Hitchen's Challange

[SkepticThinker]

Earth to SkepticThinker, earth to SkepticThinker, come in SkepticThinker? Houston, I think we have a problem!

Okay, you're not following, I guess.

Do you think slavery is "as pertinent and valid as it was from 3,500 years ago, as it is today?"
You said that the Bible is those things and slavery is in that Bible so ....


Remember, this is the post we are discussing:

"Love was the same love, and for all the same reasons all throughout history, as was hate, compassion, altruism, charity, avarice and lasciviousness. Nothing has changed as far as the heart of man is concerned. Therefore, the Bible is as pertinent and valid as it was from 3,500 years ago, as it is today."

 

[Audie]

Okay, you're not following, I guess.

Do you think slavery is "as pertinent and valid as it was from 3,500 years ago, as it is today?"
You said that the Bible is those things and slavery is in that Bible so ....


Remember, this is the post we are discussing:

"Love was the same love, and for all the same reasons all throughout history, as was hate, compassion, altruism, charity, avarice and lasciviousness. Nothing has changed as far as the heart of man is concerned. Therefore, the Bible is as pertinent and valid as it was from 3,500 years ago, as it is today."

The " therefore" is a bit shakey.

 

[DNB]

Nope. No confusion here. Though your odd conclusion from evidence is no doubt
quite telling.

It's called perception and insight. The capability to read between the lines, and draw accurate inductions. Faith is tantamount to wisdom, and antithetical to credulity.
Atheists lack faith, because they lack wisdom.

 

[Audie]

It's called perception and insight. The capability to read between the lines, and draw accurate inductions. Faith is tantamount to wisdom, and antithetical to credulity.
Atheists lack faith, because they lack wisdom.

Call it whatever you like but belief in
a literal worldwide flood identifies who
lacks the capacity to derive an accurate conclusion.

 

[DNB]

I know the story.

Its not an "atheist" thing to know there was no flood. Error # one on your part. Educated Christians are aware that it did not happen.
As are all educated people.

Its the flood believers who need to open their eyes, so you got that backwards.

" Compels the insightful".
Time is of course wasted pointing out
contrary facts to those incapable of learning.
Ansorbing new info and gaining insight is denied to those so afflicted

So you got the insight thing backwards, the capable of
learning backwards, but are spot on with " compelled".
A good insight, that. Consider well what it says of the
thinking process, of by what exactly it is that you
are thus compelled to believe contrary to fact.

Choosing a certain reading for personals a self indulgent, not a rational act.

The physical proof that no flood ever occurred is so extensive, so obvious, so thoroughly
demonstrated by details minute, subtle, and
grand scale that to claim flood anyway is not
the action of an insightful person, to say the least.

Nor is it sensible to think one knows more about
physical science
than every researcher on earth, that all of their relevant data is false.

I forget the author of the quote, but it was yo the effect that " to dismiss something you know nothing about is the height of foolishness"

Shall we guess that you will seek to turn
this around on me rather than hazard any insight, and will not by any means consider
learning the proof that no flood occurred?

One lil thought- Would, in your estimation,
the God you worship be pleased with you for
promoting the image of him as the sort of
monster who would drown the whole world?

Like I said in another post, certain scientists have concluded that there was a global flood. So, now we have academia against academia. Stale mate, so what's left - like I said, one must understand the circumstances around the initiation of the flood, and the warnings that preceded it.?

Yes, of course, God would be extremely pleased with my espousal of God as a sovereign, transcendent and holy entity, that abhors wickedness, and who, therefore, exacts judgment on those who cause evil and show contempt for Him and His creation.

 

[DNB]

Okay, you're not following, I guess.

Do you think slavery is "as pertinent and valid as it was from 3,500 years ago, as it is today?"
You said that the Bible is those things and slavery is in that Bible so ....


Remember, this is the post we are discussing:

"Love was the same love, and for all the same reasons all throughout history, as was hate, compassion, altruism, charity, avarice and lasciviousness. Nothing has changed as far as the heart of man is concerned. Therefore, the Bible is as pertinent and valid as it was from 3,500 years ago, as it is today."

Ok, you're not following, I guess?
According to the Bible, the Mosaic Law was abrogated with the inception of the advent of Christ.

 

[ppp]

Like I said in another post, certain scientists have concluded that there was a global flood.

Yeah, but you could say that about a flat earth. Or ancient aliens building the pyramids. Or the Force. Literally. No hyperbole.

What matters is whether their work has been repeated, peer reviewed and accepted by the consensus of 'scientists' in the relevant field(s).

