Religion, Faith, and Spirituality : Debunked: The Atheist Delusion

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

MovieManCin2 said... Absolutely NOTHING you have said is logical. It's all bullshit based on a fairy tale. And actually I would LOVE to know, but there's no way you or I can know. Therefore, agnosticism is the most logical position.

And NO, we have NOT even established that there is ANYTHING which effects eternity. That's part of your delusion.

expand
Nothing eh?

What about the part where I noted that events that affect longer durations of time are more important that events that effect short durations?
What is illogical about that?

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... Nothing eh?

What about the part where I noted that events that affect longer durations of time are more important that events that effect short durations?
What is illogical about that?
expand
That is correct. You have nothing, except your stubborn devotion to a fairy tale. Agnosticism is the most logical position.

We could debate this forever, but I will never change my position, which is the most logical one.

And you have said nothing which makes any sense.



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

MovieManCin2 said... That is correct. You have nothing, except your stubborn devotion to a fairy tale. Agnosticism is the most logical position.

We could debate this forever, but I will never change my position, which is the most logical one.

And you have said nothing which makes any sense.

expand
Do you think that an event which only affects you for a day is more important that an event that affects you for a year?

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... Do you think that an event which only affects you for a day is more important that an event that affects you for a year?
expand
Quit dodging the question with meaningless nonsense. Agnosticism is still the most logical position.



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

MovieManCin2 said... Quit dodging the question with meaningless nonsense. Agnosticism is still the most logical position.

expand
You didn't ask a question dumbass.

That is correct. You have nothing, except your stubborn devotion to a fairy tale. Agnosticism is the most logical position.

We could debate this forever, but I will never change my position, which is the most logical one.

And you have said nothing which makes any sense.

See? No question mark. No question.

I on the other hand DID ask a question. which YOU are dodging.

Do you think that an event which only affects you for a day is more important that an event that affects you for a year?

A question, I might add, that did not even mention agnosticism so I am not sure you are repeating like some spaz case.

So are you capable of answering a simple question?

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... You didn't ask a question dumbass.

That is correct. You have nothing, except your stubborn devotion to a fairy tale. Agnosticism is the most logical position.

We could debate this forever, but I will never change my position, which is the most logical one.

And you have said nothing which makes any sense.

See? No question mark. No question.

I on the other hand DID ask a question. which YOU are dodging.

Do you think that an event which only affects you for a day is more important that an event that affects you for a year?

A question, I might add, that did not even mention agnosticism so I am not sure you are repeating like some spaz case.

So are you capable of answering a simple question?
expand
Yes of course I'm capable of answering a simple question, but I refuse to answer your stupid question because it has absolutely nothing to do with this debate, dumb ass.



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

MovieManCin2 said... Yes of course I'm capable of answering a simple question, but I refuse to answer your stupid question because it has absolutely nothing to do with this debate, dumb ass.

expand
Debates are like houses. As houses are built of individual boards debates are build on individual facts. I am trying to establish a baseline of facts that can be agreed upon. I think you see exactly where I am going with the question. I think you see exactly how it fits into the debate. I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Whether this is just due to being a stubborn jackass or whether you simply don't want to admit to anything on principle I don't care.

For the moment I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will pretend that you really don't see how the question relates to the debate. I assure you, just because you don't see how it relates does not mean it doesn't. That is just another foolish assumption. Like when you said there was no Biblical evidence and I dropped the entire fossil record at your feet and left you looking stupid.

Now that we have established that you are not in a position to decide what facts do or do not relate to MY argument. Answer the question.

Dig your heels in. Resist all you want. I will still drag you to water.

And if you will not drink I will just as happily drown you.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... Debates are like houses. As houses are built of individual boards debates are build on individual facts. I am trying to establish a baseline of facts that can be agreed upon. I think you see exactly where I am going with the question. I think you see exactly how it fits into the debate. I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Whether this is just due to being a stubborn jackass or whether you simply don't want to admit to anything on principle I don't care.

For the moment I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will pretend that you really don't see how the question relates to the debate. I assure you, just because you don't see how it relates does not mean it doesn't. That is just another foolish assumption. Like when you said there was no Biblical evidence and I dropped the entire fossil record at your feet and left you looking stupid.

Now that we have established that you are not in a position to decide what facts do or do not relate to MY argument. Answer the question.

Dig your heels in. Resist all you want. I will still drag you to water.

And if you will not drink I will just as happily drown you.
expand
Blah, blah, blah. Don't give a shit, so talk to the hand, dipshit!



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... Debates are like houses. As houses are built of individual boards debates are build on individual facts. I am trying to establish a baseline of facts that can be agreed upon. I think you see exactly where I am going with the question. I think you see exactly how it fits into the debate. I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Whether this is just due to being a stubborn jackass or whether you simply don't want to admit to anything on principle I don't care.

For the moment I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will pretend that you really don't see how the question relates to the debate. I assure you, just because you don't see how it relates does not mean it doesn't. That is just another foolish assumption. Like when you said there was no Biblical evidence and I dropped the entire fossil record at your feet and left you looking stupid.

Now that we have established that you are not in a position to decide what facts do or do not relate to MY argument. Answer the question.

Dig your heels in. Resist all you want. I will still drag you to water.

And if you will not drink I will just as happily drown you.
expand
I am trying to establish a baseline of facts that can be agreed upon. I think you see exactly where I am going with the question. I think you see exactly how it fits into the debate

All you have established is how poor the facts that can be agreed upon between a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) and proper science are in support of your conveniently unspoken cause..

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said...
I am trying to establish a baseline of facts that can be agreed upon. I think you see exactly where I am going with the question. I think you see exactly how it fits into the debate

All you have established is how poor the facts that can be agreed upon between a YEC (Young Earth Creationist) and proper science are in support of your conveniently unspoken cause..
expand
All you have established

I established considerably more than that.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said...
All you have established

I established considerably more than that.
expand
Well I wouldn't possibly want to comment on your levels of credulity further.

