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

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I'm fairly certain that I was talking about the truly unexplained stuff.
It might only be a very very small gap, and unles you know something we don't know...there is undoubtedly a gap.

What you fill that gap with is up to you.
Filling it with religion is no different to filling it with atheism.
Pretending that filling it with atheism is somehow different/superior is just plain ludicrous.

It makes a mockery of your self proclaimed rationalism.
There are things that there are no explanations for and shouting from the rooftops "I'm a rationalist" doesn't, in any way, alter the fact that there are things that there are no explanations for. It is, in fact, irrational to do so.

“The truly unexplained stuff”

I’ll tell you what a rationalist says about the truly unexplained stuff.

They say it’s truly unexplained.

Incredible, isn’t it?

No mockery being made of there.

The trap that religious believers constantly fall into, and you’re doing here too, is deciding that if something is unexplained, it must have some higher significance.

I can’t explain why that chicken schnitzel sandwich that I once saw on the footpath outside my work had a mouthguard sitting on top of it, and I probably never will.

But I don’t tidy it all up in my mind by saying “whoah, must be some higher meaning”.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yep. Absolutely there was no historical event of a global flood.

Geologists reject any notion of a global flood, because there is no supporting geological evidence that such a flood ever occurred.

Other experts in various scientific feidls have raised further problems. Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. Other scientists have raised the problems of various types of rocks such as chalk deposits, that could not possibly be where they are now, such as the cliffs of Dover - if a Global Flood had occurred 2-3,000 years ago. Molecular scientists studying DNA have disputed whether a Flood that destroyed all human life on earth except Noah, his wife, his three sons and his three daughters-in-law could have happened. Mankind may be all essentially related but DNA analysis shows that it is much further back than 2,348 BC, which is the date arrived at for the flood by the chronology/genealogy in the Book of Genesis.

Stratigraphy, Seriation, Chronological Marking, Dendrochronology, radiocarbon dating, geological dating, Potassium-Argon dating, Fission track dating, Obsidian Hydration dating, Thermoluminescence dating, Archaeo- and Paleo-magnetism dating, Oxidized Carbon Ratios are all archaeological methods used to date various historical and pre-historical events.

The evidence that they provide, does NOT support the notion of ONE global flood. No supporting evidence exists

Genetic data also shows no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people or eight people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That number could get as low as 2,000 people, but that's the absolute minimum. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not as low as eight individuals.

DNA studies have also confirmed that there are living today millions of descendants, of women believed to lived between 12,000 - 45,000 years ago. If the Flood was to have destroyed all men on earth apart from Noah and his family, how is this accounted for? If we add up the genealogies in the Bible, we have Noah's flood in about the year 2348 B.C. That's in the Fifth Egyptian Dynasty and the Yao Dynasty of China. There’s no record of a Universal Flood in those years, nor could there be, as everyone and everything would have been destroyed. This is clearly not the case.

If so, the archaeological record of about 4-5,000 years ago would be replete with Pompeii-style ruins, the remains of thousands of towns, villages and cities, all wiped out by flood waters, simultaneously. Archaeology would show cultural development with a discontinuity as everything was wiped out and Noah's descendants had to restart. The near annihilation of the human race, if it happened, left no imprint on the archaeological record anywhere.

Clearly the Bible states that all living things were destroyed except for those on the Ark, the humans consisting of the one family of eight people. Clearly many of the earth's people are descended from people other than Noah and for them to exist today those ancestors must have survived the "Flood".

The global flood story requires that only eight people were left alive in 2349 BC. In 2000 BC, only 350 years after the flood, the population of the world was 27 million. To go from a population of eight to a population of 27 million in 350 years would require an average annual population growth rate of 4.4%, which is only slightly short of the highest birth rates in the world today. Birth rate and population growth aren't the same thing, and such a high birth rate implies reasons for people to have lots of children very young. The countries with the highest birth rates today have high rates of infectious disease and death, low life expectancy, and political instability, with a median age of 15 and a population growth rate well below the birth rate. This does not much resemble the society of superhumanly-long-lived fathers of nations claimed to have lived over that interval, but stable societies where children can be reliably expected to reach adulthood tend to have much lower birthrates.

