There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

I
I don't have an answer, however, there is no archeology evidence to suggest that there has ever been a global flood, so my guess would be that the flood was either allegorical or supernatural.

The Euphrates overflowed in 2900 BC the flood is attested

Sumerians soon after developed mythology about a king Ziusudra who went down the swollen river on a barge loaded with livestock and goods who landed nect to a hill and made a sacrifice.

Soon after the Akkadians had their river flood mythology, based on this account.

Soon after Mesopotamia had their sea deluge based on these previous versions.

Long after the Israelites turned this sea deluge into a global flood.


You are correct it was allegory.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If you can't see how a fictional character from a fictional movie answers the question, then the larger questions regarding religion will be forever beyond your grasp. You have to be able to fully and indiscriminately integrate fantasy into reality in order for religion to make any kind of sense.

Ah okay. Yeah, that's gonna be a problem for me.

 

[outhouse]

you believe that God is a farce.

.

That is an ignorant statement, no god was a farce.

They were very important concepts that evolved from previous religions.

Its the context of the time period when these stories originates that is foreign to you. They believed and lived mythology because it was all they had to try and survive with.

Mythology is not somthing that means fictional. It is something these people used and lived by as a means to cope with constant death and destruction.

 

[Serenity7855]

No, the question was not answered. You cannot comprehend what has not been offered.

How can a child be wicked?

I have answered it here.

With your perspective of the finality of life, you cannot possibly understand the principles behind this story. Unless you are capable of conceptualising the ability of a child, at that time and in that God forsaken place, to be corrupted at a very early age, you will never be able to conceive the sheer morality in taking the spirit from the body, and placing the spirit child safely into the highest Kingdom of heaven to be cared for. You just cannot comprehend this because you have not been blessed with the knowledge that there even is a heaven where the majority of us will end up. That in that place there are many mansions where God will find a place for each and everyone of us. That the happiness found in the kingdom where those children will reside is incomprehensible to our understanding, therefore, you can not see the benefits of the child taken out of such corruption as you would naturally think, better a bad life then no life at all and nothing at death. You simply cannot see it, but you do not have to. You are an atheist. You do not believe in the bible. You, therefore, do not have to believe in a flood where children and animals perished. It is all irrelevant to you and only really pertains to us Christians, who believe it. So, you have no ground on which to debate something that is a fallacy to you. Just put it down to Christian essentricity.

Well, no need to fret any more. The story is contained in the bible. You do not believe in the bible and it's stories so from your perspective it never happened. It is only relevant to Christians as they have an eternal perspective so can fully understand the principles involved, whereas, you think that the grave is the end of us. So, take a chill pill and leave us with our belief.

 

[Serenity7855]

If you can't see how a fictional character from a fictional movie answers the question, then the larger questions regarding religion will be forever beyond your grasp. You have to be able to fully and indiscriminately integrate fantasy into reality in order for religion to make any kind of sense.

I am not sure how serious you are but from the perspective of an atheists you are absolutely right.

 

[outhouse]

Unless you are capable of conceptualising the ability of a child, at that time and in that God forsaken place, to be corrupted at a very early age,

.

No child was corrupt, no amount of reason can be found or used to justify or substantiate that statement.

you will never be able to conceive the sheer morality in taking the spirit from the body, and placing the spirit child safely into the highest Kingdom of heaven to be cared for.

it amazes me at the ignorance one would have to possess, to think that murder is better then life.

To gamble with a life not yours, does not cut. If your wrong it would be nothing but cold blooded murder.

And to date souls do not exist. Nor do places where people go and are cared for, they are dead. Stone cold dead.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have answered it here.

With your perspective of the finality of life, you cannot possibly understand the principles behind this story. Unless you are capable of conceptualising the ability of a child, at that time and in that God forsaken place, to be corrupted at a very early age, you will never be able to conceive the sheer morality in taking the spirit from the body, and placing the spirit child safely into the highest Kingdom of heaven to be cared for. You just cannot comprehend this because you have not been blessed with the knowledge that there even is a heaven where the majority of us will end up. That in that place there are many mansions where God will find a place for each and everyone of us. That the happiness found in the kingdom where those children will reside is incomprehensible to our understanding, therefore, you can not see the benefits of the child taken out of such corruption as you would naturally think, better a bad life then no life at all and nothing at death. You simply cannot see it, but you do not have to. You are an atheist. You do not believe in the bible. You, therefore, do not have to believe in a flood where children and animals perished. It is all irrelevant to you and only really pertains to us Christians, who believe it. So, you have no ground on which to debate something that is a fallacy to you. Just put it down to Christian essentricity.

