The pope. Popeing about.

[Hellsmk2]

Burden of prove does not need to lie with anyone, that's the thing many of you get confused by.
You claim to be a deity, so what, who does it affect and why does anyone have to prove it either way.

No no no. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. It's that simple.

If I claim a hellsmk2 poo sandwich tastes like sugar and has amazing nutritional value, you would expect me to prove it. Religion should be no different.

As said before just because something had not been seen before doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As has already been said - the tooth fairy, santa, unicorns, etc etc...

 

[Castiel]

For a claimed agnostic you are certainly prepared to fight to the death to defend the bible regardless of how bizarre some of the stories are, mind you don't trip over that dictionary

What's up feeling threatened so attempting to discredit the poster instead of the argument.

 

[Glaucus]

No no no. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. It's that simple.

You are making a scientific claim, as such you have to show scientific prove, religion and certain other things do not fall within the bounds of science and as such do not require scientific proof.

 

[Castiel]

Oh I see the bit about their children having to resort to incest was an interpretation error then

It's hardly incest if they are allegories for tribes now is it. Cain and Abel being tribes that naturally came about from the intermarriage of the Adam and Eve tribes. One tribe learns to farm, the other is warlike and is banished by the other three.

If I can do this on an iPhone sat in a pub, imagine what could be made from the story if I had time and a bible.

 

[izzy eckerslike]

There have been much much bigger floods than that. Again there aren't penguins in the region a world flood to them would be the regions they know. They didn't have aircraft and satellite ingaingbto realise how bog the world is.

It's not a recent thing the storys have been looked at for ages with different opions. When you get anything so old it is open to interpretation as you do not have the writer to ask or clarify. You make it sound like the bible is the only thing open to interpretation. When most of history is open to interpretation.

Yes but the bible is supposed to be the word of god is it not?
God is supposed to have ordered Noah to build the boat & therefore must have communicated with him?

Then god must have neglected to tell him how big planet Earth is,

It only goes to prove that the story is exactly that, the fact that they had no idea of anywhere else other than their immediate surroundings doesn't exactly strike a chord that it was done with the help of god does it

 

[Hellsmk2]

That falls within science, religion and certain other things do not.

No it doesn't. There are many other subjects outside of science where such statements require evidence. Is history, english, art, etc a science?

It's a logical statement. Science does not come into such a thing, as it can be applied to almost every other subject, except religion where it apparently doesn't apply.

 

[izzy eckerslike]

It's hardly incest if they are allegories for tribes now is it. Cain and Abel being tribes that naturally came about from the intermarriage of the Adam and Eve tribes. One tribe learns to farm, the other is warlike and is banished by the other three.

If I can do this on an iPhone sat in a pub, imagine what could be made from the story if I had time and a bible.

But that's your version of events & not the bibles, big difference

 

[Castiel]

No no no. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. It's that simple.

If I claim a hellsmk2 poo sandwich tastes like sugar and has amazing nutritional value, you would expect me to prove it. Religion should be no different.



As has already been said - the tooth fairy, santa, unicorns, etc etc...

Religions do offer extraordinary evidence for their claims and that is the problem, you and atheists like you simply don't accept it as evidence thus the burden of proof is on you to disprove their claims or offer evidence of your own that refutes theirs.

Read the thread this has been explained over and over.

 

[Hellsmk2]

Religions do offer extraordinary evidence for their claims and that is the problem, you and atheists like you simply don't accept it as evidence thus the burden of proof is on you to disprove their claims or offer evidence of your own that refutes there's.

Where is this evidence? You've been mentioning for the last few pages, but have yet to offer ANYTHING to back your view up.

 

[Glaucus]

Yes but the bible is supposed to be the word of god is it not?

If you mean literal word of God, then no.

God is supposed to have ordered Noah to build the boat & therefore must have communicated with him?

And the problem with that is?
Do you know he didn't have a vision or communication.

Why try to prove the unprovable, using a methodology that was not designed for the purpose, why try to argue on stuff you clearly have no understanding on. This is the problem, not the disbelief of religion, but talking nonsense, trying to use science for something it is not designed.

 

[izzy eckerslike]

If you mean literal word of God, then no.


And the problem with that is?
Do you know he didn't have a vision or communication.

Why try to prove the unprovable, using a methodology that was not designed for the purpose, why try to argue on stuff you clearly have no understanding on. This is the problem, not the disbelief of religion, but talking nonsense, trying to use science for something it is not designed.

I'm, talking nonsense am I
are you getting upset that your religious beliefs are being criticised or what,

I just pointed out the impossibilities of some of the stories, you know using a bit of logic instead of being a drone

 

[semi-pro waster]

Fair point.

What's this 'evidence' they've got? Scripture?

Scripture would be one example, AcidHell2 has highlighted a few more, you could argue the beauty of the World as too exquisite to exist by chance as Castiel has (not particularly seriously) mooted. It's all evidence that could support a belief/faith - you might not find it convincing, I dare say I don't find most of it convincing on any level but that's largely irrelevant to whether it constitutes evidence or not.

In such debates there often seems to be a degree of confusion about what is meant by the terms "evidence" and "proof", they're used interchangeably yet with very different meanings depending on the person using them and to what end.

God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth. snipped for space

You seem awfully sure you'd know what evidence of god looks like. If we take as a starting point that a god created the natural World then how would we be expected to distinguish "natural" phenomena from that left by a deity unless said deity left us a "God woz 'ere 65 trillion BC" and at this point would we even recognise the signs?