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said... Well I wouldn't possibly want to comment on your levels of credulity further.
expand
Since you want to take up MMC2's mantle perhaps you can answer the questions he refused to.

Do you think that an event which only affects you for a day is more important that an event that affects you for a year?

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... Since you want to take up MMC2's mantle perhaps you can answer the questions he refused to.

Do you think that an event which only affects you for a day is more important that an event that affects you for a year?
expand
No, I don't. But as others have noted this question seems apropos of nothing.

My turn. How old is the earth do you think?




*edited to correct sense

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said... No, I don't. But as others have noted this question seems apropos of nothing.

My turn. How old is the earth do you think?




*edited to correct sense
expand
You answer mine and I will answer yours

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... You answer mine and I will answer yours
expand
er… I just did. You know, the bit when I said "No I don't" ? Please pay attention.

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said... er… I just did. You know, the bit when I said "No I don't" ? Please pay attention.
expand
The current Hebrew year, AM 5784, began at sunset on 15 September 2023 and will end at sunset on 2 October 2024.

The original year was 360 days. The asteriod that hit the Yucatan and knocked earth 23.5 degres off its axis also resulted in our current eliptical 365.25 day orbit.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... The current Hebrew year, AM 5784, began at sunset on 15 September 2023 and will end at sunset on 2 October 2024.

The original year was 360 days. The asteriod that hit the Yucatan and knocked earth 23.5 degres off its axis also resulted in our current eliptical 365.25 day orbit.
expand
Fascinating, but my question was how old you think the earth is, remember? Evasion noted.

And btw:

The asteriod [sic] that hit the Yucatan and knocked earth 23.5 degres [sic] off its axis


This impact did not directly tilt the Earth's axis. The Earth's axial tilt, which is responsible for the changing seasons, is a natural phenomenon that is caused by the gravitational influence of the sun and the moon. It's important to note that the meteor impact likely had a significant impact on the Earth's climate though.

Again, I am not sure why you introduce random scientific facts (without a source) that are incorrect and not pertaining to anything.

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said... Fascinating, but my question was how old you think the earth is, remember? Evasion noted.

And btw:

The asteriod [sic] that hit the Yucatan and knocked earth 23.5 degres [sic] off its axis


This impact did not directly tilt the Earth's axis. The Earth's axial tilt, which is responsible for the changing seasons, is a natural phenomenon that is caused by the gravitational influence of the sun and the moon. It's important to note that the meteor impact likely had a significant impact on the Earth's climate though.

Again, I am not sure why you introduce random scientific facts (without a source) that are incorrect and not pertaining to anything.
expand
I believe the Hebrew calander to be accurate. No evasion.

This impact did not directly tilt the Earth's axis.
Agree to disagree.

not pertaining to anything.
But it does. It pertains directly to your question concerning the age of the earth. The entire reason some people think the earth is so old it due to the effects of the Great Deluge which was triggered by the Yucatan strike.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... I believe the Hebrew calander to be accurate. No evasion.

This impact did not directly tilt the Earth's axis.
Agree to disagree.

not pertaining to anything.
But it does. It pertains directly to your question concerning the age of the earth. The entire reason some people think the earth is so old it due to the effects of the Great Deluge which was triggered by the Yucatan strike.
expand
I believe the Hebrew calander [sic] to be accurate. No evasion.

It is when I am asking for how old you think the earth is. An annual calendar does not work to do that. If you think it does somehow, you will have to be more explicit. At the moment it seems unconnected and your refusal to give a simple answer to a straightforward question still seems evasive. How old is the earth?

Agree to disagree.

I am sure then you can easily point me to any peer-reviewed paper which argues that the earth's axis was tilted by that asteroid. The KT impact was far, far, far too small to affect the Earth's axis of rotation.The impact is thought to have been with a meteor 10–15 km in size, traveling at 20 km/s. The Earth's diameter is 12800 km, that is it is 1000 times wider, and one can fit 1 billion such meteors in the Earth. The meteor is simply too small to cause such trouble It was probably the impact, 4.5 billion years ago, with a proto-planet the size of Mars, that also created the Moon that tilted the Earth axis.

Evasion will be noted, as will the introduction of unscientific creationist material.


The entire reason some people think the earth is so old it due [sic] to the effects of the Great Deluge which was triggered by the Yucatan strike.

I am not sure what this means. When you say "so old" does that mean you think some think the earth is just 65 million years old? The impact would have created huge tidal waves no doubt, so if you think that those amounted to a 'great deluge' then whatever floats your boat. Odd though that scripture seems unaware of the actual cause of the Flood.

None of this of course has any bearing on the existence of a purported deity.

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said...
I believe the Hebrew calander [sic] to be accurate. No evasion.

It is when I am asking for how old you think the earth is. An annual calendar does not work to do that. If you think it does somehow, you will have to be more explicit. At the moment it seems unconnected and your refusal to give a simple answer to a straightforward question still seems evasive. How old is the earth?

Agree to disagree.

I am sure then you can easily point me to any peer-reviewed paper which argues that the earth's axis was tilted by that asteroid. The KT impact was far, far, far too small to affect the Earth's axis of rotation.The impact is thought to have been with a meteor 10–15 km in size, traveling at 20 km/s. The Earth's diameter is 12800 km, that is it is 1000 times wider, and one can fit 1 billion such meteors in the Earth. The meteor is simply too small to cause such trouble It was probably the impact, 4.5 billion years ago, with a proto-planet the size of Mars, that also created the Moon that tilted the Earth axis.

Evasion will be noted, as will the introduction of unscientific creationist material.


