Understanding Christianity

[Taz]

How about a scientific study saying that the water actually shot up and which then displays their proof for such a claim? Geez, you need to up your critical thinking game.

How it comes out of the ground is irrelevant. We know there was enough water available. And the signs of the flood are everywhere.

So point me to a credible scientific study that shows this water coming out... Because so far, nobody has shown anything except that guy's personal opinion.

How can anyone have preflood evidence? The earths entire surface was reformed.

Then show scientific proof of what you claim.

Show scientific proof of what YOU claim!

What did I claim?

 

[RWNJ]

So you toss out what PhD researchers say because they think God did it and only accept anti God views?

Show me his research that backs up his statement. Otherwise he's just another creationist spouting shit he can't back up.

Speculation on the events that occurred is irrelevant.
But you discounting people simply because they have faith is relevant.

No, I'm discounting him because nobody put forth any scientific studies... from this guy that prove what he said.

And where are the scientific facts that support your position. Oh, that's right! There aren't any. El oh el!

I haven't put forth a theory on this, this guy did, so I ask again, where are his scientific studies on the subject?

Why are you questioning his theory? He's a scientist, and science is your religion. You are dangerously close to being branded a heretic.

 

[RWNJ]

How it comes out of the ground is irrelevant. We know there was enough water available. And the signs of the flood are everywhere.

So point me to a credible scientific study that shows this water coming out... Because so far, nobody has shown anything except that guy's personal opinion.

How can anyone have preflood evidence? The earths entire surface was reformed.

Then show scientific proof of what you claim.

Show scientific proof of what YOU claim!

What did I claim?

You are opposed to his theory, so that means that you believe otherwise. His theory claims that the topography of the earth was the result of a single cataclysmic event. You believe otherwise. Back it up. I won't hold my breath, because you can't. Sucks to be you.

 

[Weatherman2020]

How it comes out of the ground is irrelevant. We know there was enough water available. And the signs of the flood are everywhere.

So point me to a credible scientific study that shows this water coming out... Because so far, nobody has shown anything except that guy's personal opinion.

How can anyone have preflood evidence? The earths entire surface was reformed.

Then show scientific proof of what you claim.

You follow what you have been fed without question. Your preconceived beliefs are not open to anything that threatens what they have led you to believe.

So you have no scientific evidence to back up any of your claims. I follow the facts, ma'am, just the facts. And you haven't presented any and simply deflect when I ask you for some.

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

 

[Taz]

Show me his research that backs up his statement. Otherwise he's just another creationist spouting shit he can't back up.

Speculation on the events that occurred is irrelevant.
But you discounting people simply because they have faith is relevant.

No, I'm discounting him because nobody put forth any scientific studies... from this guy that prove what he said.

And where are the scientific facts that support your position. Oh, that's right! There aren't any. El oh el!

I haven't put forth a theory on this, this guy did, so I ask again, where are his scientific studies on the subject?

Why are you questioning his theory? He's a scientist, and science is your religion. You are dangerously close to being branded a heretic.

It's only science if you show me the scientific studies that he did on the subject, otherwise it's just a personal opinion, regardless what he does for a living.

 

[Taz]

So point me to a credible scientific study that shows this water coming out... Because so far, nobody has shown anything except that guy's personal opinion.

How can anyone have preflood evidence? The earths entire surface was reformed.

Then show scientific proof of what you claim.

Show scientific proof of what YOU claim!

What did I claim?

You are opposed to his theory, so that means that you believe otherwise. His theory claims that the topography of the earth was the result of a single cataclysmic event. You believe otherwise. Back it up. I won't hold my breath, because you can't. Sucks to be you.

I am not opposed to his theory, but I want to see the scientific data first to see what it says first before I jump on board. So show me the scientific studies that say that "the topography of the earth was the result of a single cataclysmic event".

 

[Taz]

So point me to a credible scientific study that shows this water coming out... Because so far, nobody has shown anything except that guy's personal opinion.

