[Geko45]

If it was a global flood then it is simply impossible. If it was a local flood then it wasn't divine (just an ordinary flood or tsunami, etc).

If jesus rose from the dead then that's impossible. If he was simply comatose then he was just an extroardinarily lucky man.

Pick your position Doc. Were these things divine acts of a supernatural (and impossible) nature or were they natural events that were simply misconstrued by the people that experienced them?

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

The Indian Ocean and Japanese tsunamis were both caused by entirely explainable events (fault movement at the ocean floor).

Garden variety? Who said God doesn't use nature to display His power?

Originally Posted by Geko45

There is no natural explanation for a global flood.

Assuming you know all information in the universe regarding this subject. A bit arrogant I'd say.

Originally Posted by Geko45

Are you suggesting that these events were much more local and explainable in nature and that the first hand accounts are simply exaggerated?

No I wasn't, but do you think the people of Indonesia were aware of the mass destruction?It is simply conjecture what they thought but the media put it in perspective, I wonder if they believed there was that much destruction. There is a written account of the "flood" as there is an account of the devastation of the tsunami.

Originally Posted by Geko45

If so then wouldn't a more logical conclusion be that primitive people mistook completely natural events as "god's will" and that they were not actually supernatural at all?

Logical if you're omnipotent. Are you?

So back to the original question, enough rabbits, do you think I'm your enemy?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by scccdoc

Garden variety?

I was making a pun on the garden of eden

So back to the original question, enough rabbits, do you think I'm your enemy?

You'd have to be making a much more coherent argument to be my enemy.

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

If it was a global flood then it is simply impossible. If it was a local flood then it wasn't divine (just an ordinary flood or tsunami, etc).

If jesus rose from the dead then that's impossible. If he was simply comatose then he was just an extroardinarily lucky man.

Pick your position Doc. Were these things divine acts of a supernatural (and impossible) nature or were they natural events that were simply misconstrued by the people that experienced them?

I believe they were acts of GOD. Like your friend, you missed the point of giving examples that men could not have explained some things at that time.Isn't it possible there are things that we cannot explain even today? Quantum physics poses some interesting paradoxes(or so the History Channel says).

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by scccdoc

Isn't it possible there are things that we cannot explain even today? Quantum physics poses some interesting paradoxes(or so the History Channel says).

The difference is that those events are observable and ultimately understandable (even if not intuitive). We can work out the math for why things happen the way they do at the quantum level. What you are doing is waving a wand of obfuscation over mythical events as an argument that these highly unlikely (and by highly I mean for all practical purposes impossible) events might have happened even though no one alive today ever saw them or anything remotely like them.

Huge difference.

Show me something supernatural and if I can't find a rational cause then I might consider it as evidence of a deity. Tell me something supernatural occured a couple thousand years ago and that you have not one single shred of proof other than a tale handed down via tribal tradition by fishermen and sheperds and I'll tell you that you are full of it.

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

I was making a pun on the garden of eden

Yeah, well I'm at work, sorry I missed it.

Originally Posted by Geko45

You'd have to be making a much more coherent argument to be my enemy.

What is incoherent about: Do you posses ALL the knowledge discovered and undiscovered to be able to say that there is no God or how He accomplishes the things Christians and Jews believe he accomplished?(hope that is plain enough, I see you're doing the "demeaning" thing)

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

The difference is that those events are observable and ultimately understandable (even if not intuitive). We can work out the math for why things happen the way they do at the quantum level. What you are doing is waving a wand of obfuscation over mythical events as an argument that these highly unlikely (and by highly I mean for all practical purposes impossible) events might have happened even though no one alive today ever saw them or anything remotely like them.

Huge difference.

Show me something supernatural and if I can't find a rational cause then I might consider it as evidence of a deity. Tell me something supernatural occured a couple thousand years ago and that you have not one single shred of proof other than a tale handed down via tribal tradition by fishermen and sheperds and I'll tell you that you are full of it.

Now you're getting testy. Do you posses all knowledge (known and unknown) in order to give me the correct answer?

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

The difference is that those events are observable and ultimately understandable (even if not intuitive). We can work out the math for why things happen the way they do at the quantum level. What you are doing is waving a wand of obfuscation over mythical events as an argument that these highly unlikely (and by highly I mean for all practical purposes impossible) events might have happened even though no one alive today ever saw them or anything remotely like them.

Huge difference.

Show me something supernatural and if I can't find a rational cause then I might consider it as evidence of a deity. Tell me something supernatural occured a couple thousand years ago and that you have not one single shred of proof other than a tale handed down via tribal tradition by fishermen and sheperds and I'll tell you that you are full of it.

So that I'm not incoherent, are you omnipotent?

Am I your enemy?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by scccdoc

What is incoherent about: Do you posses ALL the knowledge discovered and undiscovered to be able to say that there is no God or how He accomplishes the things Christians and Jews believe he accomplished?(hope that is plain enough, I see you're doing the "demeaning" thing)

Yep, that's the incoherent one I'm talking about, because the answer you are looking for doesn't prove your point. Allow me to illustrate.