The entire reason some people think the earth is so old it due [sic] to the effects of the Great Deluge which was triggered by the Yucatan strike.

I am not sure what this means. When you say "so old" does that mean you think some think the earth is just 65 million years old? The impact would have created huge tidal waves no doubt, so if you think that those amounted to a 'great deluge' then whatever floats your boat. Odd though that scripture seems unaware of the actual cause of the Flood.

None of this of course has any bearing on the existence of a purported deity.
expand
still seems evasive.
I am sorry. I gave you credit for being at least 20 IQ points higher than what you apparently are. The Hebrew calender begins it's count from creation. I figured you were smart enough to understand that. Their calender year is 5784 so that is how old earth is.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=polar+shift+peer+reviewed+articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
There is a list of articles of polar shift. An impact triggering a polar shift and followed by a global flod with large volumes of water could indeed affect axis of rotation.



Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said...
still seems evasive.
I am sorry. I gave you credit for being at least 20 IQ points higher than what you apparently are. The Hebrew calender begins it's count from creation. I figured you were smart enough to understand that. Their calender year is 5784 so that is how old earth is.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=polar+shift+peer+reviewed+articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
There is a list of articles of polar shift. An impact triggering a polar shift and followed by a global flod with large volumes of water could indeed affect axis of rotation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhE6tzJR_c
expand
I am sorry. I gave you credit for being at least 20 IQ points higher than what you apparently are.

Ad hominem noted.


The Hebrew calender begins it's count from creation. I figured you were smart enough to understand that. Their calender year is 5784 so that is how old earth is.

That's all you had to say at the start. Not everyone has your obvious high IQ. 5784 LOL Was that before or after dated rock art existed?

https://www.ancientartarchive.org/dating-ancient-art/#:~:text=Samples%20less%20than%2050%2C000%20years,more%20than%2030%2C000%20years%20old.

let alone dated rocks:

[url/lhttps://opengeology.org/historicalgeology/case-studies/earths-oldest-rocks/

or the moon, ejected through a collision with the earth:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/moon-even-older-than-we-thought-lunar-formation

Gosh, things healed quick down here, didn't they?


There is a list of articles of polar shift.

No mention by a reputable source of that supposed axial shift caused by the KT event though. Which was what asked for. I wonder why?

Hydroplate Theory Overview

Ah yes, the brain child of that, er, well known scientist Walt Brown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)#:~:text=Hydroplate%20theory,-The%20most%20distinctive&text=Because%20the%20plates%20are%2C%20in,their%20name%20to%20the%20theory. (well,er, actually a mechanical engineer and retired army officer) whose work records no secular peer-reviewed articles. Whose ideas even Answer in Genesis won't swallow. The Velikovsky of his time perhaps? Whatever, one first notes that even creationists are disappointed that Walt Brown has not submitted most of his Hydroplate Theory to the scrutiny of (creationist) peer review, and disagree with various of its claims (see below).

I appreciate your mind is made up. For the less intelligent of us these are useful links showing the results of one who debated him detail, point by point on the basis of science alone. It is not flattering to the creationist:

https://ncse.ngo/examination-research-creationist-walter-brown, https://ncse.ngo/final-response-walter-brown

from the National Centre for Science Education. (Apparently eleven of Brown's 120 "categories" of evidence for his work are alleged sightings of Noah's ark on Mount Ararat !)

"Brown's true colors… Not once has he conceded any points to me, even when he has been glaringly in error .. Instead, he has frequently ignored my remarks (as he did with my basic criticism of his categorization scheme, my remarks on his Lamarckian point, his claim that there are few or no transitional fossils, his stance on Neandertal, Peking man, Lucy's knee joint, out-of-order fossils, and Noah's ark)… In other cases, he has responded to my criticisms with new arguments that do not address the original issue … He has also made mistaken claims about what others have written … I do not believe that I have made any comparable misrepresentations. I find it particularly ironic that Brown accuses me of asserting that evidence exists for a point, citing a reference, and skipping on to the next point, since this accurately describes the format of his own book, in which none of his "categories of evidence" are discussed in any detail (with the exception of his "hydroplate theory"). I suggest that the reason "leading anti-creationists" are not willing to engage in extensive written debate with Brown is not because of any fear for their careers or reputations but, rather, because of Brown's above-described habits and his own lack of qualifications." [Jim Lippard, contributor to Reports of the National Center for Science Education]

The hydroplate theory is dealt with here:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hydroplate_theory

or here

http://paleo.cc/ce/wbrown.htm

and criticised by other Creationists here - who might have been expected to be a little more sympathetic:

https://creation.com/hydroplate-theory

The main problem with Hydroplate Theory is there tends to be more of a collection of stories rather than a highly detailed model that can be tested with precision. It also does not work with current models of earthquakes.

Assuming you are orthodox Jew though at least you are in line with a majority of your contemporaries

"This survey seems to indicate that the Orthodox Jewish participants — students of a secular public university — get their scientific information not from their professors but from their religious beliefs and from Orthodox Jewish scientists who in turn conform to the beliefs of their religious authorities."

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/orthodox-jews-and-science/

(I should stress I fully support your right to believe what you want and worship the deity of your choice)

but do go on.. try not to use YooToob though, something authoritative and seriously scientific is best. Social Media is not a university.

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said...
still seems evasive.
I am sorry. I gave you credit for being at least 20 IQ points higher than what you apparently are. The Hebrew calender begins it's count from creation. I figured you were smart enough to understand that. Their calender year is 5784 so that is how old earth is.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=polar+shift+peer+reviewed+articles&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
There is a list of articles of polar shift. An impact triggering a polar shift and followed by a global flod with large volumes of water could indeed affect axis of rotation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhE6tzJR_c
expand
Since you are yet to answer my last message, here is a another question for your superior IQ:

You have asserted that the world was knocked off its axis by the asteroid which also tipped the dinosaurs into extinction.

