# How Archaeology Disproves Noah's Flood



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)




----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 5, 2019)

I didn’t click on it. 
But I’m glad they know everything. 

I heard through the grapevine he was the only one to collect on his flood insurance!??????


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> I didn’t click on it.
> But I’m glad they know everything.
> 
> I heard through the grapevine he was the only one to collect on his flood insurance!??????


Collect from who? Lololol?‍


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> I didn’t click on it.
> But I’m glad they know everything.
> 
> I heard through the grapevine he was the only one to collect on his flood insurance!??????



He doesn't claim to know everything. There is only one group here who claims to have omniscience on their side.

Nice straw man though.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 5, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> He doesn't claim to know everything. There is only one group here who claims to have omniscience on their side.
> 
> Nice straw man though.


Is that a pic of one of the Archaeologist ?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 5, 2019)

*1 Corinthians 1*_ 
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong._

So, there.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 5, 2019)

You know what else is "_foolish wisdom of the world_"?  Penicillin.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 5, 2019)

Why is it that if someone tries to use science to prove the Ark story then that's good and proper science and we should take it as proof, but in any other instance it's "The foolishness of the World"?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Why is it that if someone tries to use science to prove the Ark story then that's good and proper science and we should take it as proof, but in any other instance it's "The foolishness of the World"?



Because


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 5, 2019)

OK the great flood was a myth !


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Jun 5, 2019)

It is possible to disprove a 17th century religious writer's calculation of the date of the "Flood," Bishop Usher's dating was dismissed by most religious scholars as early as the middle 19th century.  More difficult is proving that a significant flood event affecting much of the Middle East, especially the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, did NOT occur.

Fact is, many non-Hebrew tales, "histories," founding myths, and legends also recount a time of great flood. The current school of thought among real scientists is that the story of "Noah's flood" is a retelling of stories that predate the reign of David in Jerusalem (when the first written collections that later became the Jewish Holy Books were being written) and are likely based on an actual flood event!

So the Flood is not a myth, archaeology does NOT disprove Noah's Flood, and the Bible is not a fairy tale.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

GeorgiaBob said:


> It is possible to disprove a 17th century religious writer's calculation of the date of the "Flood," Bishop Usher's dating was dismissed by most religious scholars as early as the middle 19th century.  More difficult is proving that a significant flood event affecting much of the Middle East, especially the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, did NOT occur.
> 
> Fact is, many non-Hebrew tales, "histories," founding myths, and legends also recount a time of great flood. The current school of thought among real scientists is that the story of "Noah's flood" is a retelling of stories that predate the reign of David in Jerusalem (when the first written collections that later became the Jewish Holy Books were being written) and are likely based on an actual flood event!
> 
> So the Flood is not a myth, archaeology does NOT disprove Noah's Flood, and the Bible is not a fairy tale.



So where does that leave the Noah story of the bible if it was just a local flood?


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Jun 5, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> So where does that leave the Noah story of the bible if it was just a local flood?



It leaves the "Noah Story" as a recounting of a part of the history of a people who believed in one Creator God, celebrated their relationship with the Divine, honored their ancestors, counted upon the grace of God to help them overcome adversity, and recorded their experience in a collection of books they (and about 3 billion people alive today) believe are inspired by that one God.

While the scribes (theologians of their era) of David's court, and the Priests and Scribes of Solomon's court, may not have been as informed as modern physicists, astronomers or geologists, and their world view may be considered "limited" by today's standards, these were educated people who tried to get it right. They believed the works they composed, copied, transcribed, or edited were inspired by God even though they did NOT then consider their books Holy works.


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 5, 2019)

It has always amazed me that the great lengths of trouble non-believers will go to, just to try to cast doubt in believers . What do you have to gain by doing this ? I promise you will not be lonely where your going. What do you get out of it ?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

GeorgiaBob said:


> It leaves the "Noah Story" as a recounting of a part of the history of a people who believed in one Creator God, celebrated their relationship with the Divine, honored their ancestors, counted upon the grace of God to help them overcome adversity, and recorded their experience in a collection of books they (and about 3 billion people alive today) believe are inspired by that one God.
> 
> While the scribes (theologians of their era) of David's court, and the Priests and Scribes of Solomon's court, may not have been as informed as modern physicists, astronomers or geologists, and their world view may be considered "limited" by today's standards, these were educated people who tried to get it right. They believed the works they composed, copied, transcribed, or edited were inspired by God even though they did NOT then consider their books Holy works.



Are you saying the bible is not the inerrant word of god?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 5, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> It has always amazed me that the great lengths of trouble non-believers will go to, just to try to cast doubt in believers . What do you have to gain by doing this ? I promise you will not be lonely where your going. What do you get out of it ?



I've seen Christians go to great lengths to prove Biblical things by science as well.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> It has always amazed me that the great lengths of trouble non-believers will go to, just to try to cast doubt in believers . What do you have to gain by doing this ? I promise you will not be lonely where your going. What do you get out of it ?



Does it matter if people hold beliefs that are true or false? Does it matter how people come to their conclusions about what is true or false?


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 5, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've seen Christians go to great lengths to prove Biblical things by science as well.


But they are trying to help you save your soul. What do get out of trying to prove them wrong ?


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 5, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Does it matter if people hold beliefs that are true or false? Does it matter how people come to their conclusions about what is true or false?


So your out to save the world then ? If not...what do you get out of trying to take their beliefs and religion from them ?


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 5, 2019)

A hit dog hollers don't he ?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> So your out to save the world then ? If not...what do you get out of trying to take their beliefs and religion from them ?



You think I'm trying to save the world by challenging religious dogma on a hunting forum?  I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone. Why are you bothered so much by having something you know to be true challenged with facts and evidence? Why should that not be of extreme interest to you? Why is it of greater concern to you whether people hold a belief than whether that belief is actually true or not?


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 5, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> You think I'm trying to save the world by challenging religious dogma on a hunting forum?  I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone. Why are you bothered so much by having something you know to be true challenged with facts and evidence? Why should that not be of extreme interest to you? Why is it of greater concern to you whether people hold a belief than whether that belief is actually true or not?


So, answer my question instead of asking me others. What do you get out of it ?? . I promise you I am not bothered. I belive the word I used was amazed. Now please answer the question. No diversions.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

GeorgiaBob said:


> It leaves the "Noah Story" as a recounting of a part of the history of a people who believed in one Creator God, celebrated their relationship with the Divine, honored their ancestors, counted upon the grace of God to help them overcome adversity, and recorded their experience in a collection of books they (and about 3 billion people alive today) believe are inspired by that one God.
> 
> While the scribes (theologians of their era) of David's court, and the Priests and Scribes of Solomon's court, may not have been as informed as modern physicists, astronomers or geologists, and their world view may be considered "limited" by today's standards, these were educated people who tried to get it right. They believed the works they composed, copied, transcribed, or edited were inspired by God even though they did NOT then consider their books Holy works.



Let's look at it in a bit more detail.

Genesis 6
6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

^Can this be achieved with a local flood?

Genesis 6
13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

^Does a local flood between the Euphrates and Tigris river put an end to "all people"?

Genesis 6
17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

^Does all live under the heavens reside only between the Tigris and Euphrates? What about the life on the rest of the earth? How will "Everything on earth" perish from a local flood?

Genesis 6
19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

^ Why bother doing this for a local flood that only impacts a relatively tiny part of the earth?

Genesis 7
4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

^Does this include kangaroos and koalas and grizzly bears? Are they not living creatures he made? How are they in danger if this is just a local flood in the middle east?

Genesis 7
16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

^Does this include species not found in the middle east? That's been the traditional understanding no? How can believers who got this word from god and who are in constant communication with god get it so wrong on a detail like this? And if it doesn't include those species from other parts of the earth then it wasn't really male and female of every living thing was it?

Genesis 7
19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

^Is Mount Everest a high mountain under the heavens? What part of the earth exactly do the heavens not cover? Where is that boundary?

Genesis 7
21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

^How did a local flood in the middle east achieve this?