 

[Audie]

Like I said in another post, certain scientists have concluded that there was a global flood. So, now we have academia against academia. Stale mate, so what's left - like I said, one must understand the circumstances around the initiation of the flood, and the warnings that preceded it.?

Yes, of course, God would be extremely pleased with my espousal of God as a sovereign, transcendent and holy entity, that abhors wickedness, and who, therefore, exacts judgment on those who cause evil and show contempt for Him and His creation.

Here is an example of your svirntists:
Dr K Wise, with a PhD in paleontology

" ....even if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yec, i would still be yec because
that is what the bible seems to say "

Perhaps you have the insight to recognize intellectual dishonesty.

There is no "academia v academia"

 

[ppp]

Ok, you're not following, I guess?
According to the Bible, the Mosaic Law was abrogated with the inception of the advent of Christ.

Nope. According to the Bible the sacrificial and ceremonial laws were abrogated with the inception of the advent of Christ. Otherwise, not a jot or damned tittle will be scrogged until dirt and sky are history, bruh.

 

[Audie]

Ok, you're not following, I guess?
According to the Bible, the Mosaic Law was abrogated with the inception of the advent of Christ.

You are the one who spoke of 3500 years.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, but you could say that about a flat earth. Or ancient aliens building the pyramids. Or the Force. Literally. No hyperbole.

What matters is whether their work has been repeated, peer reviewed and accepted by the consensus of 'scientists' in the relevant field(s).

And among other things proved that all ice core work is bogus.

 

[lukethethird]

Like I said in another post, certain scientists have concluded that there was a global flood. So, now we have academia against academia. Stale mate, so what's left - like I said, one must understand the circumstances around the initiation of the flood, and the warnings that preceded it.?

These certain scientists you mention better not give up their day job.

Yes, of course, God would be extremely pleased with my espousal of God as a sovereign, transcendent and holy entity, that abhors wickedness, and who, therefore, exacts judgment on those who cause evil and show contempt for Him and His creation.

Yes, I read the story, but where did you come in to play?

 

[ppp]

And among other things proved that all ice core work is bogus.

Well, yeah. That too.

 

[DNB]

Call it whatever you like but belief in
a literal worldwide flood identifies who
lacks the capacity to derive an accurate conclusion.

...I also believe in the talking snake in the Garden of Eden. Just for the record. I can't quite explain it, but I believe that the layout and structure are literal. As to how the snake spoke, I can only speculate that there was a spiritual being behind it (part of the heavenly council).

 

[DNB]

Yeah, but you could say that about a flat earth. Or ancient aliens building the pyramids. Or the Force. Literally. No hyperbole.

What matters is whether their work has been repeated, peer reviewed and accepted by the consensus of 'scientists' in the relevant field(s).

Unless you equally are a scientist, and can understand the dialogue either in defense of, or against the assertion of a global flood, such an endeavour is futile.

 

[Audie]

...I also believe in the talking snake in the Garden of Eden. Just for the record. I can't quite explain it, but I believe that the layout and structure are literal. As to how the snake spoke, I can only speculate that there was a spiritual being behind it (part of the heavenly council).

You font need to say more, I already get the idea how you process info

 

[lukethethird]

You font need to say more, I already get the idea how you process info

No filter.

 

[DNB]

Here is an example of your svirntists:
Dr K Wise, with a PhD in paleontology

" ....even if all the evidence in the universe
turned against yec, i would still be yec because
that is what the bible seems to say "

Perhaps you have the insight to recognize intellectual dishonesty.

There is no "academia v academia"

You may lack insight as to what Dr. Wise meant by that. Faith is also acquired, to the point that it may still believe despite the immediate evidence.
Knowing someone all your life as one who is an honest person, despite what rumours that you may suddenly hear about them, will not undermine your faith. You are not being in denial, but it is your understanding of that person, or how that evidence can be misleading, compels you to deny the claims against them.

 

[DNB]

Nope. According to the Bible the sacrificial and ceremonial laws were abrogated with the inception of the advent of Christ. Otherwise, not a jot or damned tittle will be scrogged until dirt and sky are history, bruh.

The advent of Christ as Messiah, seated at the right-hand of God.
After he fulfilled the Law, he qualified to be the final sacrifice, allowing God to abolish the Law's enactment.
It was only after that, that he reigns as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

 

[Audie]

You may lack insight as to what Dr. Wise meant by that. Faith is also acquired, to the point that it may still believe despite the immediate evidence.
Knowing someone all your life as one who is an honest person, despite what rumours that you may suddenly hear about them, will not undermine your faith. You are not being in denial, but it is your understanding of that person, or how that evidence can be misleading, compels you to deny the claims against them.

Cannot even identify the most blatant
Intellectual dishonesty.
Enough.