Then we hear also that 5784 is apparently how old the earth is.

Yet the KT event, er, happened 65 million years ago. Fancy that!

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said... Since you are yet to answer my last message, here is a another question for your superior IQ:

You have asserted that the world was knocked off its axis by the asteroid which also tipped the dinosaurs into extinction.

Then we hear also that 5784 is apparently how old the earth is.

Yet the KT event, er, happened 65 million years ago. Fancy that!
expand
No. It happened around 4300 yrs ago.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... No. It happened around 4300 yrs ago.
expand
I see, and so (for instance) that huge crater has just 'weathered away' since then?

You are aware of the various ways science has of dating the earth, which is consistent across a range of disciplines … right?

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said... I see, and so (for instance) that huge crater has just 'weathered away' since then?

You are aware of the various ways science has of dating the earth, which is consistent across a range of disciplines … right?
expand
that huge crater has just 'weathered away' since then?

Partly. What is left is at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico mostly filled with silt.

Lets say for the sake of arguement that God DID create the world 5784 years ago. It is now the 7th day after creation. Do you think that by any of those dating methods would actually come up with a result of 7 days?

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said...
that huge crater has just 'weathered away' since then?

Partly. What is left is at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico mostly filled with silt.

Lets say for the sake of arguement that God DID create the world 5784 years ago. It is now the 7th day after creation. Do you think that by any of those dating methods would actually come up with a result of 7 days?
expand
What is left is at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico mostly filled with silt.

First off what is left is both at the bottom of the sea and onland.

Second the lack of a visible surface crater is due to several factors, not just 'silt'. The impact energy caused the Earth's crust to rebound and flow like a liquid, which effectively helped erased the original crater structure. Additionally, millions of years of erosion and deposition of sediment have further obscured the crater's features, making it difficult to detect from the surface. Also, silt does not explain why, after only a supposed few thousand years there is so little to be seen on the Yucatan Peninsula land area.

Please link to any peer-reviewed study which asserts that the impact was so recent as you suggest.. For instance a 2013 study published in Science estimated the age of the impact as 66,043,000 ± 11,000 years ago (± 43,000 years ago considering systematic error), based on multiple lines of evidence, including argon–argon dating of tektites from Haiti and bentonite horizons overlying the impact horizon in northeastern Montana, United States. This date was supported by a 2015 study based on argon–argon dating of tephra found in lignite beds in the Hell Creek and overlying Fort Union formations in northeastern Montana. A 2018 study based on argon–argon dating of spherules from Gorgonilla Island, Colombia, obtained a slightly different result of 66,051,000 ± 31,000 years ago. But still not c 6000. What do you and your sources have to contradict all this work?

Lets say for the sake of arguement [sic] that God DID create the world 5784 years ago. It is now the 7th day after creation. Do you think that by any of those dating methods would actually come up with a result of 7 days?

Ah, a Day-Ager as well lol This a red herring since the 7 days claim is just an attempt to make the supposed 7 days of creation fit over a longer time scale, in a metaphorical interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

But the answer to your question is no, and there are obvious reasons for that - aside from that metaphoric equivalence of a day with an age. This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial material and lunar samples. An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium–lead isotope dating (specifically lead–lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In 1899 and 1900, John Joly calculated the rate at which the oceans should have accumulated salt from erosion processes, and determined that the oceans were about 80 to 100 million years old.

But, hey, please link to any peer-reviewed scientific studies by geologists which give the age of the earth as just a few thousand years (Creationist apologists and websites do not count) and state their evidence.

While you are about it, tell us how dinosaurs of every sort lived alongside humans a few thousands years ago and yet are never found in recent fossil layers, let alone alongside humanoids, nor seen in any ancient art or accounts. You'd have thought the ancients for instance might have mentioned or drawn them..

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said...
What is left is at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico mostly filled with silt.

First off what is left is both at the bottom of the sea and onland.

Second the lack of a visible surface crater is due to several factors, not just 'silt'. The impact energy caused the Earth's crust to rebound and flow like a liquid, which effectively helped erased the original crater structure. Additionally, millions of years of erosion and deposition of sediment have further obscured the crater's features, making it difficult to detect from the surface. Also, silt does not explain why, after only a supposed few thousand years there is so little to be seen on the Yucatan Peninsula land area.

Please link to any peer-reviewed study which asserts that the impact was so recent as you suggest.. For instance a 2013 study published in Science estimated the age of the impact as 66,043,000 ± 11,000 years ago (± 43,000 years ago considering systematic error), based on multiple lines of evidence, including argon–argon dating of tektites from Haiti and bentonite horizons overlying the impact horizon in northeastern Montana, United States. This date was supported by a 2015 study based on argon–argon dating of tephra found in lignite beds in the Hell Creek and overlying Fort Union formations in northeastern Montana. A 2018 study based on argon–argon dating of spherules from Gorgonilla Island, Colombia, obtained a slightly different result of 66,051,000 ± 31,000 years ago. But still not c 6000. What do you and your sources have to contradict all this work?

Lets say for the sake of arguement [sic] that God DID create the world 5784 years ago. It is now the 7th day after creation. Do you think that by any of those dating methods would actually come up with a result of 7 days?

Ah, a Day-Ager as well lol This a red herring since the 7 days claim is just an attempt to make the supposed 7 days of creation fit over a longer time scale, in a metaphorical interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis.

But the answer to your question is no, and there are obvious reasons for that - aside from that metaphoric equivalence of a day with an age. This dating is based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial material and lunar samples. An age of 4.55 ± 0.07 billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by Clair Cameron Patterson using uranium–lead isotope dating (specifically lead–lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In 1899 and 1900, John Joly calculated the rate at which the oceans should have accumulated salt from erosion processes, and determined that the oceans were about 80 to 100 million years old.