Genesis 8
21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

^How can he vow to never again to destroy all living creatures if he didn't do it in the first place? Was he lying to himself? Was he just unaware of the people living in other parts of the world at this time? And if he was just vowing to never again destroy part of humanity with a local flood hasn't that promise been broken many times over?

Genesis 9
15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.

^ Same question as above. A local flood in mesopotamia would no more destroy all life than the 2004 tsunami destroyed all life. So which was it?

Genesis 9
19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the whole earth.

^ Sure seems to indicate everyone but Noah and his family were killed around the entire planet. If that wasn't the case then this scripture is a lie.


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 5, 2019)

What do you get out of it ? Simple question.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> So, answer my question instead of asking me others. What do you get out of it ?? . I promise you I am not bothered. I belive the word I used was amazed. Now please answer the question. No diversions.



Answer mine and I'll answer yours. This is a give and take conversation, not an interrogation. You're in no position to dictate terms to me demanding answers while not offering any of your own.


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 5, 2019)

I asked you a very simple question that requires absolutely no research, only honesty.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

Oh and I'm particularly interested to know if you even bothered to watch the video and consider any of the content and if not why? This guy is challenging the truth claims of a biblical story with fact after fact. Either he is wrong or the bible is wrong. If you're confident that the bible is right why would you not welcome the challenge so that it could be handled in convincing terms?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> I asked you a very simple question that requires absolutely no research, only honesty.



And I answered it although it seems to have gone right by you. If you aren't going to answer my questions in turn then you may as well go elsewhere.


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 5, 2019)

i will go where I please . No you didn't answer.   What do you get out of it ?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> i will go where I please .  What do you get out of it ?



Sure but you won't get the results you want. I told you before this isn't a one way interrogation. If you want to have a conversation I'm game. If you want to ignore my questions while demanding I answer yours then you're not going to get very far.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

Notice the responses we have had so far.

1. A straw man claim that the man in the video purports to know everything.

2. The biblical story of Noah doesn't really mean what it says and what it was traditionally understood by believers to mean.

3. A complete refusal to address the content of the video or my questions or the truth claims of the story instead questioning my motives for "taking away people's beliefs".

So far not a single believer has actually addressed the content of the videos.

Imagine if someone challenged the veracity of some piece of history such as the holocaust? Are these the sort of responses that should be expected? A straw man that the person denying the holocaust happened thinks they know everything? Or asking what they get out of taking away peoples belief in the holocaust? The responses are as interesting as the challenge itself.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 5, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Sure but you won't get the results you want. I told you before this isn't a one way interrogation. If you want to have a conversation I'm game. If you want to ignore my questions while demanding I answer yours then you're not going to get very far.



Seems like it’s always- this is what you are doing...why are you doing it. 
They can never have an honest discussion because it alway has to start from their preconceived idea.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> So, answer my question instead of asking me others. What do you get out of it ?? . I promise you I am not bothered. I belive the word I used was amazed. Now please answer the question. No diversions.



And why does it amaze you that you would find people questioning the veracity of a biblical story in an apologetics forum?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 5, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Seems like it’s always- this is what you are doing...why are you doing it.
> They can never have an honest discussion because it alway has to start from their preconceived idea.



But it says a lot doesn't it? That they bend over backwards to not address the challenges. I mean if someone said dinosaurs were a myth and here are some factual pieces of evidence that show they couldn't have existed that would be fascinating. The last thing that would cross a person's mind is "why do you want to take away our belief in dinosaurs". Going immediately to that is a tacit admission that your belief is indefensible and you would rather not have it challenged at all. In which case, what the heck are you doing in an apologetics forum???


----------



## ky55 (Jun 5, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> But it says a lot doesn't it? That they bend over backwards to not address the challenges. I mean if someone said dinosaurs were a myth and here are some factual pieces of evidence that show they couldn't have existed that would be fascinating. The last thing that would cross a person's mind is "why do you want to take away our belief in dinosaurs". Going immediately to that is a tacit admission that your belief is indefensible and you would rather not have it challenged at all. In which case, what the heck are you doing in an apologetics forum???



Yes, it absolutely speaks volumes.
I think most of them have been indoctrinated into a system that expects and demands an automatic reverence for their beliefs, and when anything falls outside of that norm they just have no idea how to handle the difference.
Go back and look at some of SFD’s posts in this forum. He continues to make assertions than he can never even begin to support, and when he is asked to provide evidence and proof of those assertions he insults folks who have participated in the thread.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 6, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> It has always amazed me that the great lengths of trouble non-believers will go to, just to try to cast doubt in believers . What do you have to gain by doing this ? I promise you will not be lonely where your going. What do you get out of it ?


Great lengths?
This is a sub forum designed specifically for debate/discussion on this specific subject.
You came here, we didn't seek you out and drag you in.
Not sure you/believers voluntarily coming here constitutes us going to great lengths


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 6, 2019)

Its interesting that believers, in this case Christians, do EXACTLY the same thing amongst themselves as we are doing here -
Trinity vs. Non Trinity
Free will vs Predetermined
Baptist vs Catholic
Works vs.....
Elect vs............
100 other varying beliefs......
I guess those are just "discussions" but what WE do is going to great lengths to cast doubt on someones beliefs....


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> What do you get out of it ? Simple question.


Non Believers come here to discuss things that are in a book many of us used to believe in. We try to validate or refute the claims made in the book and by it's followers. We try to find evidence that backs up what the book says while providing evidence that also refutes it. If a believer wants to chime in with assertions and claims, is it too much to ask by us to expect them to back it up...especially if the claims center around "truth"?

See you in that place where we won't be lonely...


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 6, 2019)

I’ve watched similar shows to the one you posted. Didn’t watch that one yet. 
They maybe great shows with interesting facts. 
One fact remains with me. It was written during history that is recorded to the best that can be searched. 
Jesus was  executed by the state of Rome and he rose ? from the dead 3 days later. 
So it was written during a time when items of this nature was  documented. 
 Therefore I hold the rest of the book to be true as written and I know some was lost in  translation. 

I see all kind of  Science ? shows. About many topics. 
I enjoy watching most. Don’t watch much tv ? anymore. Don’t have time. 
Have a good day.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Non Believers come here to discuss things that are in a book many of us used to believe in. We try to validate or refute the claims made in the book and by it's followers. We try to find evidence that backs up what the book says while providing evidence that also refutes it. If a believer wants to chime in with assertions and claims, is it too much to ask by us to expect them to back it up...especially if the claims center around "truth"?
> 
> See you in that place where we won't be lonely...


 
I doubt any dead person experiences loneliness.

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”​Mark Twain


----------



## 660griz (Jun 6, 2019)

Started watching "Good Omens" on Amazon. Pretty funny.
Noah's Ark Scene. Conversation between a good angel and a demon angel(Crawley).

(Crawley)What's all this about?
  (Crawley)Build a big boat and fill it with a travelling zoo?
  From what I hear, God's a bit tetchy.
  Wiping out the human race.
  Big storm.
  (Crawley)All of them?
  Just the locals.
  I don't believe the Almighty's upset with the Chinese.
  Or the Native Americans.
  - Or the Australians.
- Yet.
  And God's not actually going to wipe out all the locals.
  I mean, Noah, up there, his family, and his sons, their wives,
  they're all going to be fine.
  (Crawley)But they're drowning everybody else?
  (Crawley)Not the kids? You can't kill kids.
  Mm-hmm.
  (Crawley)Well, that's more the kind of thing you'd expect my lot to do.
  Yes, but when it's done, the Almighty's going to put up
a new thing, called a "rain bow",  as a promise not to
drown everyone again.
  (Crawley)How kind.
  You can't judge the Almighty, Crawley.
  God's plans are
  (Crawley)Are you going to say "ineffable"?
  Possibly.
  (Crawley)Oy! Shem!
  (Crawley)That unicorn's going to make a run for it.
  (Crawley)Oh, it's too late. It's too late!
  (Crawley)Well, you've still got one of them.