An even more severe problem is that sexually reproducing species reduced to a population of eight individuals often experiences a catastrophic (and almost certainly extinguishing) genetic bottleneck; and the more rapid the re-expansion of this population, the more intense the inbreeding. Genetic studies have actually revealed the presence of a genetic bottleneck in human prehistory but that scenario is about 66,000 years too early and at least 2,000 people too populous for the Flood narrative.

Indeed there's no reason to suggest any flood story from any civilisation is more than the story of a large localised/regional flood, such as the filling of the Persian Gulf after sea waters rose following the last glacial period. Global sea levels were about 120 metres lower around 16,000 BC and rose until 6,000 BC when they reached current levels, which are now an average 40 metres above the floor of the Gulf, which was a huge (800 km × 200 km) low-lying and fertile region in Mesopotamia. Human habitation is thought to have been strong around the Gulf Oasis for 100,000 years. A sudden increase in settlements above the present water level is recorded at around 5,500 BC. Then there's the Black Sea deluge, which suggests catastrophic deluge about 5600 BC from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea.

A global flood simply did not occur and there is simply no robust convincing evidence to support that it did.




Quotes from your linked article.

The quotes are absolute rubbish.

Genesis is not a historical work written by Moses. There is no evidence that "Moses" wrote any of the Books of the Bible.

It's possible that the Black Sea deluge MAY have inspired the various Mesopotamian flood stories The oldest Mesopotamian flood story of Atrahasis written sometime between 1800 BC and 1700 BC (which was adapted by the writers of the later Epic of Gilgamesh) and then further altered into the story of Noah, when the Jews wrote Genesis in about the 6th century BC, probably in Babylon.

Two senior scientists from Columbia University have proposed a theory that a massive transfer of water occurred about 5600 BC - over seven and a half millennia ago. They wrote: "Ten cubic miles of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls." "The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days." 60,000 square miles of land were inundated. The Black Sea shoreline significantly expanded to the north and east. The lake's its water level was raised many hundreds of feet. It changed from a fresh-water landlocked lake into a salt water lake connected to the world's oceans."

They have drawn on the findings of experts in agriculture, archaeology, genetics, geology, language, development of textiles and pottery, etc. They postulate that this deluge had catastrophic effects on the people living on the shore of the Black Sea. It triggered mass migrations across Europe and into the Near East, Middle East and Egypt. It may have been the source of many flood stories in the area.

The development of the story of Noah in Genesis goes something like this

2700 BC: Calculated time of the figure of Gilgamesh as per dating of walls of Uruk.
2100 BC: Apparent origin of the oldest Gilgamesh epic (Akkadian, AKA Old Babylonian). Alludes to the Flood, but does not specifically mention it.
Before Hammurabi (~1700 BC): Apparent time period of Atrahasis story, oldest Mesopotamian flood story
1830 BC: Oldest Estimated age of "CBM 13532" - also sometimes called the 'Nippur Flood Tablet'
1600 BC: Apparent origin of the known oldest copy of the Atrahasis story (but likely to have been assembled 1800 - 1700 BC)
1400 BC: Standard Babylonian version including all 12 tablets. Flood story complete as copy of Atrahasis.
1170 BC: Youngest Estimated age of "CBM 13532"
668-626 BC: King Assurbanipal of Assyria finds and stores the oldest preserved copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh in his library. Re-discovered in AD 1849

The approximate time of the writing / assembling of the Book of Genesis was between 600-300 BC in Babylonia.

It's clear that Genesis was written over an interval of many centuries by at least five author/editors. The universal flood story was derived from an earlier Babylonian myth by two of these authors. The Genesis flood myth is obviously based on an earlier Babylonian myth; there are many similarities between the two legends. The Babylonian myth appears to be based on an earlier legend that, in turn, might well have been based on dimly remembered memories of the Black Sea catastrophe, for which there is robust archaeoliogical evidence as having actually occurred.