But, hey, please link to any peer-reviewed scientific studies by geologists which give the age of the earth as just a few thousand years (Creationist apologists and websites do not count) and state their evidence.

While you are about it, tell us how dinosaurs of every sort lived alongside humans a few thousands years ago and yet are never found in recent fossil layers, let alone alongside humanoids, nor seen in any ancient art or accounts. You'd have thought the ancients for instance might have mentioned or drawn them..
expand
Ah, a Day-Ager as well lol
No.
I think that if we can BOTH agree on anything it is that the day-agers are stupid.

But, hey, please link to any peer-reviewed
Basically what you are demanding is a Bible affirming study but only from a pro-evolution source. That is like telling someone to piss in the corner of a round room and you know it. I won't play that game.


You'd have thought the ancients for instance might have mentioned or drawn them.
Which ancients? Noah's family were the only survivors. All traces of what came before were buried and obliterated. And Noahs kin were too busy surviving to create much in the way of art for the next few generations. As for the dinosaurs note that Genesis 6:20 likely refers to genus rather than species. Still over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct. Most of the mega-fauna would have died off first as there wouldn't have been much flora growing to feed them properly after they left the ark. And since they were only brought in pairs all it take is for one to die and they are effectively extinct. It also would not surprise me if God created new creatures after the Flood.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said...
Ah, a Day-Ager as well lol
No.
I think that if we can BOTH agree on anything it is that the day-agers are stupid.

But, hey, please link to any peer-reviewed
Basically what you are demanding is a Bible affirming study but only from a pro-evolution source. That is like telling someone to piss in the corner of a round room and you know it. I won't play that game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZPtE4wZ_IM

You'd have thought the ancients for instance might have mentioned or drawn them.
Which ancients? Noah's family were the only survivors. All traces of what came before were buried and obliterated. And Noahs kin were too busy surviving to create much in the way of art for the next few generations. As for the dinosaurs note that Genesis 6:20 likely refers to genus rather than species. Still over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct. Most of the mega-fauna would have died off first as there wouldn't have been much flora growing to feed them properly after they left the ark. And since they were only brought in pairs all it take is for one to die and they are effectively extinct. It also would not surprise me if God created new creatures after the Flood.
expand
It is now the 7th day after creation.. .
we can BOTH agree on anything it is that the day-agers are stupid.

Day-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is a metaphorical interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (from thousands to billions of years). I note that you say that we are supposedly in the 7th day of creation when the world is supposedly less than 6,000 years old, which therefore makes up a week in creationist-speak. But keep going.

Basically what you are demanding is a Bible affirming study but only from a pro-evolution source.

Nope, I am asking for substantiation from an authoritative source of geological science any reputable source will do. Evolution, btw, only deals with biology - not impact craters or dating the earth (although genetics has proven how far back the lineage of creatures can be counted). Switcheroo noted. I am sorry if you cannot offer anything by way of reply anyway. Is it because virtually all the reputable scientists are, rather awkwardly, not on your side?

I won't play that game.

Evasion noted.

Thank you for the film link (currently 3.7 in Imdb) - although I am not sure why you suddenly drag the evolution debate into things which are mostly predicated around geology - desperate perhaps? Anyway, in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed author, actor and political commentator [not unfortunately a scientist which might have been more useful, one notes] Ben Stein poses the argument that intelligent design and evolution are both valid scientific explanations for the development of life on earth, and that institutions that don't embrace both views are guilty of stifling academic freedom.

Unfortunately for the premise of the film, Creationism, er intelligent design, is not a 'science' it is pseudo-science - just as a Federal and Republican judge found in his final judgement at the landmark Dover Trial. This was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design (ID).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

It was found not to be science, despite the extended, best, efforts of ID expert witnesses like Behe. The verdict specifically said "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. … It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research."

Who'd have thought it eh?

The same claims of academic censorship etc one notes were made by Immanuel Velikovsky, who also peddled discredited views which science and history showed false. Not covering such work is not censorship just science moving on to more fruitful ground, which is why we don't hear anything about N Rays or flat earth claims these days.

Which ancients? Noah's family were the only survivors.

You will have to remind us - which day of creation are we talking now? This must be a thousand years or more closer to modern days?

As for the dinosaurs note that Genesis 6:20 likely refers to genus rather than species.

Actually it refers to 'kinds' which is not a recognised term in science. Created kinds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Created_kind are purported to be the original forms of life as they were created by God (as distinguished from one that has developed through the process of evolution.) They are also referred to in creationist literature as baramins. Please get your pseudoscience right, we are counting on you for all this to make sense…

Still over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct.

Here you at least get something right. In a world that is only less that 6,000 years old though one wonders what the average death rate was per year. I guess with that level of drop out God might have designed things a bit more reliable..

Most of the mega-fauna would have died off first as there wouldn't have been much flora growing to feed them properly after they left the ark.

Ah the ark! My favourite. Good job in the event kangeroos and the Duck Billed Platypus survived, I guess. Noah though might have otherwise been saved that long trip back to Australia to repopulate there?

And since they were only brought in pairs all it take is for one to die and they are effectively extinct.

Yes; but that is not the only issue. The main trouble with just a single breeding pair are genetic bottlenecks, which applies across all species as a rule when a population is greatly reduced in size, thus limiting the genetic diversity of the species. Such events can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring. In conservation biology, minimum viable population (MVP) size helps to determine the effective population size when a population is at risk for extinction. In other words a single breeding pair is not sufficient to restart an entire population. Such a considerations is one probable reason why incest is banned. But go on…

It also would not surprise me if God created new creatures after the Flood.