Now you know why unicorns aren't around.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> I’ve watched similar shows to the one you posted. Didn’t watch that one yet.
> They maybe great shows with interesting facts.
> One fact remains with me. It was written during history that is recorded to the best that can be searched.
> Jesus was  executed by the state of Rome and he rose ? from the dead 3 days later.
> ...


Jesus rising from dead is documented nowhere but in writings that were written decades after he was put to death and by people who were not there.
Nobody ever recorded any of Jesus's events as they supposedly happened...it is as if they never happened outside of the bible.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Jesus rising from dead is documented nowhere but in writings that were written decades after he was put to death and by people who were not there.
> Nobody ever recorded any of Jesus's events as they supposedly happened...it is as if they never happened outside of the bible.



There were lots of other stories “documented” in antiquity. I guess those must all be true too?


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 6, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Jesus rising from dead is documented nowhere but in writings that were written decades after he was put to death and by people who were not there.
> Nobody ever recorded any of Jesus's events as they supposedly happened...it is as if they never happened outside of the bible.


I guess next your going to try and tell me the earth ? is round.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 6, 2019)

GeorgiaBob said:


> It is possible to disprove a 17th century religious writer's calculation of the date of the "Flood," Bishop Usher's dating was dismissed by most religious scholars as early as the middle 19th century.  More difficult is proving that a significant flood event affecting much of the Middle East, especially the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, did NOT occur.
> 
> Fact is, many non-Hebrew tales, "histories," founding myths, and legends also recount a time of great flood. The current school of thought among real scientists is that the story of "Noah's flood" is a retelling of stories that predate the reign of David in Jerusalem (when the first written collections that later became the Jewish Holy Books were being written) and are likely based on an actual flood event!
> 
> So the Flood is not a myth, archaeology does NOT disprove Noah's Flood, and the Bible is not a fairy tale.



Wasting your time Brother.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 6, 2019)

GeorgiaBob said:


> It is possible to disprove a 17th century religious writer's calculation of the date of the "Flood," Bishop Usher's dating was dismissed by most religious scholars as early as the middle 19th century.  More difficult is proving that a significant flood event affecting much of the Middle East, especially the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, did NOT occur.
> 
> Fact is, many non-Hebrew tales, "histories," founding myths, and legends also recount a time of great flood. The current school of thought among real scientists is that the story of "Noah's flood" is a retelling of stories that predate the reign of David in Jerusalem (when the first written collections that later became the Jewish Holy Books were being written) and are likely based on an actual flood event!
> 
> So the Flood is not a myth, archaeology does NOT disprove Noah's Flood, and the Bible is not a fairy tale.



I don't think anyone disagrees that local floods happen. 


> All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.


Doesn't sound like the bible is talking about a local flood.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

660griz said:


> I don't think anyone disagrees that local floods happen.
> 
> Doesn't sound like the bible is talking about a local flood.



Had they bothered watching the video they would have seen he talks about evidence for a large local flood.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Let's look at it in a bit more detail.
> 
> Genesis 6
> 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> I guess next your going to try and tell me the earth ? is round.


Nooooo, Pillars...it's all about the Pillars


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 6, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> I’ve watched similar shows to the one you posted. Didn’t watch that one yet.
> They maybe great shows with interesting facts.
> One fact remains with me. It was written during history that is recorded to the best that can be searched.
> Jesus was  executed by the state of Rome and he rose ? from the dead 3 days later.
> ...


Why is it that the book written by the Hebrews about their beliefs and observations and explanations for things is inherently true, but the ones written by other cultures and faiths at around the same time are false?


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 6, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> And why does it amaze you that you would find people questioning the veracity of a biblical story in an apologetics forum?


Well I was hoping after a good nights sleep you could answer my one simple question, guess not. This wasn't an interrogation on my part (I asked 1 question and you stepped forward with 9 of your own instead of answering my one). It wasn't bait, I wasn't wanting to have a conversation, just one answer and I would have moved on, no follow up questions. It seems you want to be in control and ask all the questions, this is not a lecture hall and your not in control. I've demanded nothing, just asked, you could have answered in your 1st reply or simply ignored it. 
I wont ask anymore since you will not answer.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 6, 2019)

> GeorgiaBob said:
> It is possible to disprove a 17th century religious writer's calculation of the date of the "Flood," Bishop Usher's dating was dismissed by most religious scholars as early as the middle 19th century.  More difficult is proving that a significant flood event affecting much of the Middle East, especially the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, did NOT occur.
> 
> Fact is, many non-Hebrew tales, "histories," founding myths, and legends also recount a time of great flood. The current school of thought among real scientists is that the story of "Noah's flood" is a retelling of stories that predate the reign of David in Jerusalem (when the first written collections that later became the Jewish Holy Books were being written) and are likely based on an actual flood event!
> ...





SemperFiDawg said:


> Wasting your time Brother.


I think you should read his post a little closer.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 6, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> Well I was hoping after a good nights sleep you could answer my one simple question, guess not. This wasn't an interrogation on my part (I asked 1 question and you stepped forward with 9 of your own instead of answering my one). It wasn't bait, I wasn't wanting to have a conversation, just one answer and I would have moved on, no follow up questions. It seems you want to be in control and ask all the questions, this is not a lecture hall and your not in control. I've demanded nothing, just asked, you could have answered in your 1st reply or simply ignored it.
> I wont ask anymore since you will not answer.


I would imagine we get the same thing out of arguing our views as the believer does arguing their views.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 6, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I would imagine we get the same thing out of arguing our views as the believer does arguing their views.


Pretty much. 
It is not limited to religion. I do the same to 'flat earthers', 'we didn't land on the moon, folks', 'climate change', 'big foot', etc.
If I knew a seemingly functional adult that still believed in Santa Clause, I would try to make him/her see the 'light'. 
There is no flat earthers forum so....


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 6, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> Why is it that the book written by the Hebrews about their beliefs and observations and explanations for things is inherently true, but the ones written by other cultures and faiths at around the same time are false?


There is a simple answer to that question. 
Because it was not written by my faith or culture. ?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> There is a simple answer to that question.
> Because it was not written by my faith or culture. ?



Aren’t you the fortunate one to have been born to a culture with a monopoly on the truth, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 6, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Aren’t you the fortunate one to have been born to a culture with a monopoly on the truth, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.


 It happens like that sometimes ?
 I’m also very lucky to be born a US citizen at this time it’s like hitting the triple lotto ?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> It happens like that sometimes ?
> I’m also very lucky to be born a US citizen at this time it’s like hitting the triple lotto ?


----------



## 660griz (Jun 6, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> I’m also very lucky to be born a US citizen at this time it’s like hitting the triple lotto ?


Amen!


----------



## ky55 (Jun 6, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Aren’t you the fortunate one to have been born to a culture with a monopoly on the truth, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.



From:

*Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised*

*Michael D. Langone *


https://www.icsahome.com/articles/characteristics

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 6, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> There is a simple answer to that question.
> Because it was not written by my faith or culture. ?


You are an ancient  Hebrew? You learn something every day. Here I thought you were a south Jorjee country boy.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 6, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> You are an ancient  Hebrew? You learn something every day. Here I thought you were a south Jorjee country boy.


Some ting funny ? going on here.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 6, 2019)

Y’all better learn how to swim
 Global warming !


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 6, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> It has always amazed me that the great lengths of trouble non-believers will go to, just to try to cast doubt in believers . What do you have to gain by doing this ? I promise you will not be lonely where your going. What do you get out of it ?



They get to shake their fist at God.  That’s the gist of it,....and enjoy what little prideful happiness that brand of insanity brings.  To a man, they are as detached from reality as the one who finds each step he takes up the gallows funny.  They are truely to be pitied, for this life is the best it will ever get for them.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

It’s the best it will ever get for you too. 

On the topic of reality how does one square the story of Noah’s flood with civilizations that predate the story that never noticed they all were supposed to have drowned?


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 6, 2019)

T


atlashunter said:


> It’s the best it will ever get for you too.
> 
> On the topic of reality how does one square the story of Noah’s flood with civilizations that predate the story that never noticed they all were supposed to have drowned?


he population of Noahville was 30. 8 got on the boat ?


