Noah's Ark is Plagiarized. Here's how we know ...

[ding]

I. LOVE. SCIENCE. It does not have to be one or the other, silly.

welllll....except it does. The theists demonstrates, repeatedly, that if a thing claimed by faith is contrary to science, he will choose faith. Peter LaRufa rather summed it up nicely:

If somewhere in the Bible, I were to find a passage said 2 + 2 = 5 then I wouldn't question what I'm reading. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it.​

When a theist can say that with a straight face, then faith cannot be reconciled with reason.

Of course faith can be reconciled with reason.

Faith means to have complete trust in something. I never put my complete trust is something that doesn't make sense or is unreliable.

The Heavens may declare the glory.... but you have to study them to discover it. We were never meant to NOT look for ourselves.

Reason is not about "Does this make sense to me," Reason is about, "Can this be supported by objective evidence," Any manner of silliness can be rationalised to "make sense" - just look at David Karesh. What you are describing isn't reason, it is justification. You are right; you can justify your beliefs all day long. That does not make them rational, or reasonable.

Reason is the enemy of faith, because faith demands belief in the absence of objective evidence; that is the wilful rejection of reason.

Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

For instance we live in a deterministic universe where there has never been an uncaused event which means there is a reason for everything.

You reject this because you are unable to reason.

I don't reject that. I just reject "God did it" as a reasonable explanation. It's perfectly okay in response to "What was the cause for. ___?" (Fill in the blank) with, "I don't know, lety's find out," "God did it" is never a valid response.

You have in the past.

Everything happens for a reason.

 

[Czernobog]

I have never said that God is "absurd". Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. But that's entirely different. Rejecting science, simply because it contradicts your faith is absurd. But that is entirely different.

You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.

And it shows.

I thought I said that.

Actually it looked like you were trying to not say it.

Nope. Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. There is no objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God. Thus belief in such is absurd. I thought I was being clear.

And you believe that people should be taught that religion is absurd.

Well, yeah. Since the basis of religion is a belief in God, and we have already determined that belief in God is absurd, I absolutely believe we should teach that religion is absurd.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Noah's Ark is Plagiarized. Here's how we know ...



The entire freaking thing was pieced together by abunch of other fairy tails thousands of years before.

Well of course it is.

We know a lot of things about Christianity are taken from other places. Christmas existed before Christianity as something else. Easter too.

 

[ding]

You don't believe there is sufficient evidence so you DO believe that belief in God is absurd.

And it shows.

I thought I said that.

Actually it looked like you were trying to not say it.

Nope. Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. There is no objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God. Thus belief in such is absurd. I thought I was being clear.

And you believe that people should be taught that religion is absurd.

Well, yeah. Since the basis of religion is a belief in God, and we have already determined that belief in God is absurd, I absolutely believe we should teach that religion is absurd.

No. You determined that religion is absurd.

I determined that it serves a very valuable purpose.

 

[ding]

Everything happens for a reason.

 

[Czernobog]

welllll....except it does. The theists demonstrates, repeatedly, that if a thing claimed by faith is contrary to science, he will choose faith. Peter LaRufa rather summed it up nicely:

If somewhere in the Bible, I were to find a passage said 2 + 2 = 5 then I wouldn't question what I'm reading. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then do my best to work it out and understand it.​

When a theist can say that with a straight face, then faith cannot be reconciled with reason.

Of course faith can be reconciled with reason.

Faith means to have complete trust in something. I never put my complete trust is something that doesn't make sense or is unreliable.

The Heavens may declare the glory.... but you have to study them to discover it. We were never meant to NOT look for ourselves.

Reason is not about "Does this make sense to me," Reason is about, "Can this be supported by objective evidence," Any manner of silliness can be rationalised to "make sense" - just look at David Karesh. What you are describing isn't reason, it is justification. You are right; you can justify your beliefs all day long. That does not make them rational, or reasonable.

Reason is the enemy of faith, because faith demands belief in the absence of objective evidence; that is the wilful rejection of reason.

Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

For instance we live in a deterministic universe where there has never been an uncaused event which means there is a reason for everything.

You reject this because you are unable to reason.

I don't reject that. I just reject "God did it" as a reasonable explanation. It's perfectly okay in response to "What was the cause for. ___?" (Fill in the blank) with, "I don't know, lety's find out," "God did it" is never a valid response.

You have in the past.

Everything happens for a reason.

Never have I reject that fact. I simply reject that this ever leads to "God did it".

 

[Czernobog]

Everything happens for a reason.

But we don't always know the reason, and "God did it" is never a suitable substitute for the scientific method.

 

[Czernobog]

I thought I said that.

Actually it looked like you were trying to not say it.