How can anyone have preflood evidence? The earths entire surface was reformed.

Then show scientific proof of what you claim.

You follow what you have been fed without question. Your preconceived beliefs are not open to anything that threatens what they have led you to believe.

So you have no scientific evidence to back up any of your claims. I follow the facts, ma'am, just the facts. And you haven't presented any and simply deflect when I ask you for some.

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

 

[Meriweather]

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Fire, water, automobiles--too often hurt people. More often, fire, water, automobiles, and religion are of huge help to us.

Taz, you are of the group who wish to view religion from a lower cognitive perspective. This perspective, held by apes and by our early ancestors, could only comprehend the reality of what can be observed through the five senses. A tree is real, so it can be seen. Religion is not real because real cannot be seen. Shelter is real, it can be seen. Home is not real, because the qualities of home cannot be seen. You call the perspective "scientific"--and it it. There is nothing wrong in holding it.

You are arguing against the faithful using a higher cognitive reasoning. Religion is an example of higher cognitive reasoning, as are corporations, laws, homes, etc. You cannot show me a corporation. You can show me its buildings, its stockholders, its legal team, even the piece of paper that brings a corporation into existence, but you cannot point to anything and say, "This is corporation."

Religion functions in much the same way. As with corporations, we can certainly see the byproducts of religion, but we cannot actually see the concept itself. As you see, believers and unbelievers have such a hard time with these discussions because our approach to them are from two very different plains or positions.

You, Weatherman, and I hold three very different positions. You are in the lower cognitive position (there is no denigrating here by saying "lower", it states the position of cognitive it does NOT place you and your beliefs is an inferior position. While both Weatherman and I are both thinking from the higher cognitive position (again "higher" does NOT denote superiority) our perspectives are very different.

Weatherman, like you, reads scripture as a modern day factual news report. While you find all the inconsistencies and improbabilities in what you read as a factual news report and then guffaw and make a parody of it all, Weatherman believes the facts are literally true. I know that ancient man did not write factual news reports. They told (that were much later put into writing) stories that painted vivid pictures and taught a lesson. The Hebrew language can be described as a lower cognitive language because it uses an objective language. English is subjective. When "angry" is translated into Hebrew, the actual English words would re-translate back as "flaring nostrils."

Therefore, I find myself often at odds with both you and Weatherman. I don't agree with you that the whole thing is made up fiction--and I don't agree with Weatherman that scripture reads as a factual news report whose every word is verifiably, literally true. The lessons it teaches are true; the basic sketch of the settings (a pair of every animal) may not include every animal on the entire planet, only those within Noah's reach.

 

[Bonzi]

How can anyone have preflood evidence? The earths entire surface was reformed.

Then show scientific proof of what you claim.

You follow what you have been fed without question. Your preconceived beliefs are not open to anything that threatens what they have led you to believe.

So you have no scientific evidence to back up any of your claims. I follow the facts, ma'am, just the facts. And you haven't presented any and simply deflect when I ask you for some.

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Whether you think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether you just have not been presented with proof you consider sufficient, you are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof.

In other words, you are exercising faith.

 

[Taz]

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Fire, water, automobiles--too often hurt people. More often, fire, water, automobiles, and religion are of huge help to us.

Taz, you are of the group who wish to view religion from a lower cognitive perspective. This perspective, held by apes and by our early ancestors, could only comprehend the reality of what can be observed through the five senses. A tree is real, so it can be seen. Religion is not real because real cannot be seen. Shelter is real, it can be seen. Home is not real, because the qualities of home cannot be seen. You call the perspective "scientific"--and it it. There is nothing wrong in holding it.

You are arguing against the faithful using a higher cognitive reasoning. Religion is an example of higher cognitive reasoning, as are corporations, laws, homes, etc. You cannot show me a corporation. You can show me its buildings, its stockholders, its legal team, even the piece of paper that brings a corporation into existence, but you cannot point to anything and say, "This is corporation."