----------



## 4HAND (Jun 6, 2019)

Someone once said, "no man is an atheist on his death bed."
Food for thought.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> T
> 
> he population of Noahville was 30. 8 got on the boat ?



How about the population of Chinaville and Yazidiville?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

4HAND said:


> Someone once said, "no man is an atheist on his death bed."
> Food for thought.



Wishful thinking.


----------



## 4HAND (Jun 6, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Wishful thinking.


We'll see. ?


----------



## Turpentine (Jun 6, 2019)

4HAND said:


> Someone once said, "no man is an atheist on his death bed."
> Food for thought.


There are no atheist in the fox hole


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 6, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> There are no atheist in the fox hole


Death row have a bunch of  baptismal’s just saying.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> There are no atheist in the fox hole



That’s another lie. 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/695195961/Tillmans-death-recounted.html


----------



## 4HAND (Jun 6, 2019)

Not a lie. No where in that story did I read where Tillman denounced God.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 6, 2019)

I saved a preacher and a lady at a boat landing. They where doing a  baptismal. It was in Feb. cool and windy. I was fishing ?. They had a crowd to watch. River was high and moving. 
He was reading  and dunked her. She grabbed him and down they went. He held the Bible up. I jumped in and grabbed him and her while the  congregation watched. I drug them to the hill. The whole time the congregation didn’t really move it happen so quick. They where so happy to be alive. No one even said thanks to me. Lols ? 
I built a fire ? dried off and caught a mess of catfish. 
BkW my wife was with me. ?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

4HAND said:


> Not a lie. No where in that story did I read where Tillman denounced God.
> 
> View attachment 971964



Tillman was well known by those closest to him to be an atheist. Why would he be chastising O’Neal for praying if he had suddenly become a believer under fire?


----------



## 4HAND (Jun 6, 2019)

I don't know. I didn't know him, but he's certainly a hero. 

I'm not gonna argue whether or not God exists. We all have our own beliefs. I'm sure nothing I say would change your mind & I'm certain nothing you say will shake my beliefs.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

Theists tell a lot of lies without a second thought about atheists in their final moments but lying about atheist servicemen who died in service to their country is particularly disrespectful.


----------



## Turpentine (Jun 6, 2019)

Why are you praying? God can not help us now. Does not imply atheism. I think pulling up an article of a fallen soldier and using it in a debate like this is disrespectful.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> Why are you praying? God can not help us now. Does not imply atheism. I think pulling up an article of a fallen soldier and using it in a debate like this is disrespectful.



Yeah and his brother who knew his views on religion found politicians trying to christianize him at his funeral to be quite disrespectful and I would agree. There are indeed atheists in foxholes and Tillman was one of them. Respect who these men actually were rather than trying to make them out to be some fictional character you would prefer.


----------



## 4HAND (Jun 6, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Theists tell a lot of lies without a second thought about atheists in their final moments but lying about atheist servicemen who died in service to their country is particularly disrespectful.


I'm not a liar & meant no disrespect to Tillman or anyone else. 
For you to twist my words is ridiculous.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 6, 2019)

4HAND said:


> I'm not a liar & meant no disrespect to Tillman or anyone else.
> For you to twist my words is ridiculous.



Post 71 was an outright lie and post 67 was a regurgitation of a lie so technically you are correct in saying you didn’t lie. You just repeated one that someone else said and then gave a thumbs up to another.


----------



## Turpentine (Jun 6, 2019)

Are you implying the reason you jumped in the river to save them is because God was working threw you?


----------



## Turpentine (Jun 6, 2019)

Post 71 was a quote I heard from an older war veteran. I knew personally. 
Just out of curiosity... Did you know the soldier or family or friends of the soldier in the article? Also I liked his post because he was saying he ment no disrespect and defending himself. you tried to bait and hook him. Everyone knows 4hand did not mean any disrespect. 
The quotes are analogies.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 6, 2019)

4HAND said:


> We'll see. ?



No, you won’t see anything. You’ll just be dead like everybody else, and you don’t have a single shred of evidence to prove otherwise.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> Post 71 was a quote I heard from an older war veteran. I knew personally.
> Just out of curiosity... Did you know the soldier or family or friends of the soldier in the article? Also I liked his post because he was saying he ment no disrespect and defending himself. you tried to bait and hook him. Everyone knows 4hand did not mean any disrespect.
> The quotes are analogies.



I don’t give a flip who you heard it from. It’s an oft repeated lie that smears non believing veterans by accusing them of losing the courage of their convictions under fire. I just showed a specific case that proves it untrue even though a little common sense should have been enough to know not to repeat it.


----------



## Turpentine (Jun 7, 2019)

I don't think it's a lie. 
Alot has changed (including the military) since the origin of the quote.
Your article dident prove anything.
you posted an article of a fallen soldier to gain the upper hand in a debate or w/e. Seems to me to be disrespectful. a little common sense should be enough to know not to do that.
I know 0 veterans who have served who do not believe in a God/creator
based on vets I personally know I can say there are no atheist in the fox hole.


----------



## Turpentine (Jun 7, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Because


Because science is used to give a <understanding>of the way things work, could work, or could have worked for our current date in time. God is the before and after of our time. So to use modern day science to help prove the truth of scriptures to lost souls in hope that they will find God and have a peaceful eternity is good. To use science to try and disprove the scriptures is bad because it trips up his children. they will be less likely to read his word and learn what he is trying to teach our species. No doubt it's difficult to understand. But understanding the (fact) that out of all history, the knowledge/wisdom You poses is a mere grain of sand. You know nothing I know nothing. And to dismiss the existence of God would be naive at best.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> Are you implying the reason you jumped in the river to save them is because God was working threw you?


Never said a word about that to imply that. ?
Just said I more than likely was at the right place at the right time. That was the event that was going on and in that bad weather conditions. 
Are you implying that God may of placed me there at the right time. 
A strong country boy not afraid of helping anybody even if I risked my own life. 
That is deep turpentine never thought about that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> They get to shake their fist at God.  That’s the gist of it,....and enjoy what little prideful happiness that brand of insanity brings.  To a man, they are as detached from reality as the one who finds each step he takes up the gallows funny.  They are truely to be pitied, for this life is the best it will ever get for them.


Pssst…..
A/As don't believe any gods exist so aren't "shaking their fist" at him or any of them.
We know that inconvenient fact doesn't fit your narrative though which is why you ignore it time after time after time after time...….
If an A/A believed there was a god to shake their fist at...... they wouldnt be an A/A would they?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> Because science is used to give a <understanding>of the way things work, could work, or could have worked for our current date in time. God is the before and after of our time. So to use modern day science to help prove the truth of scriptures to lost souls in hope that they will find God and have a peaceful eternity is good. To use science to try and disprove the scriptures is bad because it trips up his children. they will be less likely to read his word and learn what he is trying to teach our species. No doubt it's difficult to understand. But understanding the (fact) that out of all history, the knowledge/wisdom You poses is a mere grain of sand. You know nothing I know nothing. And to dismiss the existence of God would be naive at best.





> No doubt it's difficult to understand.


Au contraire, its not difficult to understand at all.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

4HAND said:


> Someone once said, "no man is an atheist on his death bed."
> Food for thought.


Well, if someone once said it that's certainly good enough for me


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

4HAND said:


> Not a lie. No where in that story did I read where Tillman denounce God.


"God cant help us now" strikes me as a denouncement. Or at the very least a denouncement of what God supposedly "is" or can do.
Would a believer say that?


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 7, 2019)

Plenty more examples of the lengths they will go to cast doubt in people's minds about their beliefs. If they were just non-believers I could feel sorry for them, but being a non - believer that's not happy unless they destroy other believers faith.....no sympathy here. From the greatest societies in history to the most un civilized tribes in the Amazon all people have had religion. They just enjoy being " that guy ". Pretty egotistical in its own right. Time would be better spent trying to help your neighbor or doing a kindness to a stranger.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

4HAND said:


> I'm not a liar & meant no disrespect to Tillman or anyone else.
> For you to twist my words is ridiculous.