Nope. Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. There is no objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God. Thus belief in such is absurd. I thought I was being clear.

And you believe that people should be taught that religion is absurd.

Well, yeah. Since the basis of religion is a belief in God, and we have already determined that belief in God is absurd, I absolutely believe we should teach that religion is absurd.

No. You determined that religion is absurd.

I determined that it serves a very valuable purpose.

It serves no purpose that cannot be equally served by secular sources, other than to encourage worshipping the God whose existence there is no objective, verifiable evidence. So, no. It doesn't serve any "valuable" purpose.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not offended. I am amused at your need to resort to personal attack, because your reason, again, fails you.

If you weren't offended then you wouldn't have seen this as a personal attack. Which is what YOU called it.

BTW, it wasn't a personal attack. I don't know how to say you seek to subordinate religion any nicer than that.

LOL! Why would I be offended by such feebleness. You get that I am laughing at you, and mocking you, right? Although I suppose I should be congratulating you, as you have succeeded. Instead of discussing the actual context of my posts, here we are talking about your irrational deflection. You got what you wanted. You got to not expose the fact that you have no rational, reasonable response to my arguments. congratulations. Lemme know when you wanna circle back around, and discuss the actual topic of this discussion. Until then, I see no point in wasting further efforts on your irrational deflections.

I don't know why you would get offended by my pointing out that you seek to subordinate religion. That's what I've been trying to tell you. I don't know how to say that any nicer.

What do you mean when you say that I want to "subordinate" religion?

You want to convince others that it is absurd. That is subordination.

Oh. Well. Yes. I do want to do that. That's true.

 

[ding]

If you weren't offended then you wouldn't have seen this as a personal attack. Which is what YOU called it.

BTW, it wasn't a personal attack. I don't know how to say you seek to subordinate religion any nicer than that.

LOL! Why would I be offended by such feebleness. You get that I am laughing at you, and mocking you, right? Although I suppose I should be congratulating you, as you have succeeded. Instead of discussing the actual context of my posts, here we are talking about your irrational deflection. You got what you wanted. You got to not expose the fact that you have no rational, reasonable response to my arguments. congratulations. Lemme know when you wanna circle back around, and discuss the actual topic of this discussion. Until then, I see no point in wasting further efforts on your irrational deflections.

I don't know why you would get offended by my pointing out that you seek to subordinate religion. That's what I've been trying to tell you. I don't know how to say that any nicer.

What do you mean when you say that I want to "subordinate" religion?

You want to convince others that it is absurd. That is subordination.

Oh. Well. Yes. I do want to do that. That's true.

No shit. It's about time you stopped hiding it.

Be a proud militant atheist.

 

[ding]

Actually it looked like you were trying to not say it.

Nope. Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. There is no objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God. Thus belief in such is absurd. I thought I was being clear.

And you believe that people should be taught that religion is absurd.

Well, yeah. Since the basis of religion is a belief in God, and we have already determined that belief in God is absurd, I absolutely believe we should teach that religion is absurd.

No. You determined that religion is absurd.

I determined that it serves a very valuable purpose.

It serves no purpose that cannot be equally served by secular sources, other than to encourage worshipping the God whose existence there is no objective, verifiable evidence. So, no. It doesn't serve any "valuable" purpose.

If that were true it would have been served already.

"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government." Dr. Ron Paul

 

[ding]

Of course faith can be reconciled with reason.

Faith means to have complete trust in something. I never put my complete trust is something that doesn't make sense or is unreliable.

The Heavens may declare the glory.... but you have to study them to discover it. We were never meant to NOT look for ourselves.

Reason is not about "Does this make sense to me," Reason is about, "Can this be supported by objective evidence," Any manner of silliness can be rationalised to "make sense" - just look at David Karesh. What you are describing isn't reason, it is justification. You are right; you can justify your beliefs all day long. That does not make them rational, or reasonable.

Reason is the enemy of faith, because faith demands belief in the absence of objective evidence; that is the wilful rejection of reason.

Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

For instance we live in a deterministic universe where there has never been an uncaused event which means there is a reason for everything.

You reject this because you are unable to reason.

I don't reject that. I just reject "God did it" as a reasonable explanation. It's perfectly okay in response to "What was the cause for. ___?" (Fill in the blank) with, "I don't know, lety's find out," "God did it" is never a valid response.

You have in the past.

Everything happens for a reason.

Never have I reject that fact. I simply reject that this ever leads to "God did it".

No. You rejected that fact. You hated it.

 

[ding]

Everything happens for a reason.

But we don't always know the reason, and "God did it" is never a suitable substitute for the scientific method.

Of course we know the reasons. It's not like moral and physical laws are a secret or anything.