Not to mention, if there was a global flood, where did all the excess water come from, and where did it go to afterwards?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

LOL
How people react to traumatic events is almost exclusively guided by their sub-conscious.

Not having an emotional response to a traumatic event makes you a psychopath.

But you have shifted the goalposts again. No-one is denying the existence of emotional responses to trauma.

But you were claiming there are no atheists in foxholes.

 

[mcnulty]

Do I have to spell everything out?
I thought it was obvious?
In a bowl.

We teach kids to shit in a bowl for very practical purposes of sanitation. Eating, sleeping and walking are basic survival mechanisms. Nothing to do with gaps. I have no idea what you’re on about here.

 

[Gameova_]

Do Christians think we are in the end of days?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Do Christians think we are in the end of days?

Yes.

And they have done for millenia, which erodes their case somewhat.

(But as we’ve seen numerous times, even when some cult leaders are so bold as to put a date on the end of the world, and it passes without incident, most of their followers stay on board. We’re an odd little species.)

 

[Total Power]

Not to mention, if there was a global flood, where did all the excess water come from, and where did it go to afterwards?

There was no global flood, as Brian Cox said ,he has no problem with religion as long as it works within the framework of what has been checked and verified instead of claiming inane things. The story probably came from flooding of Babylonian myths of flooding of Tigris and Euphrates river and through other numerous flood myths like the Indian flood myth of the Hindus. There was no regional flood as well, only local floods, and it's natural as most civilisations were on a coast of a river or a bigger water body.

I do not debate YEC's, they are an absolute waste of time.

 

[Number37]

But you were way more categorical that that. No “if” or “you find yourself” in your original claim:

“we all know that when push comes to shove they're praying as hard as anyone for divine intervention.”

This is horseschitte.

Or at best, just the sort of unfalsifiable red herring that religious believers love to bandy about like it’s actual proof.

Shiva H Vishnu.

A clear demonstration of how the anti-religion brigade can so easily arc up over the most ridiculous thing, exactly like their pro-religion brethren.
The thing that astounds me is that the anti-religion brigade preach the whole rationalists rationalists thing but then all that rationality goes out the window pretty quickly.

If the anti-religion brigade can so easily lose focus of the rational over such a trivial thing it's not a big stretch to suggest that when shit gets real their rationality would also take a back seat to other things like emotion....like any normal person.


Part B:

It's extraordinary how the anti-religion, despite their claims to the rational, without exception, resort to whataboutism with really base arguments that are no more than "religious waa-waa-waa"....the sad thing is that almost always the argument is used as a 'we're better than them'.

 

[Number37]

We teach kids to sh*t in a bowl for very practical purposes of sanitation. Eating, sleeping and walking are basic survival mechanisms. Nothing to do with gaps. I have no idea what you’re on about here.

One minute you're pretending not to know...next minute you do know.
You don't know what I'm on about but you're disagreeing with what I'm on about.

 

[Number37]

But you have shifted the goalposts again. No-one is denying the existence of emotional responses to trauma.

But you were claiming there are no atheists in foxholes.

LOL.

You're seriously that arced up about a nothing...something that you claim is so obviously false...that's rationality is it? Yeah nah.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Shiva H Vishnu.

A clear demonstration of how the anti-religion brigade can so easily arc up over the most ridiculous thing, exactly like their pro-religion brethren.
The thing that astounds me is that the anti-religion brigade preach the whole rationalists rationalists thing but then all that rationality goes out the window pretty quickly.

If the anti-religion brigade can so easily lose focus of the rational over such a trivial thing it's not a big stretch to suggest that when sh*t gets real their rationality would also take a back seat to other things like emotion....like any normal person.


Part B:

It's extraordinary how the anti-religion, despite their claims to the rational, without exception, resort to whataboutism with really base arguments that are no more than "religious waa-waa-waa"....the sad thing is that almost always the argument is used as a 'we're better than them'.

LOL.

You're seriously that arced up about a nothing...something that you claim is so obviously false...that's rationality is it? Yeah nah.

Hang on a sec. You make clear claims that atheists suddenly find religion when life gets tough; that "there are no atheists in foxholes".