I don't believe you intentionally lied or intentionally meant any disrespect.
I think you just used a phrase without considering the full ramifications of it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> Plenty more examples of the lengths they will go to cast doubt in people's minds about their beliefs. If they were just non-believers I could feel sorry for them, but being a non - believer that's not happy unless they destroy other believers faith.....no sympathy here. From the greatest societies in history to the most un civilized tribes in the Amazon all people have had religion. They just enjoy being " that guy ". Pretty egotistical in its own right. Time would be better spent trying to help your neighbor or doing a kindness to a stranger.


If anything we say casts doubts on or destroys someones beliefs, they should probably be examining the strength of their beliefs.


> From the greatest societies in history to the most un civilized tribes in the Amazon all people have had religion.


There ya go, thats how you debate. You should stick with that approach and drop all that other nonsense.


> Time would be better spent trying to help your neighbor or doing a kindness to a stranger.


Does that include your time or just our time? Get the point?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> Plenty more examples of the lengths they will go to cast doubt in people's minds about their beliefs. If they were just non-believers I could feel sorry for them, but being a non - believer that's not happy unless they destroy other believers faith.....no sympathy here. From the greatest societies in history to the most un civilized tribes in the Amazon all people have had religion. They just enjoy being " that guy ". Pretty egotistical in its own right. Time would be better spent trying to help your neighbor or doing a kindness to a stranger.



Smashing beliefs that are based on a pack of lies is doing a kindness. You and every other believer continue to ignore the elephant in the room which is the physical evidence from numerous fields of science that don’t support the biblical flood narrative. That would not be the case if the Bible were true.


----------



## 4HAND (Jun 7, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Post 71 was an outright lie and post 67 was a regurgitation of a lie so technically you are correct in saying you didn’t lie. You just repeated one that someone else said and then gave a thumbs up to another.



Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it a lie. It makes perfect sense that someone about to die would question their atheist belief & reach out to a higher power. 
Again, I'm not a liar.




ky55 said:


> No, you won’t see anything. You’ll just be dead like everybody else, and you don’t have a single shred of evidence to prove otherwise.



This is your belief. I believe otherwise. 
We'll see.
But like I said earlier, I don't want to argue with y'all. Doesn't do any good. 
Y'all have a good day.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> Because science is used to give a <understanding>of the way things work, could work, or could have worked for our current date in time. God is the before and after of our time. So to use modern day science to help prove the truth of scriptures to lost souls in hope that they will find God and have a peaceful eternity is good. To use science to try and disprove the scriptures is bad because it trips up his children. they will be less likely to read his word and learn what he is trying to teach our species. No doubt it's difficult to understand. But understanding the (fact) that out of all history, the knowledge/wisdom You poses is a mere grain of sand. You know nothing I know nothing. And to dismiss the existence of God would be naive at best.



So science worked differently around 2400BC? How so? Were the laws of physics different back then? If that is true then how can you use modern science to prove your stories which you just said is a good thing?

If “his children” are being told untruths that is tripping them up! Exposing the falsehoods is correcting the error. Why should a believer not want to know if their beliefs are false? If the story of Noah’s flood is an exaggerated myth based on a smaller local flood why would you prefer not to know that? If the Bible is not inerrant why would you not want to know that?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

4HAND said:


> Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it a lie. It makes perfect sense that someone about to die would question their atheist belief & reach out to a higher power.
> Again, I'm not a liar.
> 
> 
> ...



It’s not a lie because I don’t believe it. It’s a lie because it is demonstrably false. “No man” is casting quite a wide net wouldn’t you say? I was inclined to give you the benefit of doubt that like Walt said you just didn’t consider the full ramifications of what you said but the more you stand by it the more it seems you really don’t have any qualms about repeating untruths.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

How do the A/A s feel about  abortion ?


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

Is the A/A movement or group growing. Like do some meet just to say hay and eat. Just wondering.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

I’ve only met one and talked about it when I was a young man. Great guy. We hunted.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> I don't think it's a lie.
> Alot has changed (including the military) since the origin of the quote.
> Your article dident prove anything.
> you posted an article of a fallen soldier to gain the upper hand in a debate or w/e. Seems to me to be disrespectful. a little common sense should be enough to know not to do that.
> ...



The article proved that a known atheist soldier in his final moments still believed invoking a deity was a useless waste of time. There was no conversion there. Yet you still insist on smearing him by suggesting (without a shred of evidence) that he lost the courage of his convictions in the face of death.

And now you do know a veteran who doesn’t believe in a god because you are talking to one. Any veteran who says there are no atheists in fox holes is a liar. A Christian can lie just as well in uniform as out of uniform.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> Is the A/A movement or group growing. Like do some meet just to say hay and eat. Just wondering.



https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/religious-and-social-attitudes-uk-christians-2011

If this survey is accurate then Christianity is dying in the UK. Only a third of self identified Christians in the UK believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus? Wow.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> How do the A/A s feel about  abortion ?



I'm sure they're all over the map on the subject.  Being an A/A doesn't necessarily say anything else about what that person believes.  An atheist might believe in the healing power of crystals or Bigfoot.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 7, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> From the greatest societies in history to the most un civilized tribes in the Amazon all people have had religion.


That is a very true statement.


Hillbilly stalker said:


> Plenty more examples of the lengths they will go to cast doubt in people's minds about their beliefs. If they were just non-believers I could feel sorry for them, but being a non - believer that's not happy unless they destroy other believers faith.....no sympathy here. They just enjoy being " that guy ". Pretty egotistical in its own right. Time would be better spent trying to help your neighbor or doing a kindness to a stranger.



How about another perspective? Yes, most all societies have had religions that they followed, usually very devoutly.

Now, what interests me is that the same things and motivations that you ascribe to atheists also apply to most Christians in regard to other religions, but to an even greater degree. Most Christians regard any religion other than their own as false, and have the same attitude toward it that atheists have toward religion in general. Except they take it as a more serious affront, because it is blasphemous and contradicting something they believe in. Take that tribe in the Amazon that has a religion they have followed for thousands of years, is adapted to their lifestyle and environment and are happy with and is a large part of the cohesiveness of their tribal structure and culture-it's one of the things that defines who they are.

Many branches of the Christian church have organized groups of people who are sent to places like that specifically to cast doubt in those folks' minds about their beliefs, and to try to destroy the faith of these believers in their own religion. And they rejoice when they destroy these peoples' beliefs and faith in their own religion, and convert them to Christianity. Often to the detriment of the tribe, and the dissolution of their culture and interpersonal bonds. Is that not pretty egotistical, too, and trying to be "that guy?" Maybe the missionaries would be better off trying to do them a kindness or help them out as neighbors instead of casting them as hel!-bound heathens and trying to change them into their own image?

What if all religions are pieces of a greater truth, just different avenues of reaching the same God, but adapted to the culture of each individual society? If God is out there, and is as powerful as most religions make him out to be, who am I to try to understand him or tell people what to believe, or that one religion is better than another?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> That is a very true statement.
> 
> 
> How about another perspective? Yes, most all societies have had religions that they followed, usually very devoutly.
> ...



“That’s different”


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'm sure they're all over the map on the subject.  Being an A/A doesn't necessarily say anything else about what that person believes.  An atheist might believe in the healing power of crystals or Bigfoot.



What does your atheist bible say on the matter?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> What does your atheist bible say on the matter?



Well, I wrote it, so it's typically nonsensical.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Jesus rising from dead is documented nowhere but in writings that were written decades after he was put to death and by people who were not there.
> Nobody ever recorded any of Jesus's events as they supposedly happened...it is as if they never happened outside of the bible.


What about all those American and world history book written that you had in school to help you become the scholar you are today? All that about the Civil war that gave you knowledge? I presume that the authors of those books must have been there during those times to see it with their own eyes?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Well, I wrote it, so it's typically nonsensical.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> How do the A/A s feel about  abortion ?


For me, that's a really tough question.
Mostly Im against it.
There are some circumstances where I can accept it.
I don't have a problem with the "morning after" pill.

What I would really like to know is at what point does that fetus become self aware?
A super simplistic comparison is a chicken and a chicken egg.
The way I see it is scrambled eggs and scrambled chickens are two different things.