Well, no need to fret any more. The story is contained in the bible. You do not believe in the bible and it's stories so from your perspective it never happened. It is only relevant to Christians as they have an eternal perspective so can fully understand the principles involved, whereas, you think that the grave is the end of us. So, take a chill pill and leave us with our belief.

So, your justification for thinking that children can be considered wicked is "You'll never understand, so there"?

Instead of being incredibly patronizing, maybe you can actually try giving a straight answer to the question. Or, if you like, how about another question:

Can a child (let's say, two years and younger) be deserving of eternal punishment and, if so, how is that justified?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I am not sure how serious you are but from the perspective of an atheists you are absolutely right.

You are not capable of assessing anything from the perspective of atheists, so you cannot assert that you know or understand anything from an atheistic point of view.

See, we can pull that trick as well.

 

[Serenity7855]

No child was corrupt, no amount of reason can be found or used to justify or substantiate that statement.

You are wrong.

it amazes me at the ignorance one would have to possess, to think that murder is better then life.

I agree, however, they knew the consequences of their actions but still they did nothing to save the lives of those children.

To gamble with a life not yours, does not cut. If your wrong it would be nothing but cold blooded murder.

It is tantamount to cold blooded murder, however, they were a wicked and corrupted people.

And to date souls do not exist. Nor do places where people go and are cared for, they are dead. Stone cold dead.

We will see. If not then it will be a bonus for you, momentarily.

 

[Serenity7855]

So, your justification for thinking that children can be considered wicked is "You'll never understand, so there"?

Instead of being incredibly patronizing, maybe you can actually try giving a straight answer to the question. Or, if you like, how about another question:

Can a child (let's say, two years and younger) be deserving of eternal punishment and, if so, how is that justified?

The question you ask indicates that you have mis-understood what I have said. In accordance with the plan of salvation there will be no children recieving eternal domination. Not one, and nowhere in any of my post have I made that suggestion.

 

[Serenity7855]

You are not capable of assessing anything from the perspective of atheists, so you cannot assert that you know or understand anything from an atheistic point of view.

That is true?

See, we can pull that trick as well.

It is not a trick, it is true. I can guess but I really do not know for a surety.

BANG - sorry, a car Backfired outside!!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The question you ask indicates that you have mis-understood what I have said. In accordance with the plan of salvation there will be no children recieving eternal domination. Not one, and nowhere in any of my post have I made that suggestion.

My question makes no assumptions about your position - it merely asks you to give it. Do you believe a child under the age of two can be deserving of eternal punishment? Yes or no?

That is true?

Personally, no. I don't believe that is true. But if you can refuse to answer a straightforward question on the basis that we, as atheists, cannot comprehend the answer from a Christian perspective, I don't see how it is anything other than hypocrisy for you to assert that you understand an atheist's perspective despite not being one. The door swings both ways. Either we're going to be reasonable people and discuss the matter with the assumption that each party is capable of understanding the other, or we can patronize and talk over each other and completely avoid any possibility of coming to any kind of mutual understanding.

I think the former seems more productive. Don't you?

 

[outhouse]

You are wrong.

No you are.

But back and forth does nothing to educate your shortcomings were.

Children are innocent, and not one died because it is mythology

I agree, however, they knew the consequences of their actions but still they did nothing to save the lives of those children.

Wrong, it is mythology and you are trying to argue something that never happened.

No children were lost.

It is tantamount to cold blooded murder, however, they were a wicked and corrupted people.

Wrong. Just because someone set up examples, primitive examples at that, doesn't mean they were corrupt.

Its obvious to me you miss many points focusing on literal interpretation.

These towns were allegory for oral traditions of memories of the whole, city VS agricultural life. And the hostilities herders faced bringing their livestock near villages and how they were not welcome.

 

[outhouse]

they were a wicked and corrupted people.



.

Glad you think murder and genocide is appropriate instead of helping those who need moral corrections


Who are you to judge what is or is not good for people?



Are you getting a clue yet, it is better to think for yourself, then let a book think for you?

 

[Serenity7855]

My question makes no assumptions about your position - it merely asks you to give it. Do you believe a child under the age of two can be deserving of eternal punishment? Yes or no?

No. But "no" is not a complete answer. The children of Sodom and Gomorrah would not be eternally punished. No child, who dies before the age of accountability, regardless, will ever receive eternal punishment, so your question is a non sequitur.