Not very Biblical that idea and you'd have thought it might have been mentioned. However, back in the realm of real science, biologist have long recognised such events as the Cambrian Explosion (day 2? 3?)when around 530 million years ago, a wide variety of animals burst onto the evolutionary scene.

Thank you for the diversion; now as previously asked, please link now to any peer-reviewed scientist who claims that the world is below 6,000 years old, and the evidence they offer - hopefully something professional which does not rely on personal credulity and the claims of a literally interpreted scripture. Or, someone similar who says the world was knocked of its axis by the KT event, come that. Or, any science which takes the Hydroplate Theory as proven - or even likely (continents for instance do not 'float' and deep down in the earth the temperature would turn water to steam, being two objections)

Surely you have something - or do we have to wait another day-age?

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said...
It is now the 7th day after creation.. .
we can BOTH agree on anything it is that the day-agers are stupid.

Day-age creationism, a type of old Earth creationism, is a metaphorical interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. It holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24-hour days, but are much longer periods (from thousands to billions of years). I note that you say that we are supposedly in the 7th day of creation when the world is supposedly less than 6,000 years old, which therefore makes up a week in creationist-speak. But keep going.

Basically what you are demanding is a Bible affirming study but only from a pro-evolution source.

Nope, I am asking for substantiation from an authoritative source of geological science any reputable source will do. Evolution, btw, only deals with biology - not impact craters or dating the earth (although genetics has proven how far back the lineage of creatures can be counted). Switcheroo noted. I am sorry if you cannot offer anything by way of reply anyway. Is it because virtually all the reputable scientists are, rather awkwardly, not on your side?

I won't play that game.

Evasion noted.

Thank you for the film link (currently 3.7 in Imdb) - although I am not sure why you suddenly drag the evolution debate into things which are mostly predicated around geology - desperate perhaps? Anyway, in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed author, actor and political commentator [not unfortunately a scientist which might have been more useful, one notes] Ben Stein poses the argument that intelligent design and evolution are both valid scientific explanations for the development of life on earth, and that institutions that don't embrace both views are guilty of stifling academic freedom.

Unfortunately for the premise of the film, Creationism, er intelligent design, is not a 'science' it is pseudo-science - just as a Federal and Republican judge found in his final judgement at the landmark Dover Trial. This was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design (ID).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

It was found not to be science, despite the extended, best, efforts of ID expert witnesses like Behe. The verdict specifically said "We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. … It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research."

Who'd have thought it eh?

The same claims of academic censorship etc one notes were made by Immanuel Velikovsky, who also peddled discredited views which science and history showed false. Not covering such work is not censorship just science moving on to more fruitful ground, which is why we don't hear anything about N Rays or flat earth claims these days.

Which ancients? Noah's family were the only survivors.

You will have to remind us - which day of creation are we talking now? This must be a thousand years or more closer to modern days?

As for the dinosaurs note that Genesis 6:20 likely refers to genus rather than species.

Actually it refers to 'kinds' which is not a recognised term in science. Created kinds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Created_kind are purported to be the original forms of life as they were created by God (as distinguished from one that has developed through the process of evolution.) They are also referred to in creationist literature as baramins. Please get your pseudoscience right, we are counting on you for all this to make sense…

Still over 99.9% of all species that ever lived are extinct.

Here you at least get something right. In a world that is only less that 6,000 years old though one wonders what the average death rate was per year. I guess with that level of drop out God might have designed things a bit more reliable..

Most of the mega-fauna would have died off first as there wouldn't have been much flora growing to feed them properly after they left the ark.

Ah the ark! My favourite. Good job in the event kangeroos and the Duck Billed Platypus survived, I guess. Noah though might have otherwise been saved that long trip back to Australia to repopulate there?

And since they were only brought in pairs all it take is for one to die and they are effectively extinct.

Yes; but that is not the only issue. The main trouble with just a single breeding pair are genetic bottlenecks, which applies across all species as a rule when a population is greatly reduced in size, thus limiting the genetic diversity of the species. Such events can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring. In conservation biology, minimum viable population (MVP) size helps to determine the effective population size when a population is at risk for extinction. In other words a single breeding pair is not sufficient to restart an entire population. Such a considerations is one probable reason why incest is banned. But go on…

It also would not surprise me if God created new creatures after the Flood.

Not very Biblical that idea and you'd have thought it might have been mentioned. However, back in the realm of real science, biologist have long recognised such events as the Cambrian Explosion (day 2? 3?)when around 530 million years ago, a wide variety of animals burst onto the evolutionary scene.

Thank you for the diversion; now as previously asked, please link now to any peer-reviewed scientist who claims that the world is below 6,000 years old, and the evidence they offer - hopefully something professional which does not rely on personal credulity and the claims of a literally interpreted scripture. Or, someone similar who says the world was knocked of its axis by the KT event, come that. Or, any science which takes the Hydroplate Theory as proven - or even likely (continents for instance do not 'float' and deep down in the earth the temperature would turn water to steam, being two objections)

Surely you have something - or do we have to wait another day-age?
expand
reputable source
We both know the only sources you consider reputable are the one that reject Creation outright.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said...
reputable source
We both know the only sources you consider reputable are the one that reject Creation outright.
expand
Evasion. Noted again. And don't tell me what I know.


Hey, here is one from one of your persuasion which almost made the cut!

https://ncse.ngo/creationism-slips-peer-reviewed-journal

Meantime, "Because of the peer-review gatekeeping, creationists have been forced to establish their own peer-reviewed journals, in particular for discussing science and theology with an open biblical view or model. The first was the Creation Research Society Quarterly, first published in 1964.12 Others followed, including our own Answers Research Journal. There are at least six creationist journals actively published today, each by different groups. Most of these journals publish multiple articles a year, and most make at least some of their articles freely available to the public. Much of the research by our staff scientists, for example, is published in Answers Research Journal, which is freely available to the public."