Do you posses ALL the knowledge discovered and undiscovered to be able to say that there is no Santa Clause or that he can not accomplish the task of visting every house Christmas night to leave presents?

The answer is quite obviously that you don't and neither do I. No one can honestly claim to have all the knowledge necessary to completely discount the possibility of a fat elf on a sled with a flying reindeer team that delivers presents, but that means nothing. You'd still be foolish to be a grown man and believe in the legend of Santa.

Now, there may have been a very real short, chubby fellow that had an ordinary horse drawn sleigh that went from house to house in his town and delivered presents to needy families at one time, but that is a very ordinary and explainable story that has been inflated to mythical proportions over time by the numerous re-tellings.

In much the same manner, the story of jesus the savior has been inflated well beyond the reality of Jesus the carpenter that lived so long ago.

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by scccdoc

Logical if you're omnipotent. Are you?

So back to the original question, enough rabbits, do you think I'm your enemy?

Maybe you're not reading the posts or are you "incoherent?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by scccdoc

So that I'm not incoherent, are you omnipotent?

Have you missed my repeated explanations in this forum of the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning? Which do we rely on 99% of the time?

Am I your enemy?

Not you personally, but your misguided ignorance and the cumulative ignorance of other theists like you are a very real danger, yes.

[scccdoc]

See you guys later! MERRY CHRISTMAS................. or whatever you call it! DOC

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by scccdoc

Maybe you're not reading the posts or are you "incoherent?

Maybe you just want to back away from a tangential point that you were losing?

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by scccdoc

See you guys later! MERRY CHRISTMAS................. or whatever you call it! DOC

Merry Christmas, Doc! No hard feelings...

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Have you missed my repeated explanations in this forum of the differences between inductive and deductive reasoning? Which do we rely on 99% of the time?



Not you peronally, but your misguided ignorance and the cumulative ignorance of other theists like you are a very real danger, yes.

LOL.......MERRY CHRISTMAS, btw, I'm no more interested in your explanations than you are mine, but why are you so nasty and name calling? Is that the "atheist" way? Sure seems so...................................

[scccdoc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

Merry Christmas, Doc! No hard feelings...

No hard feelings if we keep it civil

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by scccdoc

LOL.......MERRY CHRISTMAS, btw, I'm no more interested in your explanations than you are mine, but why are you so nasty and name calling? Is that the "atheist" way? Sure seems so...................................

Not really trying to be nasty. I'm using words in their correct context, it's just a tough message to here. There is no way to phrase it that won't seem insulting considering your worldview.

[happyguy]

Some people have a deep seated need to have an enemy. It gives purpose to their empty lives.

Who better to declare your enemy than someone whose core beliefs make them unlikely to retaliate? Christians are the perfect enemy for the cowardly.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by scccdoc

No hard feelings if we keep it civil

You say that after a string of personal attacks unrelated the conversation.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by happyguy

Some people have a deep seated need to have an enemy. It gives purpose to their empty lives.

Who better to declare your enemy than someone whose core beliefs make them unlikely to retaliate? Christians are the perfect enemy for the cowardly.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

Right. Christians never attack.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by muscogee

Right. Christians never attack.

Well, no TRUE Christians, anyway.

[Vic Hays]

Originally Posted by bobtheelf

Certainly not. People who wish to dictate how others must live their lives, and who wish to dictate morality to others; those are the problem.

Those nativity scenes and a message of Christ who died for the benefit of humanity really jam it down people's throats.

On the other hand is the inquisition and religious wars. Why must the two be confused?

There is a battle in progress. Everyone is choosing their side in the conflict. Which side have you chosen?

[NMG26]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

There is a battle in progress. Everyone is choosing their side in the conflict. Which side have you chosen?

You speak as though there are two sides. God and God's enemies.

This would make Christians the only right and the rest wrong.

You set up and maintain the dichotomy of strife as the only reality. Peace on earth is surely not the goal.

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

Those nativity scenes and a message of Christ who died for the benefit of humanity really jam it down people's throats.

No, they're propaganda.

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

Those nativity scenes and a On the other hand is the inquisition and religious wars. Why must the two be confused?

Because the Inquisition was a tactic used in religious wars. Isn't that obvious?

Originally Posted by Vic Hays

There is a battle in progress. Everyone is choosing their side in the conflict. Which side have you chosen?

Progress.

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by happyguy

Some people have a deep seated need to have an enemy. It gives purpose to their empty lives.

Who better to declare your enemy than someone whose core beliefs make them unlikely to retaliate? Christians are the perfect enemy for the cowardly.

Regards,
Comrade Happyguy

I thought your god commanded you not to lay down and be a victim. You carry a gun right? You're ready to get down if need be right? You're the guy that throws drinks in people's faces when they need an attitude adjustment right? Why is making you an enemy a cowardly thing to do... unless you're admitting to being weak.