Would I approve of a woman that I got pregnant getting an abortion?
No I would not.
Would I approve of ALL abortions being illegal?
No I would not.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

So tell us again how we have cultures including one in northern Iraq with calendars that long predate when Noah’s flood is supposed to have happened?


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'm sure they're all over the map on the subject.  Being an A/A doesn't necessarily say anything else about what that person believes.  An atheist might believe in the healing power of crystals or Bigfoot.


how do u feel about  abortion ?
Just wondering. 
I feel it’s wrong and it is a human life. Of course there maybe medical reasons or another high level reason other than I went to a party.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> For me, that's a really tough question.
> Mostly Im against it.
> There are some circumstances where I can accept it.
> I don't have a problem with the "morning after" pill.
> ...



Similar for me except there are cases in which I would want my wife to terminate a pregnancy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> Is the A/A movement or group growing. Like do some meet just to say hay and eat. Just wondering.


I personally have never had a meal or wanted to hang out with someone only because of their belief or lack of belief.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> What about all those American and world history book written that you had in school to help you become the scholar you are today? All that about the Civil war that gave you knowledge? I presume that the authors of those books must have been there during those times to see it with their own eyes?


Evidence backs up their writings.
History is deemed accurate when multiple criteria is met to back it up.
Eye Witnesses recorded it as it happened, multiple and varying sources close to the event all giving similar testimony(for instance..a guy flies into the sky and NOBODY in the crowd of 500 which would encompass many different professions,  educations and beliefs even bothers to record it...is extremely suspect), evidence that corroborates an event took place such as found in archeology and the various fields of science.

If a battle is said to have taken place at a certain parcel of land and it was talked and written about by people who claim to have been there, and recorded by people who were not there but said they heard gunfire and saw troops moving through their town towards the battle, and men who lived and showed the scars afterwards told people about what took place there and a many years later the signs,  aftermath,  relics of a battlefield are unearthed that shows a battle took place....thats pretty good evidence. 

On the other hand....your bible......


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> how do u feel about  abortion ?
> Just wondering.
> I feel it’s wrong and it is a human life. Of course there maybe medical reasons or another high level reason other than I went to a party.



I've actually outlined my thoughts on the subject in some detail.  

http://forum.gon.com/threads/abortion.922855/page-19#post-11285703

What do think of my position?


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I've actually outlined my thoughts on the subject in some detail.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/abortion.922855/page-19#post-11285703
> 
> What do think of my position?


I lean toward elfiii’s respounce.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> For me, that's a really tough question.
> Mostly Im against it.
> There are some circumstances where I can accept it.
> I don't have a problem with the "morning after" pill.
> ...


Most of the eggs you eat are just an egg. Them hens ain't been around no rooster


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

Life begins at the moment of Conception. How that life  develops depends on the 2 cells that where joined from the make and female. 
Anyway more to it.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Most of the eggs you eat are just an egg. Them hens ain't been around no rooster


My eggs have and it’s a chicken egg. ?


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> My eggs have and it’s a chicken egg. ?


Come to thing about it I have boiled them alive then.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> I lean toward elfiii’s respounce.



His "soul" argument?  What's your evidence for the soul?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> Come to thing about it I have boiled them alive then.



Balut.

Don't look it up.  Trust me.


----------



## Bigtimber (Jun 7, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> So tell us again how we have cultures including one in northern Iraq with calendars that long predate when Noah’s flood is supposed to have happened?



When exactly did Noahs flood happen and how is that exact time proven to coexist with the Iraq calendars ?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Most of the eggs you eat are just an egg. Them hens ain't been around no rooster


Sure but my point was an egg is an egg. An egg is not a chicken.
BUT
At some point that egg is developed far enough that it is now a chicken it just hasn't hatched yet.
Thats where it gets complicated for me when it comes to human eggs/ fetuses.


----------



## 4HAND (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Balut.
> 
> Don't look it up.  Trust me.



No kidding. I made that mistake once.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure but my point was an egg is an egg. An egg is not a chicken.
> BUT
> At some point that egg is developed far enough that it is now a chicken it just hasn't hatched yet.
> Thats where it gets complicated for me when it comes to human eggs/ fetuses.


A egg is a fertile egg it sits  dormant til the incubation starts once that starts cells start  dividing at a rapid rate it is alive at that point. Of course it matures to a biddy chick in 21 days.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Sure but my point was an egg is an egg. An egg is not a chicken.
> BUT
> At some point that egg is developed far enough that it is now a chicken it just hasn't hatched yet.
> Thats where it gets complicated for me when it comes to human eggs/ fetuses.



Let me see if I can help.  If you gave a lab a fertilized sex cell that had just divided and asked them to tell you what it was they would test it and say "This is a human zygote".  If it were in an environment where it could keep dividing they would say that it's alive.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

4HAND said:


> No kidding. I made that mistake once.



Told you.


----------



## 4HAND (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Told you.


??


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

Now I will use the human. It’s alive at conception. If it was not alive it would stop. Still borns where alive til some point. As for the soul as u call it and I fine that interesting. I can’t give that. I would think at a very early stage it becomes  aware as the brain Develops. The brain controls the body so heart beat to circulate the fluids. If not disturbed at any point this Develops til a full mature baby is born.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Let me see if I can help.  If you gave a lab a fertilized sex cell that had just divided and asked them to tell you what it was they would test it and say "This is a human zygote".  If it were in an environment where it could keep dividing they would say that it's alive.


Note they didnt say "this is a human". Which I think is your point?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> Now I will use the human. It’s alive at conception. If it was not alive it would stop. Still borns where alive til some point. As for the soul as u call it and I fine that interesting. I can’t give that. I would think at a very early stage it becomes  aware as the brain Develops. The brain controls the body so heart beat to circulate the fluids. If not disturbed at any point this Develops til a full mature baby is born.


What do you believe is alive at conception? An egg or a human?


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

My nephew was born at less than 6 months. Lived in a incubator for 3 months. I guess we can ask adults that where born this way when does life begin.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> What do you believe is alive at conception? An egg or a human?


The human egg is alive at conception in the female body. 
Till it dies. Some die in days in the womb , Some make it to 99 years old after born.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> His "soul" argument?  What's your evidence for the soul?


Find salvation in your life then maybe you can see the evidence.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

I didn’t mean to hijack the great flood 1993 topic.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> The human egg is alive at conception in the female body.
> Till it dies. Some die in days in the womb , Some make it to 99 years old after born.


First -
I want to make it perfectly clear that Im NOT arguing against your opinion. 
Just a question -
So for you a human egg and a human are the same thing?
A chicken egg and a chicken are the same thing?
Im not asking what the eggs will turn into Im asking if they are the same.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Find salvation in your life then maybe you can see the evidence.


Yes because the existence of body parts or not depends on salvation 
These wacky stock phrases you guys have crack me up.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Note they didnt say "this is a human". Which I think is your point?



They didn't say "It's a bird".  The DNA is human.  Zygote is a term like baby or infant or young adult or old man.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> First -
> I want to make it perfectly clear that Im NOT arguing against your opinion.
> Just a question -
> So for you a human egg and a human are the same thing?
> ...


I’m good with that. 
The male  sperm cell is alive but not a fertile part. It to dies. I wouldn’t say it’s human. Just a living human cell til it dies. 
A female egg is a living cell it dies also after it is released into the womb if it is not  fertilized by a male cell. 
At this point it’s on its way unless it dies and it will die one day. 
At this point again the female is the host to a devolving baby  embryo ?! Yea u could  medically abort it. Yea it has not  developed enough to gain awareness. But it doesn’t take long and if left alone..... we’ll have a newborn. Maybe premature or full term. 
Either way at that point it dies on its own or by man in the womb. Or at the age of 99 after it has lived and sailed on its own as the master of its ship ?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> Find salvation in your life then maybe you can see the evidence.



