To persist in supporting ancient myths in the face of irrefutable physical evidence that the mythical events did not occur shows a shocking disregard for truth.
Consider the meteor of the time of the demise of the dinosaurs: an Iridium-rich layer, dateable to that time, is found everywhere in the world.
No such traces are found for Noah's flood, which should have left obvious signs of devastation. Further,several sophisticated societies continued...
I gather that the shape on Mt Ararat has been debunked. Anyhow, a global flood would leave global traces. There are none, so no such flood.
No amount of intellectual tap dancing can rescue Genesis. To me, the whole thing looks like a ploy by clerics to inflict morbid guilt and dependence on the...
It doesn't seem odd at all. People necessarily live near water and so are likely to have folk tales about floods.
In any case, a global flood as recent as the Noachian one would leave easily-detected traces. None such are found, therefore no such flood happened. Reality does trump myth, after...
However, there is no evidence that the Genesis account is more than an ancient folk tale. I don't think you are justified in arguing from a story that may very well not have happened at all.
Genesis is a very powerful part of the Great Scam of the clerics, though.
What spark? The difference between living and non-living things is the arrangements of their parts. "Elan vitale" thinking is so nineteenth century.
I see no reason to consider writing religious experiences off as delusion to be foolish. We are all human and subject to the same mental quirks...
Scientific hypotheses have the advantage of being backed up by our knowledge of physics and chemistry, and by observations. At least some of the constraints around these explanations are pretty well known. We don't yet know if detailed explanations are unobtainable; people are working hard on...
to msiamcanadian:
That's nice for you. However, I would like to know how you determine whether what you experience is actually what you interpret it as. As you present it, your account is unconvincing.
Quality and consistency of personal experiences surely tells us something, I agree. The question is what it tells us something about; something supernatural or something about human psychology? The big problem is how to tell which it is.
If a proposition cannot be, or has not yet been, verified...
Religions offers quite a lot. The problem is that almost none of what it offers can be verified. Consequently, it falls into the category of "made up stuff".
The situation is like escaping from a bear: I don't have to run faster than the bear, I just have to run faster then you.
If theists cannot present a convincing case for their position, there is no work left for atheists to do.
Bah, more word salad. Consciousness, as usually understood, is clearly a process. You are using the word in some other sense. How about making that sense clear? Or, better yet, using a more suitable word?
If all things are changing, they are still changing even if there no thing that does not...
No, those are not homeopathy. Homeopathy involves using substances diluted into nonexistence, based on a silly "like cures like" theory.
New age woo: non-mainstream superstition used to support obvious scams.