The pope. Popeing about.

[Metatron]

I don't think people are grasping the concept of a 'miracle'. >.<

It's something that by defintion contravenes the laws of nature. Saying it's "scientifically impossible" is not a counter-argument - that's part of the definition.

If you believe in God, then you can easily believe that he could suspend the laws of nature at will. The hard part to accept for a religious person would be whether God actually would choose to directly interfere with the world in special occasions, not whether it's physically "possible".

 

[krooton]

To all those who follow a specific religion:

Where you brought up to believe in it, or did you make your own conscious decision to do so later on in life?

 

[izzy eckerslike]

I've just watched that video for the first time & it certainly isn't what I expected to see after all the dramatic Exodus headlines.

All it shows really is that a powerful wind could possibly push & redistribute very shallow water over mudflats which is what a river delta basically is but I cannot imagine it could occur for several hours without constant relapses allowing the water to return . When is wind ever constant ? ( except after eating beans)

I would want to see a proper large scale model constructed to be a little more convinced & even then I would doubt it could occur on a large inland sea
I'm not even going bother discrediting the bible version, it's already well documented

 

[Hellsmk2]

Atheists have an absolute faith that there is no god, that is it. Theists have an absolute faith in some form of God, in whatever form they choose depending on their faith.

Agnostics like myself neither believe there is a God, neither do I dismiss the possibility there may be some form of Godhead, whether that be corporeal or not.

I can quite easily argue for religion, or against religion depending on the tone of the conversation.

And yet another... wut?

Any sensible atheist would quite happily admit that could never prove without a doubt that there is no god. I'd actually argue that there is no 'third choice' in agnosticism. You're either an agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist.

The most logical position of which would be agnostic atheist - having a belief that there is no god, but never being able to know that for certain.

 

[Castiel]

I've just watched that video for the first time & it certainly isn't what I expected to see after all the dramatic Exodus headlines.

All it shows really is that a powerful wind could possibly push & redistribute very shallow water over mudflats which is what a river delta basically is but I cannot imagine it could occur for several hours without constant relapses allowing the water to return . When is wind ever constant ? ( except after eating beans)

I would want to see a proper large scale model constructed to be a little more convinced & even then I would doubt it could occur on a large inland sea
I'm not even going bother discrediting the bible version, it's already well documented

Indeed that is what it shows, but can you imagine what something like that happening would look like to someone 4000 years ago.

And can you imagine how that story would be told from person to person by oral tradition and how a kernel of truth can become an allegory like the Bibles parting of the Red Sea or sea of reeds whichever you prefer.

That is ALL I am pointing out.

 

[Hellsmk2]

p ability to be tolerant, even towards fools like your good self...

That's really not very tolerant.

Just sayin'

 

[Castiel]

And yet another... wut?

Any sensible atheist would quite happily admit that could never prove without a doubt that there is no god. I'd actually argue that there is no 'third choice' in agnosticism. You're either an agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist.

The most logical position of which would be agnostic atheist - having a belief that there is no god, but never being able to know that for certain.

Agnostic Atheist... I think you mean a atheistic Agnostic.


Also you are not arguing that point, you lifted it directly from a Richard Dawkins lecture. The one where Atheism is at one extreme and theism is at the other extreme of agnosticism.

And there is a third option, in fact it is the first option, that of neutral agnosticism, someone who does not hold the belief in a Godhead as true or false. They are open to all possibilities given definitive evidence.

This is the natural scientific position.

That's really not very tolerant.

Just sayin'

Not being intolerant at all, I was simply stating that despite his obvious deficiency in comprehension I am accepting of his position. The epitome of tolerance I would say.