In essence, are you saying "When you believe it, then you'll believe it"?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> I’m good with that.
> The male  sperm cell is alive but not a fertile part. It to dies. I wouldn’t say it’s human. Just a living human cell til it dies.
> A female egg is a living cell it dies also after it is released into the womb if it is not  fertilized by a male cell.
> At this point it’s on its way unless it dies and it will die one day.
> ...





> Either way at that point it dies on its own or by man in the womb.


Do you think "pulling the plug" on a family member is in the same category as abortion? Both are ending the journey before the captain is done sailing......


----------



## 660griz (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> How do the A/A s feel about  abortion ?



I think Georgia's heartbeat bill is a good compromise. I am opposed to late term abortions.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> They didn't say "It's a bird".  The DNA is human.  Zygote is a term like baby or infant or young adult or old man.


Yeah I looked it up.
I still have to look up what this "woo woo" stuff is that you and Atlas were talking about 

Sometimes my lack of education is really apparent


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I looked it up.
> I still have to look up what this "woo woo" stuff is that you and Atlas were talking about
> 
> Sometimes my lack of education is really apparent








Google: Michael Shermer hooey, drivel, baloney.  Can't link it cuz there's some bad words.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Do you think "pulling the plug" on a family member is in the same category as abortion? Both are ending the journey before the captain is done sailing......


The men in my family have pulled their own pull at the end of there journey. They have ended their own pain and suffering. I will ask my mom & dad while they still had enuff sence to deal with their  demise ! The women in my family have all passed quick or in their sleep. We have not been faced with pulling the plug. 
I would want my plug pulled if it looked like my ship had a big gaping hole in it. 
My dad just went for a  radiation treatment for lung  cancer , for the 1st Time in my life have I seen him scared. 
I know before he lays in a bed suffering what he will do.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> The men in my family have pulled their own pull at the end of there journey. They have ended their own pain and suffering. I will ask my mom & dad while they still had enuff sence to deal with their  demise ! The women in my family have all passed quick or in their sleep. We have not been faced with pulling the plug.
> I would want my plug pulled if it looked like my ship had a big gaping hole in it.
> My dad just went for a  radiation treatment for lung  cancer , for the 1st Time in my life have I seen him scared.
> I know before he lays in a bed suffering what he will do.


Obviously, being an A/A I don't pray but......
I sincerely hope your Dad kicks cancer's butt. I do have family members that believe/pray and I will ask them to include him, you and your family in their prayers.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> The men in my family have pulled their own pull at the end of there journey. They have ended their own pain and suffering. I will ask my mom & dad while they still had enuff sence to deal with their  demise ! The women in my family have all passed quick or in their sleep. We have not been faced with pulling the plug.
> I would want my plug pulled if it looked like my ship had a big gaping hole in it.
> My dad just went for a  radiation treatment for lung  cancer , for the 1st Time in my life have I seen him scared.
> I know before he lays in a bed suffering what he will do.



What's your thinking on this?

http://forum.gon.com/threads/of-child-suicide-and-abortion-eugenics.944470/

I hope your dad is relieved of his suffering and you and your family as well.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Google: Michael Shermer hooey, drivel, baloney.  Can't link it cuz there's some bad words.


Its even in the dictionary!

woo-woo
[ˈwo͞oˌwo͞o]
ADJECTIVE
 1. relating to or holding unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Its even in the dictionary!
> 
> woo-woo
> [ˈwo͞oˌwo͞o]
> ...



How about that.

Deepak is particularly funny because he mixes scientific terms and ideas in with his woo. It's like when guys here link an article that tries to prove the ark story using science, then say science doesn't know everything.


----------



## Turpentine (Jun 7, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I doubt any dead person experiences loneliness.
> 
> “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”​Mark Twain


That he remembers


atlashunter said:


> The article proved that a known atheist soldier in his final moments still believed invoking a deity was a useless waste of time. There was no conversion there. Yet you still insist on smearing him by suggesting (without a shred of evidence) that he lost the courage of his convictions in the face of death.
> 
> And now you do know a veteran who doesn’t believe in a god because you are talking to one. Any veteran who says there are no atheists in fox holes is a liar. A Christian can lie just as well in uniform as out of uniform.


Are you a combat vet?


kmckinnie said:


> Never said a word about that to imply that. ?
> Just said I more than likely was at the right place at the right time. That was the event that was going on and in that bad weather conditions.
> Are you implying that God may of placed me there at the right time.
> A strong country boy not afraid of helping anybody even if I risked my own life.
> That is deep turpentine never thought about that.


I am implying the reason you jumped in to save them is no more then God working threw you. Our natural response would be to avoid any dangerous situation. After your brain filters that response it would say what do I gain from this risk. I highly doubt the only reason you jumped in was for admiration from that particular group of people or to be able to post it on a forum. As in you gained nothing. You were just doing the right thing. Yes er, I'm implying God worked threw you.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

Bigtimber said:


> When exactly did Noahs flood happen and how is that exact time proven to coexist with the Iraq calendars ?



You tell me.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What's your thinking on this?
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/of-child-suicide-and-abortion-eugenics.944470/
> 
> I hope your dad is relieved of his suffering and you and your family as well.


Thanks for my dad. He stands a great chance and has not given up. Yet. 

As for the girl ! She gave up at that time. So many at that age have. She was not a adult. Your really not a adult til in your 30tys. 
Full mature half life. 
She may of came out of it with time. We will never know now. 
It’s a  tragedy ! I wouldn’t sit back and watch 1 if my kids or grandkids do that. 

I have more respect for a person to just end their live and not harm no one else in the  process !
Such as these  suicide killers !
They want to inflict pain on others at a great  magnitude as they end there’s. No respect for live. 
Their are different  degrees of mental issues. In the girls case the parents may of had one also. 
Sad ?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 7, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> Plenty more examples of the lengths they will go to cast doubt in people's minds about their beliefs. If they were just non-believers I could feel sorry for them, but being a non - believer that's not happy unless they destroy other believers faith.....no sympathy here.



Christianity has circled the earth for hundreds of years with the sole purpose of destroying the faith of others and replacing it with their own-all in the name of the Great Commission. 
And it brought disease, death, conquest, and misery everywhere it went. 
Blaming atheists for destroying faith is straining a gnat and swallowing a camel, to borrow a line from your own bible.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> That he remembers
> 
> Are you a combat vet?
> 
> I am implying the reason you jumped in to save them is no more then God working threw you. Our natural response would be to avoid any dangerous situation. After your brain filters that response it would say what do I gain from this risk. I highly doubt the only reason you jumped in was for admiration from that particular group of people or to be able to post it on a forum. As in you gained nothing. You were just doing the right thing. Yes er, I'm implying God worked threw you.


Thankyou. 
I was taught at a young age to defend the weak. 
I will say this. We where the only folks fishing that day the weather was so bad. We returned to get something. 
I sat in the boat feet from them thinking I could find a better day to be  baptized by the muddy waters. I said I hope I’m not fixing to get wet ? as they eased out into the swift currents. Few more seconds and who knows what. 
As I reached and grabbed they where completely under I back kicked at angle with the current back to shore. They walked out. The  congregation wrapped them in robes and towels as they turned  swiftly to their cars to get out of the weather. 
I built a fire ? and drank a beer ??


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Do you think "pulling the plug" on a family member is in the same category as abortion? Both are ending the journey before the captain is done sailing......




That is something I hope I never have to deal with on a family member.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

And it brought disease, death, conquest,

That is a fact of life in general. 
Suffering is something NOONE escapes.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> They didn't say "It's a bird".  The DNA is human.  Zygote is a term like baby or infant or young adult or old man.



The DNA is not a human. It’s just a blueprint or set of instructions. The zygote is of human origin but in form and function it is indistinguishable from a zygote of any other species. Calling it a human is like calling a blueprint and a pile of raw materials a skyscraper. The two combined with the right conditions might in time become a skyscraper but at that point in time it lacks the characteristics that one would identify as a skyscraper. The proof is that you actually have to examine the blueprints to determine what it might become out of that which it not yet is.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

Nicodemus said:


> That is something I hope I never have to deal with on a family member.


Agreed. 
And I also hope it didn't come across as an insensitive question.
Its got to be a horrifying descision.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Agreed.
> And I also hope it didn't come across as an insensitive question.
> Its got to be a horrifying descision.