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/peer-review/

where we also read there "are just a few examples of the peer-reviewed secular research that favor a creationist worldview when correctly interpreted… There has yet to be a paper where the evidence itself, when properly interpreted, contradicts God’s Word." lol

Creationist papers fail peer review because to be approved a paper must not only make a strong, fact based, argument for what their data shows and how it fits with other reliable data in the field, but it must also cover the most important contrary data and publications and effectively demonstrate why those data do not falsify its thesis. Creationist papers fail because they ignore (or worse, misrepresent) the wide and deep levels of evidence supporting evolution and geology in favour of pandering to their fundamentalist reader's credulity.

As the Dover trial judged in its final verdict, there is little evidence of there being much in the way of “creation science.” There are creationist publications that are written in the style of scientific papers. The reality that creationism and intelligent design are dead subjects, scientifically either that or they are trying to prove things outside the purview of science. With legitimate scientific journals, “peer-reviewed” means “reviewed by other competent and knowledgeable scientists to ensure that my conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.” With creationist journals, however, it just means “rubber stamped by fellow science-denying creationists who agree with my conclusions.” Or as we have read, "interpreted properly".

Thank you for playing.

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... Since you want to take up MMC2's mantle perhaps you can answer the questions he refused to.

Do you think that an event which only affects you for a day is more important that an event that affects you for a year?
expand
I answered your question but could you explain what the point of it is?

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said... I answered your question but could you explain what the point of it is?
expand
Read back further in the thread.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... Read back further in the thread.
expand
Try it again here as it cannot be found and … 'since you want to take up MMC2's mantle perhaps you can answer the questions he refused to.' you said. I am still to get the rationale behind the question.

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said... Try it again here as it cannot be found and … 'since you want to take up MMC2's mantle perhaps you can answer the questions he refused to.' you said. I am still to get the rationale behind the question.
expand
I am still to get the rationale

Why am I not surprized. Most others would have clued in but you seem only slightly sharper than a bowling ball.

Ok. Simply put you will die. If there is nothing after then that is it. But if there is an afterlife then it is eternal. Even a life of 100yrs is of zero importance in comparison to an existance that lasts an eternity.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said...
I am still to get the rationale

Why am I not surprized. Most others would have clued in but you seem only slightly sharper than a bowling ball.

Ok. Simply put you will die. If there is nothing after then that is it. But if there is an afterlife then it is eternal. Even a life of 100yrs is of zero importance in comparison to an existance that lasts an eternity.
expand
you seem only slightly sharper than a bowling ball.

Again: an ad hominem is, still, not an argument. But I forgive you.

you will die. If there is nothing after then that is it. But if there is an afterlife then it is eternal. Even a life of 100yrs is of zero importance in comparison to an existance (sic) that lasts an eternity.

This just appears to be a restatement of Pascal's famous Wager, which posits that individuals essentially engage in a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God. .

Critics of the wager, such as atheists like me, question the ability to provide definitive proof of God's existence, (the lack of evidence Argument). Another common objection to the Wager is to point out that the Christian God isn't the only god possible; the gods of other worldviews need to be included in the matrix. Many of these worldviews are mutually exclusive, and believing the truth of one religion will often not give you the payoff of another. (That's The Argument from inconsistent revelations.) Another is the Argument from inauthentic belief, which raises concerns about the genuineness of faith in God if solely or mostly motivated by potential benefits and losses. No matter how far someone is tempted with rewards to believe in Christian salvation, the result will be at best a faint belief - and presumably any omniscient deity would know that. The final objection is the Argument from redundancy. If the proposed deity does not exist, then inevitably it means spending a good deal of the only life one has wasting time and effort in worshiping and otherwise attempting to please a phantom.

Gee, I hope your pins haven't been knocked over lol

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said...
you seem only slightly sharper than a bowling ball.

Again: an ad hominem is, still, not an argument. But I forgive you.

you will die. If there is nothing after then that is it. But if there is an afterlife then it is eternal. Even a life of 100yrs is of zero importance in comparison to an existance (sic) that lasts an eternity.

This just appears to be a restatement of Pascal's famous Wager, which posits that individuals essentially engage in a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God. .

Critics of the wager, such as atheists like me, question the ability to provide definitive proof of God's existence, (the lack of evidence Argument). Another common objection to the Wager is to point out that the Christian God isn't the only god possible; the gods of other worldviews need to be included in the matrix. Many of these worldviews are mutually exclusive, and believing the truth of one religion will often not give you the payoff of another. (That's The Argument from inconsistent revelations.) Another is the Argument from inauthentic belief, which raises concerns about the genuineness of faith in God if solely or mostly motivated by potential benefits and losses. No matter how far someone is tempted with rewards to believe in Christian salvation, the result will be at best a faint belief - and presumably any omniscient deity would know that. The final objection is the Argument from redundancy. If the proposed deity does not exist, then inevitably it means spending a good deal of the only life one has wasting time and effort in worshiping and otherwise attempting to please a phantom.

Gee, I hope your pins haven't been knocked over lol
expand
Not a restatement of the wager. An evaluation of it's actual importance.
For example:
then inevitably it means spending a good deal of the only life one has wasting time
Now if there is no God, which is the atheist position, then that life was never of any importance anyway. Which of course stands in stark contradiction of their certainy that their own lives have some intrinsic value. Though good luck asking any atheist upon what standard that intrinsic value is based.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... Not a restatement of the wager. An evaluation of it's actual importance.
For example:
then inevitably it means spending a good deal of the only life one has wasting time
Now if there is no God, which is the atheist position, then that life was never of any importance anyway. Which of course stands in stark contradiction of their certainy that their own lives have some intrinsic value. Though good luck asking any atheist upon what standard that intrinsic value is based.
expand
In which way is your point

"If there is nothing after then that is it. But if there is an afterlife then it is eternal. Even a life of 100yrs is of zero importance in comparison to an existance that lasts an eternity."

essentially not a reformulation of the classic idea that individuals essentially engage in a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God?