You don't have to take that starting point, I'm not sure I do or that it even matters but the basic point is how can you tell what constitutes physical evidence of a god. Even if we can agree on what physical evidence is that would satisfy you then why should a deity deign to jump through sufficient hoops to satisfy you?

Finally someone who understands...

I'm just happy someone has the patience to advance the position, I've had the argument enough times now to get bored of it fairly quickly as it's rare that any positions will be changed (and that includes mine).

 

[Castiel]

But that's your version of events & not the bibles, big difference

No, it is my version of a modern interpretation of an ancient oral tradition that is over 4000 years old.

Allegorical interpretation and the intent of Genesis in particular being allegorical date back to the 3rd and 4th Century. In fact in the New Testament Paul states as much in the epistle to the Galatians.

So even the Bible itself states that Genesis is allegorical. This is why as I said earlier, if you wish to criticise religion, you need to have some knowledge of religion.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm, talking nonsense am I
are you getting upset that your religious beliefs are being criticised or what,

I just pointed out the impossibilities of some of the stories, you know using a bit of logic instead of being a drone

A) it's not my religion, I am not religiuse.
B) what logic. You are not thinking like ancient man. You descredit a story as the entire world did not flood. It didn't need to. You need to understand the people of the time, who wrote it and from what source, any translations and so on. It is hugely complicated you clearly are not using logic and don't understand history ad a whole.

 

[Castiel]

Where is this evidence? You've been mentioning for the last few pages, but have yet to offer ANYTHING to back your view up.

Read the thread, their very faith offers that extraordinary evidence, you simply don't accept that as evidence, doesn't mean it is not however. For them anyway.

Read what Semi-pro Waster posted #632, I feel no need to repeat what he has so succinctly stated.

 

[Participant]

So even the Bible itself states that Genesis is allegorical. This is why as I said earlier, if you wish to criticise religion, you need to have some knowledge of religion.

No, you just need to have some common sense. Can you imagine if you had to have knowledge of something to criticise it. By that logic I'd need to have inherent knowledge of rape in order to identify it as a ridiculous thing.

extraordinary evidence

Stick 'extraordinary' into a thesaurus and you get, amongst other things, bizarre, weird and peculiar. Having evidence that is extraordinary, surely does not make it believable nor reasonable.

 

[Castiel]

No, you just need to have some common sense. Can you imagine if you had to have knowledge of something to criticise it. By that logic I'd need to have inherent knowledge of rape in order to identify it as a ridiculous thing.

You know what Rape is, it's methodology and the intent of the act so you have knowledge of it.
To criticise religion especially by using their holy books or in this case the Bible then of course you need some knowledge of the religion or bible. Otherwise it's like criticising a book when you have only seen the cover, or a film simply from a 10 second trailer.

Stick 'extraordinary' into a thesaurus and you get, amongst other things, bizarre, weird and peculiar. Having evidence that is extraordinary, surely does not make it believable nor reasonable.

It doesn't have to be to you, it only needs to be to those with faith. Extraordinary can also mean Amazing, Marvellous and outstanding, so using a thesaurus to prove the unprovable is a little weak.

 

[Pudney]

I'm, talking nonsense am I
are you getting upset that your religious beliefs are being criticised or what,

I just pointed out the impossibilities of some of the stories, you know using a bit of logic instead of being a drone

I have only briefly read this article but it seems vaguely interesting, although slightly biased (from a bible as an historical source viewpoint, not a religious one).

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibdoc.htm

Just to reiterate my point on this matter. There may be errors in the bible as a whole, there may be books that are meant to be figurative and not literal, but that does not take away from the usefulness as a whole of it as historical source text.

Also, please remember. It is perfectly possible to say that Genesis is figurative but the book of Ezra isn't (I had to wiki the books of the OT ) They're different authors, indeed the book of Ezra is considered an historical account, Genesis isn't.

 

[Pudney]

No, you just need to have some common sense. Can you imagine if you had to have knowledge of something to criticise it. By that logic I'd need to have inherent knowledge of rape in order to identify it as a ridiculous thing.

But you do have inherent knowledge of it. Using rape, and criminology, why is there different rules for minors? Because they do not understand their own actions.

Rape is a poor, poor example to use.

Stick 'extraordinary' into a thesaurus and you get, amongst other things, bizarre, weird and peculiar. Having evidence that is extraordinary, surely does not make it believable nor reasonable.

You also get exceptional, outstanding, phenomenal and unprecedented. Which would be believable and reasonable.

So what's your point other than the English language is a wonderfully myriad thing?

 

[Participant]

It doesn't have to be to you, it only needs to be to those with faith. Extraordinary can also mean Amazing, Marvellous and outstanding, so using a thesaurus to prove the unprovable is a little weak.

Sorry you missed it...I was trying to find out what your definition of 'extraordinary evidence' was.

If you mean amazing, I agree. It is truly amazing that so many people with zero reason to believe in something so outrageously ludicrous do so, just because of their upbringing and the greatest work of fiction there ever was.

If you mean marvellous, I agree. It is a marvellous reflection of the diversity of the human race that people can be so...malleable.

If you mean outstanding, and if you class loads of people being a bit simple as outstanding evidence, then you don't know the human race very well.

You also get exceptional, outstanding, phenomenal and unprecedented. Which would be believable and reasonable.

So what's your point other than the English language is a wonderfully myriad thing?

That 'their very faith offers that extraordinary evidence' does not determine the context of the word 'extraordinary'.