And when I dispute this, let alone point out how you instantly ran off track, I'm "arcing up"?

If that's arcing up I think you should have a scroll through a few pages of this thread.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the foxhole. Own your posts.

 

[Number37]

“The truly unexplained stuff”

I’ll tell you what a rationalist says about the truly unexplained stuff.

They say it’s truly unexplained.

Incredible, isn’t it?

No mockery being made of there.

The trap that religious believers constantly fall into, and you’re doing here too, is deciding that if something is unexplained, it must have some higher significance.

I can’t explain why that chicken schnitzel sandwich that I once saw on the footpath outside my work had a mouthguard sitting on top of it, and I probably never will.

But I don’t tidy it all up in my mind by saying “whoah, must be some higher meaning”.

Why do you keep dragging what I say back to something something religion?

What I have said has NOTHING to do with religion.
Oh but religion waa-waa-waa.

Which tells me that you're not as rational as you claim to be.

The discussion is about the unexplained...not the unexplained in relation to what religion says, or chicken snitzel sandwiches or any of the other clap-trap you're going to come up with just to avoid the actual discussion.


In a nutshell...
What you're trying to do is dismiss what I say with something that has nothing to do with what I said.
That's not using reason or being rational, it's the opposite.

 

[Number37]

Hang on a sec. You make clear claims that atheists suddenly find religion when life gets tough; that "there are no atheists in foxholes".

And when I dispute this, let alone point out how you instantly ran off track, I'm "arcing up"?

If that's arcing up I think you should have a scroll through a few pages of this thread.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the foxhole. Own your posts.

Oh FFS.
It was a throwaway line, with an element of truth.
Neither here nor there in the big scheme of things.

Why does it upset you so much?
Yours is a completely irrational response to what I actually said, even moreso if you are so damn sure that it so obviously false.

 

[Number37]

Hang on a sec. You make clear claims that atheists suddenly find religion when life gets tough; that "there are no atheists in foxholes".

And when I dispute this, let alone point out how you instantly ran off track, I'm "arcing up"?

If that's arcing up I think you should have a scroll through a few pages of this thread.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the foxhole. Own your posts.

LOL
It's like me saying something negative about some club other than the one I support.
And supporters of that club arcing up over what I said about their club and going on and on and on and on... like the sky fell in.

Are you seriously that insecure?

 

[Number37]

Hang on a sec. You make clear claims that atheists suddenly find religion when life gets tough; that "there are no atheists in foxholes".

And when I dispute this, let alone point out how you instantly ran off track, I'm "arcing up"?

If that's arcing up I think you should have a scroll through a few pages of this thread.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the foxhole. Own your posts.

Does the fact that your formerly religious uncle never set foot in a church after returning from war prove that atheists don't resort to praying for divine intervention?
Or does it only prove that your formerly religious uncle never set foot in a church after returning from war?

I'm fairly sure you used it as the former.
I'm 100% certain it only proves the latter.

 

[Gethelred]

LOL.

You're seriously that arced up about a nothing...something that you claim is so obviously false...that's rationality is it? Yeah nah.

One minute, the goals are over there. Now, they're over here. In a minute, they'll be in Istanbul, but they're going via San Franscisco.

At what point do you sit there and realise that when you keep shifting positions like that, you're arguing dishonestly?

 

[Gethelred]

Oh FFS.
It was a throwaway line, with an element of truth.
Neither here nor there in the big scheme of things.

Why does it upset you so much?
Yours is a completely irrational response to what I actually said, even moreso if you are so damn sure that it so obviously false.

Why are you so digging in your heels for a throwaway line you are supposedly uncommitted to?

 

[Number37]

One minute, the goals are over there. Now, they're over here. In a minute, they'll be in Istanbul, but they're going via San Franscisco.

At what point do you sit there and realise that when you keep shifting positions like that, you're arguing dishonestly?

Me addressing mostly irrelevant shit that responded to what I said is me shifting the goal posts.

Could be tangential reasoning. Dunno. I haven't found anyone that can explain what it is. Yet.


