A case for religion, and against AA.

[JEDIYoda]

Why would their talk about how they beat drug abuse through Christianity ( I assume since you mention born again) bother you or your family? I would think no matter how they beat their addiction it would be cause for celebration. There should be nothing to fear. If yur beliefs are solid, their beliefs should not affect you or other non-believers.

The key being what I highlighted...

 

[jackstar7]

I agreed that there is evidence of floods, I disagreed with his assumption that there is no evidence of a world-wide one.

You just misused the word assumption.

 

[JEDIYoda]

In a nutshell people that trade one addiction for another do not appeal to me.

Can Atheism be considered an addiction? In the eyes of a whole lot of people YES it can, just the same as Religion or even Christianity in other peoples eyes!

Are all addictions bad??

 

[JEDIYoda]

This is why being a born again christian is worrying. Keep trying to bend reality to what you want it to be. At least as an atheist I can be open and change my view as evidence presents itself. On the other hand the christian tries so hard to change reality to fit it into the framework of their religion, even when it is obviously not real.

Where did the water come from? Where did it go?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ev...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

 

[JEDIYoda]

But you agreeing with his very first sentence goes against everything you went off on a tangent about. Thus making your responce null and void from the get go.

says who..............

 

[JD50]

Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ev...t-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

You might want to actually read that link.

 

[moonbogg]

Are there people in this thread who actually think there was a GLOBAL flood? I'd just like that question answered please.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You might want to actually read that link.

I di read the link..
Scholars aren't sure if the biblical flood was larger or smaller than these modern day disasters, but they do think the experiences of people in ancient times were similar to our own.

"If you witness a terrible natural disaster, yes, you want a scientific explanation why this has happened," said Karen Armstrong, author of "A History of God." "But you also need to something that will help you to assuage your grief and anguish and rage. And it is here that myth helps us through that."

Regardless of whether the details of the Noah story are historically accurate, Armstrong believes this story and all the Biblical stories are telling us "about our predicament in the world now."

Back in the Black Sea, Ballard said he is aware that not everyone agrees with his conclusions about the time and size of the flood, but he's confident he's on the path to finding something from the biblical period.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Are there people in this thread who actually think there was a GLOBAL flood? I'd just like that question answered please.

why do atheists believe all they have to do is ask questions??

 

[soulcougher73]

why do atheists believe all they have to do is ask questions??

Asking questions is human nature.

 

[jackstar7]

why do atheists believe all they have to do is ask questions??

Science works.

 

[dphantom]

Asking questions is human nature.

So is answering them.

 

[sandorski]

Hold on, Bible Chronology put the Flood roughly around 4,000 to 4,500 years ago.



This begs the question: what modern scientists are doing the research? Basically, no one. "Modern science" operates under the assumption that a Global Flood isn't possible, end of story, and they work from there.

The question that should be asked is: "What kind of affects would it have on our planet and what kinda of evidence would it leave behind", then you start generating questions and theories that clash with your "modern scientists", but I don't think your evolutionary-minded thinkers are gonna put their careers on the line to challege a world-view that is opposed to Biblical fairy-tales.

The falseness of the Biblical Flood has been deemed unchallengable for the past century, so sorry, your "modern scientists" haven't even looked for possible evidence.

This is why I don't bother to argue about the veracity of the Flood story, and will not....and I did expect you to reject it out of hand like you did.

Thanks for the response, though...but I am done with the topic of the Flood.

This post is utter BS.

In the early times, Science presumed Creation and the Flood. Scientists purposely went out looking for the Evidence of these events. They didn't find it though, what they found was the basis to what we understand today about these subjects.

 

[JD50]

I di read the link..
Scholars aren't sure if the biblical flood was larger or smaller than these modern day disasters, but they do think the experiences of people in ancient times were similar to our own.

"If you witness a terrible natural disaster, yes, you want a scientific explanation why this has happened," said Karen Armstrong, author of "A History of God." "But you also need to something that will help you to assuage your grief and anguish and rage. And it is here that myth helps us through that."

Regardless of whether the details of the Noah story are historically accurate, Armstrong believes this story and all the Biblical stories are telling us "about our predicament in the world now."

Back in the Black Sea, Ballard said he is aware that not everyone agrees with his conclusions about the time and size of the flood, but he's confident he's on the path to finding something from the biblical period.

So... not a global flood.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So... not a global flood.