Religion functions in much the same way. As with corporations, we can certainly see the byproducts of religion, but we cannot actually see the concept itself. As you see, believers and unbelievers have such a hard time with these discussions because our approach to them are from two very different plains or positions.

You, Weatherman, and I hold three very different positions. You are in the lower cognitive position (there is no denigrating here by saying "lower", it states the position of cognitive it does NOT place you and your beliefs is an inferior position. While both Weatherman and I are both thinking from the higher cognitive position (again "higher" does NOT denote superiority) our perspectives are very different.

Weatherman, like you, reads scripture as a modern day factual news report. While you find all the inconsistencies and improbabilities in what you read as a factual news report and then guffaw and make a parody of it all, Weatherman believes the facts are literally true. I know that ancient man did not write factual news reports. They told (that were much later put into writing) stories that painted vivid pictures and taught a lesson. The Hebrew language can be described as a lower cognitive language because it uses an objective language. English is subjective. When "angry" is translated into Hebrew, the actual English words would re-translate back as "flaring nostrils."

Therefore, I find myself often at odds with both you and Weatherman. I don't agree with you that the whole thing is made up fiction--and I don't agree with Weatherman that scripture reads as a factual news report whose every word is verifiably, literally true. The lessons it teaches are true; the basic sketch of the settings (a pair of every animal) may not include every animal on the entire planet, only those within Noah's reach.

First of all, a corporation is made up of shareholders, go to a shareholders' meeting and you can say that the people in the room are the corporation. As well, go to their head office, that also is part of the corporation.

Secondly, you have to move the goalposts to make anything in the bible true, as you interpret it in your own way (regional flood, when nowhere does it say that, and anyways, no geological proof of such a flood), no kind of reasonable proof needed. Nor is your reasoning sound as nothing you say follows each other to arrive at something where a layman could say "hey, maybe she's got something".

As for your constant air of superiority with your higher and lower cognitive languages... is also without foundation, i.e., you live in a fantasy world, nothing more, nothing less. And you haven't shown anything more, now THAT'S a fact!

 

[Taz]

Then show scientific proof of what you claim.

You follow what you have been fed without question. Your preconceived beliefs are not open to anything that threatens what they have led you to believe.

So you have no scientific evidence to back up any of your claims. I follow the facts, ma'am, just the facts. And you haven't presented any and simply deflect when I ask you for some.

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Whether you think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether you just have not been presented with proof you consider sufficient, you are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof.

In other words, you are exercising faith.

No, I'm looking for proof to decide one way or the other (agnostic). So far, there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god. No faith needed.

 

[Meriweather]

First of all, a corporation is made up of shareholders, go to a shareholders' meeting and you can say that the people in the room are the corporation. As well, go to their head office, that also is part of the corporation.

No, the shareholders aren't really the corporation. For example, the shareholders may fund the corporation and reap its profits, but they probably aren't manufacturing, selling, or repairing it. The "corporation" does that. If something goes wrong with the product, it is not the individual shareholders who are liable, but the corporation.

Secondly, you have to move the goalposts to make anything in the bible true, as you interpret it in your own way (regional flood, when nowhere does it say that, and anyways, no geological proof of such a flood), no kind of reasonable proof needed. Nor is your reasoning sound as nothing you say follows each other to arrive at something where a layman could say "hey, maybe she's got something".

Again, I'm not the one who moved the goal posts originally to make it a planet wide flood. There is plenty of information in the story itself that (in the original language) clearly indicates it was a huge regional flood. In yet another place in the Bible it states once land began to appear, the planet never again was covered with water. Simply because people use the English interpretation of the original language to come to another conclusion and I point out the realities of the original language doesn't mean I am moving any goal post except the one you constructed where you insist the flood was planet wide. Read the original language.

As for your constant air of superiority with your higher and lower cognitive languages... is also without foundation, i.e., you live in a fantasy world, nothing more, nothing less. And you haven't shown anything more, now THAT'S a fact!