But yeah, it's me.
I'm arguing dishonestly.

Religion rah-rah-rah.
Happy now?

 

[Number37]

Why are you so digging in your heels for a throwaway line you are supposedly uncommitted to?

I am responding to someone.
Or am I not allowed to respond to someone?


Seems clear that you're just here to bait, so I'll just take whatever you say from now on as baiting.

 

[Gethelred]

I am responding to someone.
Or am I not allowed to respond to someone?


Seems clear that you're just here to bait, so I'll just take whatever you say from now on as baiting.

Me addressing mostly irrelevant sh*t that responded to what I said is me shifting the goal posts.

Could be tangential reasoning. Dunno. I haven't found anyone that can explain what it is. Yet.


But yeah, it's me.
I'm arguing dishonestly.

Religion rah-rah-rah.
Happy now?

Yes, you are arguing dishonestly, and yes, you are shifting the goalposts. Make up your mind. Am I attacking you, or am I baiting?

How many times have you tried to reframe the argument to suit you? How many times have you lashed out at people who have pointed out the flaws in what you've said? How many times do you want to paint yourself the victim?

I don't know you or what's happening in your life, but you didn't use to argue like this.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Why do you keep dragging what I say back to something something religion?

What I have said has NOTHING to do with religion.
Oh but religion waa-waa-waa.

Which tells me that you're not as rational as you claim to be.

The discussion is about the unexplained...not the unexplained in relation to what religion says, or chicken snitzel sandwiches or any of the other clap-trap you're going to come up with just to avoid the actual discussion.


In a nutshell...
What you're trying to do is dismiss what I say with something that has nothing to do with what I said.
That's not using reason or being rational, it's the opposite.

Why do I keep dragging what you say back to something something religion? Gee, might just have something to do with the topic under discussion.

I have been nothing but rational in all our exchanges.

You, on the other hand, are behaving quite bizarrely.

Oh FFS.
It was a throwaway line, with an element of truth.
Neither here nor there in the big scheme of things.

Why does it upset you so much?
Yours is a completely irrational response to what I actually said, even moreso if you are so damn sure that it so obviously false.

LOL
It's like me saying something negative about some club other than the one I support.
And supporters of that club arcing up over what I said about their club and going on and on and on and on... like the sky fell in.

Are you seriously that insecure?

Only problem with your argument is I'm not in the least bit upset.

I am however, tiring of this strange outburst of irrationality, and have no interest in prolonging it. I suggest you close your device and go for a walk outside. Have a great afternoon mate.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Does the fact that your formerly religious uncle never set foot in a church after returning from war prove that atheists don't resort to praying for divine intervention?
Or does it only prove that your formerly religious uncle never set foot in a church after returning from war?

I'm fairly sure you used it as the former.
I'm 100% certain it only proves the latter.

Me addressing mostly irrelevant sh*t that responded to what I said is me shifting the goal posts.

Could be tangential reasoning. Dunno. I haven't found anyone that can explain what it is. Yet.


But yeah, it's me.
I'm arguing dishonestly.

Religion rah-rah-rah.
Happy now?

I am responding to someone.
Or am I not allowed to respond to someone?


Seems clear that you're just here to bait, so I'll just take whatever you say from now on as baiting.

Seriously mate, go for a walk.

That's not a command, it's friendly advice. Not sure you realise just how off the planet you've been getting here.

 

[Number37]

Why do I keep dragging what you say back to something something religion? Gee, might just have something to do with the topic under discussion.

I have been nothing but rational in all our exchanges.

You, on the other hand, are behaving quite bizarrely.



Only problem with your argument is I'm not in the least bit upset.

I am however, tiring of this strange outburst of irrationality, and have no interest in prolonging it. I suggest you close your device and go for a walk outside. Have a great afternoon mate.

There are no answers for unexplained things in science, hence the term unexplained. I thought that was obvious.
What I said was that there are unexplained things and that it is human nature for people to look for answers for those unexplained things.

You jumping up and down screaming about religion, doesn't, in any way, change the fact that there are unexplained things, nor does it change the fact that people look for answers.