To be blunt and you might find this to be incredible but.....
Even theologians and Bible historians disagree as to if there was a global flood.

Also even in Christians circles there are many divergent view points as to what parts of the bible should be taken literally or allegorically or metaphorical.

 

[Retro Rob]

This post is utter BS.

In the early times, Science presumed Creation and the Flood. Scientists purposely went out looking for the Evidence of these events. They didn't find it though, what they found was the basis to what we understand today about these subjects.

What "early times" and about when did this happen?

 

[soulcougher73]

To be blunt and you might find this to be incredible but.....
Even theologians and Bible historians disagree as to if there was a global flood.

Also even in Christians circles there are many divergent view points as to what parts of the bible should be taken literally or allegorically or metaphorical.

So in other words just make shit up and interpret any part of the bible as you see fit. It can even change over time.

 

[Retro Rob]

To be blunt and you might find this to be incredible but.....
Even theologians and Bible historians disagree as to if there was a global flood.

Also even in Christians circles there are many divergent view points as to what parts of the bible should be taken literally or allegorically or metaphorical.

It would be kind of tough to take the Flood as allegory, epecially seeing how the flood was repeated by Jesus and how specific Ark measurements were, length of the rain fall, and time it took for the waters to subside.

Theologians who debate whether or not it should be taken literally are the ones who are concerned with how it measures up to science, not what the Bible says.

 

[PowerEngineer]

To be blunt and you might find this to be incredible but.....
Even theologians and Bible historians disagree as to if there was a global flood.

Also even in Christians circles there are many divergent view points as to what parts of the bible should be taken literally or allegorically or metaphorical.

I suspect that few non-believers find this to be incredible. In fact, divergent interpretations of biblical passages among believers is the rule rather than the exception. I think you can even see evidence of different interpretations among believers in this thread.

While you seem to think that Noah's flood might be based on a regional event (like the one you posted), there are other believers who are absolutely sure that there was a global flood (that actually exterminated all animal life other than what was on the ark). Only one (if any) of these interpretations can be right.

This is one reason why we non-believers have a hard time with the notion that the bible is god's word (or as a reliable telling of history). We'd expect the words from god to be clear enough for believers to agree on their meanings.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It would be kind of tough to take the Flood as allegory, epecially seeing how the flood was repeated by Jesus and how specific Ark measurements were, length of the rain fall, and time it took for the waters to subside.

We agree!!

 

[sandorski]

What "early times" and about when did this happen?

16th- 19th centuries

 

[JEDIYoda]

This is one reason why we non-believers have a hard time with the notion that the bible is god's word (or as a reliable telling of history). We'd expect the words from god to be clear enough for believers to agree on their meanings.

thank god it is not up to me to convince you of anything!! I will let the Holy Spirit do the convincing!!

 

[Retro Rob]

This is one reason why we non-believers have a hard time with the notion that the bible is god's word (or as a reliable telling of history). We'd expect the words from god to be clear enough for believers to agree on their meanings.

Please, scientists sometimes disagree on the details of evolution and how those details are/should be interpreted. That doesn't mean evolution didn't take place.

The reason why you have disagreement among religion is because people are deciding to interpret the Bible. It doesn't discredit the alleged 'source' of the book.

What do you expect, though? People are free to believe what they want. That belief is often reflected in their interpretations.

 

[Retro Rob]

16th- 19th centuries

You didn't fully understand my post, I said "modern science" no longer does any research.

I would figure that with new tools, technology, dating methods etc, modern scientists would be in a better position to ask those questions I posed and have a better idea of what affect, if any, did the Flood have (if it happened).

But like I said, and I am right about this...those days are long gone. Now everyone's agreed on a certain interpretation of fossile evidence, and that's not likely to change.

 

[sandorski]

You didn't fully understand my post, I said "modern science" no longer does any research.

I would figure that with new tools, technology, dating methods etc, modern scientists would be in a better position to ask those questions I posed and have a better idea of what affect, if any, did the Flood have (if it happened).

But like I said, and I am right about this...those days are long gone. Now everyone's agreed on a certain interpretation of fossile evidence, and that's not likely to change.

They don't because there is no reason to. The Evidence is not open to "Interpretation" the way the Bible is. The Evidence is concrete, the Bible is just a collection of Concepts at best.

All that said, anyone can still look for that Evidence. Supposedly that's what Creation/ID science does, except it doesn't. There's no conspiracy against attempts to prove the Biblical accounts.