I speak to you with the idea that you are an adult with an adult-sized vocabulary. But if that comes across to you as "superiority" then I am equally adept at speaking at the middle school level. I live in an explorer's world. The things found and discovered here are fascinating.

 

[RWNJ]

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Fire, water, automobiles--too often hurt people. More often, fire, water, automobiles, and religion are of huge help to us.

Taz, you are of the group who wish to view religion from a lower cognitive perspective. This perspective, held by apes and by our early ancestors, could only comprehend the reality of what can be observed through the five senses. A tree is real, so it can be seen. Religion is not real because real cannot be seen. Shelter is real, it can be seen. Home is not real, because the qualities of home cannot be seen. You call the perspective "scientific"--and it it. There is nothing wrong in holding it.

You are arguing against the faithful using a higher cognitive reasoning. Religion is an example of higher cognitive reasoning, as are corporations, laws, homes, etc. You cannot show me a corporation. You can show me its buildings, its stockholders, its legal team, even the piece of paper that brings a corporation into existence, but you cannot point to anything and say, "This is corporation."

Religion functions in much the same way. As with corporations, we can certainly see the byproducts of religion, but we cannot actually see the concept itself. As you see, believers and unbelievers have such a hard time with these discussions because our approach to them are from two very different plains or positions.

You, Weatherman, and I hold three very different positions. You are in the lower cognitive position (there is no denigrating here by saying "lower", it states the position of cognitive it does NOT place you and your beliefs is an inferior position. While both Weatherman and I are both thinking from the higher cognitive position (again "higher" does NOT denote superiority) our perspectives are very different.

Weatherman, like you, reads scripture as a modern day factual news report. While you find all the inconsistencies and improbabilities in what you read as a factual news report and then guffaw and make a parody of it all, Weatherman believes the facts are literally true. I know that ancient man did not write factual news reports. They told (that were much later put into writing) stories that painted vivid pictures and taught a lesson. The Hebrew language can be described as a lower cognitive language because it uses an objective language. English is subjective. When "angry" is translated into Hebrew, the actual English words would re-translate back as "flaring nostrils."

Therefore, I find myself often at odds with both you and Weatherman. I don't agree with you that the whole thing is made up fiction--and I don't agree with Weatherman that scripture reads as a factual news report whose every word is verifiably, literally true. The lessons it teaches are true; the basic sketch of the settings (a pair of every animal) may not include every animal on the entire planet, only those within Noah's reach.

First of all, a corporation is made up of shareholders, go to a shareholders' meeting and you can say that the people in the room are the corporation. As well, go to their head office, that also is part of the corporation.

Secondly, you have to move the goalposts to make anything in the bible true, as you interpret it in your own way (regional flood, when nowhere does it say that, and anyways, no geological proof of such a flood), no kind of reasonable proof needed. Nor is your reasoning sound as nothing you say follows each other to arrive at something where a layman could say "hey, maybe she's got something".

As for your constant air of superiority with your higher and lower cognitive languages... is also without foundation, i.e., you live in a fantasy world, nothing more, nothing less. And you haven't shown anything more, now THAT'S a fact!

No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?

 

[RWNJ]

You follow what you have been fed without question. Your preconceived beliefs are not open to anything that threatens what they have led you to believe.

So you have no scientific evidence to back up any of your claims. I follow the facts, ma'am, just the facts. And you haven't presented any and simply deflect when I ask you for some.

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Whether you think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether you just have not been presented with proof you consider sufficient, you are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof.

In other words, you are exercising faith.

No, I'm looking for proof to decide one way or the other (agnostic). So far, there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god. No faith needed.

If there is no God, then how do you explain the existence of...anything? Where did it come from?

 

[Weatherman2020]

How can anyone have preflood evidence? The earths entire surface was reformed.

Then show scientific proof of what you claim.

You follow what you have been fed without question. Your preconceived beliefs are not open to anything that threatens what they have led you to believe.

So you have no scientific evidence to back up any of your claims. I follow the facts, ma'am, just the facts. And you haven't presented any and simply deflect when I ask you for some.