Now if there is no God, which is the atheist position, then that life was never of any importance anyway… Though good luck asking any atheist upon what standard that intrinsic value is based.

It depends how one attributes importance. It is quite obvious that there are things which, for many, give life importance and value - probably more so if one considers one life is all one has - such as love for kith and kin, doing good for others, art, patriotism, nature, and so on. I see from your profile that you are an ex soldier. Does that mean you did not attach any value to your service for your country? Does your own life really lack any importance away from belief in an supposed supernatural?

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said... In which way is your point

"If there is nothing after then that is it. But if there is an afterlife then it is eternal. Even a life of 100yrs is of zero importance in comparison to an existance that lasts an eternity."

essentially not a reformulation of the classic idea that individuals essentially engage in a life-defining gamble regarding the belief in the existence of God?

Now if there is no God, which is the atheist position, then that life was never of any importance anyway… Though good luck asking any atheist upon what standard that intrinsic value is based.

It depends how one attributes importance. It is quite obvious that there are things which, for many, give life importance and value - probably more so if one considers one life is all one has - such as love for kith and kin, doing good for others, art, patriotism, nature, and so on. I see from your profile that you are an ex soldier. Does that mean you did not attach any value to your service for your country? Does your own life really lack any importance away from belief in an supposed supernatural?
expand
Individuals like MMC2 refuse to even consider Pascals wager. The point I am trying to convey is why the Wager is of utmost importance to consider. More important in fact than anything else in ones life.

Does that mean you did not attach any value to your service for your country? Does your own life really lack any importance away from belief in an supposed supernatural?

Eventually this universe will end. Of what value are such things without God?

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said... Individuals like MMC2 refuse to even consider Pascals wager. The point I am trying to convey is why the Wager is of utmost importance to consider. More important in fact than anything else in ones life.

Does that mean you did not attach any value to your service for your country? Does your own life really lack any importance away from belief in an supposed supernatural?

Eventually this universe will end. Of what value are such things without God?
expand
Not a restatement of the wager.

but now apparently:

The point I am trying to convey is why the Wager is of utmost importance to consider.

Make yer mind up!

And the same objections stand.

Eventually this universe will end. Of what value are such things without God?

This is just an argument for your deity giving you a sense of comfort. Fair enough; but that does not mean one necessarily exists just because you fervently believe so, or indeed even that you follow the right one.

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

filmflaneur said...
Not a restatement of the wager.

but now apparently:

The point I am trying to convey is why the Wager is of utmost importance to consider.

Make yer mind up!

And the same objections stand.

Eventually this universe will end. Of what value are such things without God?

This is just an argument for your deity giving you a sense of comfort. Fair enough; but that does not mean one necessarily exists just because you fervently believe so, or indeed even that you follow the right one.
expand
This is just an argument for your deity giving you a sense of comfort. Fair enough; but that does not mean one necessarily exists just because you fervently believe so, or indeed even that you follow the right one.

Answer the question.
Of what value?

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Agnosticism is the most logical position.

Soul_Venom said...
This is just an argument for your deity giving you a sense of comfort. Fair enough; but that does not mean one necessarily exists just because you fervently believe so, or indeed even that you follow the right one.

Answer the question.
Of what value?
expand
Of what value are such things without God?

Sorry I thought before that you were just asking rhetorically..

Without a god (and as we know opinions differ) they would quite obviously all be of tremendous value. I hope that helps.

I would certainly not love my kith and kin any less, even if it was possible, which you seem to be suggesting if your deity exists. But then I am not on the team willing to sacrifice a child if it is thought God commands by a way of proving something to His satisfaction, am I? (Abram and Isaac Genesis 22:1 etc) This uncomfortable affair (arguably the birth of religious extremism) is the logical result of someone valuing the supposed requirements of the supernatural over loved ones, and common humanity, as you apparently do. You know, like when JC says "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. " ?

I hope that helps.

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Debunked: The Atheist Delusion

Either there is no God in which case everything is meaningless and all will eventually succumb to entropy and the heat death of the universe. Or. There is. And if there is then everything has an eternal importance…..Again I say, nothing is more important than knowing.

You are so full of deluded and rhetorical bullshit, I don't even get what you are attempting to defend except your ignorance. A venomous soul trannie like you is going nowhere but to hell regardless…..

You are a flawed separatist thinker. To believe in a man made religious God that is away from you and of which there is NO evidence, and only based on bogus human belief and delusion, is the first fallacy of your argument.

All belief/knowledge will drop away upon physical death of body, because none of it was real to begin with.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Debunked: The Atheist Delusion

At least I don't have oxygen deprived brain damage from sucking too much dick. Faggot.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Debunked: The Atheist Delusion

You just have an oxygen deprived brain damage, from your aberrant trannie disorder. Freak!

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Debunked: The Atheist Delusion

You have oxygen deprived brain damage from sucking too much dick. Faggot.

Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Debunked: The Atheist Delusion

You have oxygen deprived brain damage from being a pervert. Trannie.

Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Debunked: The Atheist Delusion




Beware the sound of one hand clapping.

Debunked: The Atheist Delusion



Norman! What did you put in my tea?

Debunked: The Atheist Delusion



😺 Schrodinger's Cat walks into a bar, and doesn't. 🤨 Let's go, Brandon! 🤨 Try that in a small town.

Debunked: The Atheist Delusion

Your Jesus must be proud of you.

I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.
Top