Personally, no. I don't believe that is true. But if you can refuse to answer a straightforward question on the basis that we, as atheists, cannot comprehend the answer from a Christian perspective, I don't see how it is anything other than hypocrisy for you to assert that you understand an atheist's perspective despite not being one. The door swings both ways.

it goes without saying that if you do not believe the door is their then you would not reach to open it. It has nothing to do with my understanding of Atheists or Atheism. It is sagaciousness, even common sense that dictates that if you do not believe the bible is authentic then you will not believe that a global flood took place. Surely that is a given.

Either we're going to be reasonable people and discuss the matter with the assumption that each party is capable of understanding the other, or we can patronize and talk over each other and completely avoid any possibility of coming to any kind of mutual understanding.

I think the former seems more productive. Don't you?

I believe that I have been more than reasonable. I have tried several times to clarify the point I am trying to make. You, and other atheists here, either cannot grasp the concept of what I am trying to say, indicating that you are having problems with the conceptualisation of the explanation given, or you simply do not wish to accept it, as it would invalidate your argument. Either way, my explanation of the inability to comprehend what I am saying must, I feel, be because of the impossibility of visualising a concept that is alien to you.

Yes, I do believe the former would be more productive. Perhaps you and the other atheists here could indulge us.

 

[McBell]

So, take a chill pill and leave us with our belief.

Really?
What happened?
YOU started this thread by throwing yur beliefs out on the table and then declaring you can scientifically prove to someone who already believes in god that god exists.

Now if you honestly wanted to be left alone about your belief, why would you start a thread like the OP?

Seems to me you are trying to deny holding a brush...

Perhaps you would have fared better in the Christian Sanctuary?

 

[McBell]

Perhaps you and the other atheists here could indulge us.

You reap what you sow.

You go to great lengths to avoid answering direct questions without a safety net.

One wonders if you are trying to convince yourself of your faith...

 

[Bunyip]

Again, that is your judgement of me and that is fine, it is your right. I know different



Yes I did, and that is because I have been here dozens of times with other anti-theists. The behavior is predictable and expected, but more than that, it is dishonest. It turns a amicable and constructive discussion into a farce where trickery provides false reasoning created to distract from the original topic.

Buddy, find where you left your wits and your manners and address the person you are responding to instead of making asinine statememts about atheists in general or some other unnamed atheists you pretend to have conflicted with in the past.

Note how the others here address YOU, and never theists in general, other unnamed theists online, 'militant theists' and so on.

That you cannot perceive a society that has been so badly corrupted by Satan having children running around like Regan then you obviously have no ability to reason scenarios out in your mind.

No mate, I can not imagine a scenario where all of the children in two cities are like the character Reagan in the Exorcist - that is because I am sane.

I genuinely do not feel persecuted, although anti-theists do persecute Christians. My testimony of God is strong enough to ward off the fiery darts of Satan. I genuinely believe that there is a small group of individuals within the larger group of atheists who are called either militant atheists or anti-theists. I am aware of them when I debate and find myself trying to be accurate in my spelling and grammar, as they use that is their ad hominem attacks, and I make sure that I have worded everything as accurately as I can because they dissect and discredit in an instant.

Awwwwww......yes yes you poor dear, the nasty militant atheists are all out to get you.

Look out! Behind you! It's a militant atheist - you know, one of those evil monsters who run about the place militantly not believing in things at random!

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

There are two ways to engage in a debate or discussion:

Lets say that Jack makes point 'A'.

Approach 1: Well Jack, I disagree with 'A' because..........

Approach 2: Typically comment from a [insert whatever group or percieved group you wish, I'll call them 'Blues']! In all my years of debating genius I get so sick of dishonest and unreasonable Blues hurling insults and eating babies. You horrible Blues don't have the intellectual honesty - I would answer 'A', but Blues like you wouldn't understand the answer and so it is not worth it (etc etc, whine, bleat, complain ad nauseum.).......

I suggest that you change tactics and try option 1.

 

[Serenity7855]

Serenity

There are two ways to engage in a debate or discussion:

Lets say that Jack makes point 'A'.

Approach 1: Well Jack, I disagree with 'A' because..........

Approach 2: Typically comment from a [insert whatever group or percieved group you wish, I'll call them 'Blues']! In all my years of debating genius I get so sick of dishonest and unreasonable Blues hurling insults and eating babies. You horrible Blues don't have the intellectual honesty - I would answer 'A', but Blues like you wouldn't understand the answer and so it is not worth it (etc etc, whine, bleat, complain ad nauseum.).......

I suggest that you change tactics and try option 1.

May I suggest that you get over your obsession with my style of debate and start debating the point and not me. I am not the subject of debate. Atheists were mentioned in the OP, so they can be considered fodder for debate, but my person is NOT the subject of debate.