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Now you pretend to mind read to support your wrong beliefs. Like I said, you have zero interest in seeking the truth. Your mind reading validates it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

So you have no scientific evidence to back up any of your claims. I follow the facts, ma'am, just the facts. And you haven't presented any and simply deflect when I ask you for some.

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Whether you think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether you just have not been presented with proof you consider sufficient, you are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof.

In other words, you are exercising faith.

No, I'm looking for proof to decide one way or the other (agnostic). So far, there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god. No faith needed.

If there is no God, then how do you explain the existence of...anything? Where did it come from?

They believe atoms have some kind of advantage by becoming a living creature. Never mind those same atoms always go back into the earth when we die.

 

[Meriweather]

No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?

These days we cover this in sixth grade science. Plate Tectonics.

 

[Taz]

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Fire, water, automobiles--too often hurt people. More often, fire, water, automobiles, and religion are of huge help to us.

Taz, you are of the group who wish to view religion from a lower cognitive perspective. This perspective, held by apes and by our early ancestors, could only comprehend the reality of what can be observed through the five senses. A tree is real, so it can be seen. Religion is not real because real cannot be seen. Shelter is real, it can be seen. Home is not real, because the qualities of home cannot be seen. You call the perspective "scientific"--and it it. There is nothing wrong in holding it.

You are arguing against the faithful using a higher cognitive reasoning. Religion is an example of higher cognitive reasoning, as are corporations, laws, homes, etc. You cannot show me a corporation. You can show me its buildings, its stockholders, its legal team, even the piece of paper that brings a corporation into existence, but you cannot point to anything and say, "This is corporation."

Religion functions in much the same way. As with corporations, we can certainly see the byproducts of religion, but we cannot actually see the concept itself. As you see, believers and unbelievers have such a hard time with these discussions because our approach to them are from two very different plains or positions.

You, Weatherman, and I hold three very different positions. You are in the lower cognitive position (there is no denigrating here by saying "lower", it states the position of cognitive it does NOT place you and your beliefs is an inferior position. While both Weatherman and I are both thinking from the higher cognitive position (again "higher" does NOT denote superiority) our perspectives are very different.

Weatherman, like you, reads scripture as a modern day factual news report. While you find all the inconsistencies and improbabilities in what you read as a factual news report and then guffaw and make a parody of it all, Weatherman believes the facts are literally true. I know that ancient man did not write factual news reports. They told (that were much later put into writing) stories that painted vivid pictures and taught a lesson. The Hebrew language can be described as a lower cognitive language because it uses an objective language. English is subjective. When "angry" is translated into Hebrew, the actual English words would re-translate back as "flaring nostrils."

Therefore, I find myself often at odds with both you and Weatherman. I don't agree with you that the whole thing is made up fiction--and I don't agree with Weatherman that scripture reads as a factual news report whose every word is verifiably, literally true. The lessons it teaches are true; the basic sketch of the settings (a pair of every animal) may not include every animal on the entire planet, only those within Noah's reach.

First of all, a corporation is made up of shareholders, go to a shareholders' meeting and you can say that the people in the room are the corporation. As well, go to their head office, that also is part of the corporation.

Secondly, you have to move the goalposts to make anything in the bible true, as you interpret it in your own way (regional flood, when nowhere does it say that, and anyways, no geological proof of such a flood), no kind of reasonable proof needed. Nor is your reasoning sound as nothing you say follows each other to arrive at something where a layman could say "hey, maybe she's got something".

As for your constant air of superiority with your higher and lower cognitive languages... is also without foundation, i.e., you live in a fantasy world, nothing more, nothing less. And you haven't shown anything more, now THAT'S a fact!

No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?

Plate tectonics. Google it.

 

[RWNJ]

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Fire, water, automobiles--too often hurt people. More often, fire, water, automobiles, and religion are of huge help to us.