There is nothing irrational about any of that.
The irrationality is all yours.
Your irrationality began when you got yourself into a tizz about me saying that atheists pray for divine intervention like anyone else when push comes to shove.
As I already explained, when we face traumatic events we turn to our coping mechanisms, most of which we learn at a very young age.
Our coping mechanisms are mostly subconscious.
Prayer as a coping mechanism is/was pervasive. I would have thought that was quite obvious. Every atheist seems to have a story of being force fed religion.
Whether you like it, or not, whether you accept it, or not, you can't magically erase things from your subconscious, you cannot unsee things.

If you accept that we turn to coping mechanisms, learnt at a young age, which in all likelihood includes using prayer, when faced with traumatic events there is nothing irrational about suggesting that a person, including an atheist, would turn to prayer.


What I have said is irrational to you because you must think that declaring yourself an atheist means that you are going to be different to every other person and magically control your subconscious, or better still, declaring yourself an atheist rewires your subconscious so you magically ignore coping mechanisms that don't suit your current lifestyle choices.
You're telling me that atheists are that special that you know that they can control their subconscious and somehow that makes me the irrational one.

 

[Number37]

Yes, you are arguing dishonestly, and yes, you are shifting the goalposts. Make up your mind. Am I attacking you, or am I baiting?

How many times have you tried to reframe the argument to suit you? How many times have you lashed out at people who have pointed out the flaws in what you've said? How many times do you want to paint yourself the victim?

I don't know you or what's happening in your life, but you didn't use to argue like this.

My life is fine thanks.
I do have this one problem though, maybe you can help me with it?

There is this person on an internet forum that I use that keeps following me around into different threads to complain about the opinions that I express, but they never address the substance of the opinions that I express they always resort to calling me crazy or that I am having a mental breakdown or some other mental health slur, more recently they've upped the ante to making suggestions about my life in general. I've had a quick look and this person's angst can be directly traced back to a comment I made that nobody should listen to a fat bastard like George Christensen.
I've decided to take the philosophical route and provide some abstract advice to that person in the form a quote from one of my favourite books, The Iliad.

"As hateful to me as the gates of Hades is the man who hides one thing in his thoughts, but says another."

Do you think that this person would understand what I am trying to say?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

There are no answers for unexplained things in science, hence the term unexplained. I thought that was obvious.
What I said was that there are unexplained things and that it is human nature for people to look for answers for those unexplained things.

You jumping up and down screaming about religion, doesn't, in any way, change the fact that there are unexplained things, nor does it change the fact that people look for answers.

There is nothing irrational about any of that.
The irrationality is all yours.
Your irrationality began when you got yourself into a tizz about me saying that atheists pray for divine intervention like anyone else when push comes to shove.
As I already explained, when we face traumatic events we turn to our coping mechanisms, most of which we learn at a very young age.
Our coping mechanisms are mostly subconscious.
Prayer as a coping mechanism is/was pervasive. I would have thought that was quite obvious. Every atheist seems to have a story of being force fed religion.
Whether you like it, or not, whether you accept it, or not, you can't magically erase things from your subconscious, you cannot unsee things.

If you accept that we turn to coping mechanisms, learnt at a young age, which in all likelihood includes using prayer, when faced with traumatic events there is nothing irrational about suggesting that a person, including an atheist, would turn to prayer.


What I have said is irrational to you because you must think that declaring yourself an atheist means that you are going to be different to every other person and magically control your subconscious, or better still, declaring yourself an atheist rewires your subconscious so you magically ignore coping mechanisms that don't suit your current lifestyle choices.
You're telling me that atheists are that special that you know that they can control their subconscious and somehow that makes me the irrational one.

Yeah mate I am so uninterested in discussing anything of import with someone who insists on telling me I am “in a tizz” and “jumping up and down and screaming” when the truth is I am as calm as can be.

If you’re that fundamentally wrong about the people you’re engaging with, why would anyone be interested in your bizarre take on the topic under discussion?

Rant all you want; I'll not be engaging further with you.