tell your church. You can be as hideous an individual as you like, but repent and you can get in. As long as you’re baptised of course.

Not to mention limbo...thats some seriously f’ed up sh*t.

Yeah but who was telling you?

 

[Number37]

Perhaps you should do that before you post more absolute rubbish.

Now where's your evidence in support of a global flood event? You know...where a global flood occurs over a limited amount of time (the event). Let's say 40 days?

Can I conclude that your reluctance means you don't have any?

You frame it in whatever way that gets you the answer you want, don't let facts stop you.
Wiki is where it's at.
Wiki and year 7 geography class, is all you need.

 

[Roylion]

You frame it in whatever way that gets you the answer you want, don't let facts stop you.

i'm asking you to provide the facts. Why won't you do it? Is it too difficult?

Where's your evidence in support of a global flood event? You know...where a global flood occurs over a limited amount of time (the event). Let's say 40 days?

Can I conclude that your reluctance to provide the 'facts' means you don't have any?