Taz, you are of the group who wish to view religion from a lower cognitive perspective. This perspective, held by apes and by our early ancestors, could only comprehend the reality of what can be observed through the five senses. A tree is real, so it can be seen. Religion is not real because real cannot be seen. Shelter is real, it can be seen. Home is not real, because the qualities of home cannot be seen. You call the perspective "scientific"--and it it. There is nothing wrong in holding it.

You are arguing against the faithful using a higher cognitive reasoning. Religion is an example of higher cognitive reasoning, as are corporations, laws, homes, etc. You cannot show me a corporation. You can show me its buildings, its stockholders, its legal team, even the piece of paper that brings a corporation into existence, but you cannot point to anything and say, "This is corporation."

Religion functions in much the same way. As with corporations, we can certainly see the byproducts of religion, but we cannot actually see the concept itself. As you see, believers and unbelievers have such a hard time with these discussions because our approach to them are from two very different plains or positions.

You, Weatherman, and I hold three very different positions. You are in the lower cognitive position (there is no denigrating here by saying "lower", it states the position of cognitive it does NOT place you and your beliefs is an inferior position. While both Weatherman and I are both thinking from the higher cognitive position (again "higher" does NOT denote superiority) our perspectives are very different.

Weatherman, like you, reads scripture as a modern day factual news report. While you find all the inconsistencies and improbabilities in what you read as a factual news report and then guffaw and make a parody of it all, Weatherman believes the facts are literally true. I know that ancient man did not write factual news reports. They told (that were much later put into writing) stories that painted vivid pictures and taught a lesson. The Hebrew language can be described as a lower cognitive language because it uses an objective language. English is subjective. When "angry" is translated into Hebrew, the actual English words would re-translate back as "flaring nostrils."

Therefore, I find myself often at odds with both you and Weatherman. I don't agree with you that the whole thing is made up fiction--and I don't agree with Weatherman that scripture reads as a factual news report whose every word is verifiably, literally true. The lessons it teaches are true; the basic sketch of the settings (a pair of every animal) may not include every animal on the entire planet, only those within Noah's reach.

First of all, a corporation is made up of shareholders, go to a shareholders' meeting and you can say that the people in the room are the corporation. As well, go to their head office, that also is part of the corporation.

Secondly, you have to move the goalposts to make anything in the bible true, as you interpret it in your own way (regional flood, when nowhere does it say that, and anyways, no geological proof of such a flood), no kind of reasonable proof needed. Nor is your reasoning sound as nothing you say follows each other to arrive at something where a layman could say "hey, maybe she's got something".

As for your constant air of superiority with your higher and lower cognitive languages... is also without foundation, i.e., you live in a fantasy world, nothing more, nothing less. And you haven't shown anything more, now THAT'S a fact!

No evidence of a global flood? How do you explain marine fossils found at the tops of mountains?

Plate tectonics. Google it.

Are you saying that explains how fossils wound up on top of a mountain, thousands of feet above sea level. Some people will believe anything. LOL!

 

[Taz]

So you have no scientific evidence to back up any of your claims. I follow the facts, ma'am, just the facts. And you haven't presented any and simply deflect when I ask you for some.

I have more evidence than I needed to change my belief 180 degrees from where you are at today and to what I believe now. Let me know when you're desire is to seek truth, no matter how crazy it may seem at first.

You have more evidence than you need (which is none), because you're so desperate to have the bible be true because it gives you comfort. I'm fine with you living in a fantasy world as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (which religion too often does), but I think you realize this since your pretty feeble attempts to convince anyone including yourself are evident for everyone to see that you have absolutely nothing in way of a proper explanation for your beliefs..

Whether you think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether you just have not been presented with proof you consider sufficient, you are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof.

In other words, you are exercising faith.

No, I'm looking for proof to decide one way or the other (agnostic). So far, there's no proof for or against the possibility of a god. No faith needed.

If there is no God, then how do you explain the existence of...anything? Where did it come from?

That we don't yet know all the answers doesn't necessarily mean that it all comes from an invisible being that nobody has ever seen or touched.