 

[ding]

Actually it looked like you were trying to not say it.

Nope. Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. There is no objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God. Thus belief in such is absurd. I thought I was being clear.

And you believe that people should be taught that religion is absurd.

Well, yeah. Since the basis of religion is a belief in God, and we have already determined that belief in God is absurd, I absolutely believe we should teach that religion is absurd.

No. You determined that religion is absurd.

I determined that it serves a very valuable purpose.

It serves no purpose that cannot be equally served by secular sources, other than to encourage worshipping the God whose existence there is no objective, verifiable evidence. So, no. It doesn't serve any "valuable" purpose.

Religion created wonderful charities and organizations.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Which is going to have more truth associated with it? The story of Noah written by Moses in the book of Genesis, which has survived for thousands of years?

Or some Youtube video that only been around for four years?

Do you really think that Youtube video or the person who made it, will even be remembered thousands of years from now? You can bet that the story of the Great Flood and Noah's Ark will still be remembered.

The attempt to attribute this to Gilgamesh is decades old and utterly stupid. Arrogant people making clumsy associations where none logically exist.

I'm an agnostic and find this sort of idiocy petty and childish, We get it, the OP hates Christians.

 

[Czernobog]

Reason is not about "Does this make sense to me," Reason is about, "Can this be supported by objective evidence," Any manner of silliness can be rationalised to "make sense" - just look at David Karesh. What you are describing isn't reason, it is justification. You are right; you can justify your beliefs all day long. That does not make them rational, or reasonable.

Reason is the enemy of faith, because faith demands belief in the absence of objective evidence; that is the wilful rejection of reason.

Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

For instance we live in a deterministic universe where there has never been an uncaused event which means there is a reason for everything.

You reject this because you are unable to reason.

I don't reject that. I just reject "God did it" as a reasonable explanation. It's perfectly okay in response to "What was the cause for. ___?" (Fill in the blank) with, "I don't know, lety's find out," "God did it" is never a valid response.

You have in the past.

Everything happens for a reason.

Never have I reject that fact. I simply reject that this ever leads to "God did it".

No. You rejected that fact. You hated it.

Saying that over, and over doesn't magically make it true.

 

[Czernobog]

Everything happens for a reason.

But we don't always know the reason, and "God did it" is never a suitable substitute for the scientific method.

Of course we know the reasons. It's not like moral and physical laws are a secret or anything.

No, we don't always know the reason for a thing happening. You pretend you do, and you try to convince everyone that "God did it" is the satisfactory answer to the question, "Why did ___ happen?" (fill in the blank) But, it's not. It is never the satisfactory answer. The satisfactory answer is, I don't know, let's find out," and then proceed with the scientific method to arrive at an answer.

 

[ding]

Reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

For instance we live in a deterministic universe where there has never been an uncaused event which means there is a reason for everything.

You reject this because you are unable to reason.

I don't reject that. I just reject "God did it" as a reasonable explanation. It's perfectly okay in response to "What was the cause for. ___?" (Fill in the blank) with, "I don't know, lety's find out," "God did it" is never a valid response.

You have in the past.

Everything happens for a reason.

Never have I reject that fact. I simply reject that this ever leads to "God did it".

No. You rejected that fact. You hated it.

Saying that over, and over doesn't magically make it true.

Do I really need to use the search feature to make you eat your words?

 

[ding]

Everything happens for a reason.

But we don't always know the reason, and "God did it" is never a suitable substitute for the scientific method.

Of course we know the reasons. It's not like moral and physical laws are a secret or anything.

No, we don't always know the reason for a thing happening. You pretend you do, and you try to convince everyone that "God did it" is the satisfactory answer to the question, "Why did ___ happen?" (fill in the blank) But, it's not. It is never the satisfactory answer. The satisfactory answer is, I don't know, let's find out," and then proceed with the scientific method to arrive at an answer.

If you can't figure out why something happened to you maybe it's because you haven't been honest with yourself.

 

[ding]

Actually it looked like you were trying to not say it.

Nope. Belief in God without sufficient evidence is absurd. There is no objective, verifiable evidence of the existence of God. Thus belief in such is absurd. I thought I was being clear.

And you believe that people should be taught that religion is absurd.

Well, yeah. Since the basis of religion is a belief in God, and we have already determined that belief in God is absurd, I absolutely believe we should teach that religion is absurd.

No. You determined that religion is absurd.

I determined that it serves a very valuable purpose.

It serves no purpose that cannot be equally served by secular sources, other than to encourage worshipping the God whose existence there is no objective, verifiable evidence. So, no. It doesn't serve any "valuable" purpose.

Religious persons and institutions are usually the first source of literacy, education, and healthcare in the poorer regions.