Not at all. It`s got to be troubling to anyone who is put into that position.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The DNA is not a human. It’s just a blueprint or set of instructions. The zygote is of human origin but in form and function it is indistinguishable from a zygote of any other species. Calling it a human is like calling a blueprint and a pile of raw materials a skyscraper. The two combined with the right conditions might in time become a skyscraper but at that point in time it lacks the characteristics that one would identify as a skyscraper. The proof is that you actually have to examine the blueprints to determine what it might become out of that which it not yet is.


I think thats more or less where I was going with my chicken/chicken egg thing.
Whats its going to be is not the same as what it is.....


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Christianity has circled the earth for hundreds of years with the sole purpose of destroying the faith of others and replacing it with their own-all in the name of the Great Commission.
> And it brought disease, death, conquest, and misery everywhere it went.
> Blaming atheists for destroying faith is straining a gnat and swallowing a camel, to borrow a line from your own bible.


Goodness Ky what a  revelation !
I guess the  muslims & the  buddhist and other  religions that have went on  crusades where just following  the  christians !

Anyway nice to know. Thanks.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

I’m out for awhile. This flood thing has gotten into deep waters.


----------



## Hillbilly stalker (Jun 7, 2019)

Their not interested in destroying the Korhan.....just Christians. Momma said they the debil


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> What's your thinking on this?
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/of-child-suicide-and-abortion-eugenics.944470/
> 
> I hope your dad is relieved of his suffering and you and your family as well.


I am DEEPLY troubled at the age standards set by some of these countries.
Young teenagers making that sort of decision???????
That seems incredibly ignorant to me.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> Their not interested in destroying the Korhan.....just Christians. Momma said they the debil



Islam sucks worse than Christianity fwiw. That’s not saying much.


----------



## j_seph (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Do you think "pulling the plug" on a family member is in the same category as abortion? Both are ending the journey before the captain is done sailing......


To me that is a huge difference. An embryo/fetus/baby is growing and living through its mother as it was created to be. Having to "pull the plug" on someone to is letting nature/natural life take its course. If we were meant to be hooked to a machine to keep us alive we would probably be created with the necessary corded plug for that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

j_seph said:


> To me that is a huge difference. An embryo/fetus/baby is growing and living through its mother as it was created to be. Having to "pull the plug" on someone to is letting nature/natural life take its course. If we were meant to be hooked to a machine to keep us alive we would probably be created with the necessary corded plug for that.


Do you believe "plugging them in" to begin with is going against God's plan for them?


----------



## ky55 (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> Goodness Ky what a  revelation !
> I guess the  muslims & the  buddhist and other  religions that have went on  crusades where just following  the  christians !
> 
> Anyway nice to know. Thanks.



Glad you see the point I was making-
Religions destroy the faiths of others way more than atheism ever could or ever will.

Reminds me of Steven Weinberg’s quote:

*“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”*


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Glad you see the point I was making-
> Religions destroy the faiths of others way more than atheism ever could or ever will.


Religious arrogance at its finest.
We are saving them but A/As are trying to make us doubt our faith.
Boo Freaking Hoo.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Religious arrogance at its finest.
> We are saving them but A/As are trying to make us doubt our faith.
> Boo Freaking Hoo.



Only falsehoods are threatened by questioning.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The DNA is not a human. It’s just a blueprint or set of instructions. The zygote is of human origin but in form and function it is indistinguishable from a zygote of any other species. Calling it a human is like calling a blueprint and a pile of raw materials a skyscraper. The two combined with the right conditions might in time become a skyscraper but at that point in time it lacks the characteristics that one would identify as a skyscraper. The proof is that you actually have to examine the blueprints to determine what it might become out of that which it not yet is.



I wasn't saying that DNA by itself is a human.  My claim is that a fertilized, living zygote is a human.  Given any number of zygotes, a scientist could test them an determine which one is a human and which one is a chicken.  If you asked them to label each one they would label the human one "Human".  If you pointed to the living zygote and asked them "Is this a human" they would answer based on their own criteria of what a human is.  If you go with what Webster says

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human

_3a *: *having human form or attributes   _

one could make the case that having human DNA is an attribute that makes it human.  Is having human DNA an attribute of being human?  I'm not sure the analogy of an inanimate object like a skyscraper is good.  They're very different things.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 7, 2019)

Do you recognize that the term zygote is a descriptor of an organism at a particular stage of development like the term fetus or newborn or baby or infant or toddler or child or teen ager or young adult....?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Pssst…..
> A/As don't believe any gods exist so aren't "shaking their fist" at him or any of them.



For something that you guys don't believe in you sure spend a disproportionate amount of time, energy, money, and other resources directed towards God.  And then there's the whole other dimension of the vast public display of vitriolic emotions even the idea of a God brings out in you guys.  It's absolutely insane to have emotions of any kind toward something that doesn't exist, yet every single one of you display such emotions on this forum daily.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 7, 2019)

Hillbilly stalker said:


> Their not interested in destroying the Korhan.....just Christians. Momma said they the debil


As I have said many times and firmly believe:

If 99% of devout American Christians had been born in  Iran, they would be devout lifelong Muslims. India: Hindus. Nepal: Buddhists.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 7, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> As I have said many times and firmly believe:
> 
> If 99% of devout American Christians had been born in  Iran, they would be devout lifelong Muslims. India: Hindus. Nepal: Buddhists.


Why do you hate all them other  religions to wish that on them ?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 7, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> Why do you hate all them other  religions to wish that on them ?


I don't hate any religion. I just don't have much faith in any of them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 7, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> For something that you guys don't believe in you sure spend a disproportionate amount of time, energy, money, and other resources directed towards God.  And then there's the whole other dimension of the vast public display of vitriolic emotions even the idea of a God brings out in you guys.  It's absolutely insane to have emotions of any kind toward something that doesn't exist, yet every single one of you display such emotions on this forum daily.


You've never met a one of us but you know our finances, energy level, what we do in public, our other resources.....
I honestly can say I dont think Ive ever met another human being that can spew the crap like you can.


----------



## Turpentine (Jun 7, 2019)

I'm not sure yall have made a presentable argument. The fact that you recognize a lie as bad, gives credit to a creator. As in you have some type of moral compass. The fact that you recognize there is a good and an evil gives credit to a creator. Other wise you would not recognize a good or bad you would just be doing what is necessary to survive and/or thrive. In other words good and bad equals yin and yang, karma, heaven and he'll, God and Satan.... ECT. You can not possibley sit there and tell me our laws are not based off of religions because alot of them go hand and hand. And we're did humans get this moral compass from? Certainly it does not apply to the vast majority of animals just trying to survive. I'm not claiming I know anything I am on my own journey just like you. But certainly you realize you are lieing when you call yourself an athiest. You recognizing good and evil emplies the opposite. With the absence of God or religion there is no right or wrong. There is no foundation for our laws and there is certainly no possible way that you could have a perceived idea of good and evil. But you are probably right I do not posses the knowledge or vocabulary to help you see. But I tried. As for the science thing. Yes what we think we know today is significantly different then hundreds of years ago and will be hundreds of years from now. When you have your D day you will understand. as for the noahs ark post there are many other people that can prove its reality, it would just take many papers or many hours to produce an understanding in which I venture to say y'all would not make it past a few minutes without calling it a lie. In other words you can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 7, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> I'm not sure yall have made a presentable argument. The fact that you recognize a lie as bad, gives credit to a creator. As in you have some type of moral compass. The fact that you recognize there is a good and an evil gives credit to a creator. Other wise you would not recognize a good or bad you would just be doing what is necessary to survive and/or thrive. In other words good and bad equals yin and yang, karma, heaven and he'll, God and Satan.... ECT. You can not possibley sit there and tell me our laws are not based off of religions because alot of them go hand and hand. And we're did humans get this moral compass from? Certainly it does not apply to the vast majority of animals just trying to survive. I'm not claiming I know anything I am on my own journey just like you. But certainly you realize you are lieing when you call yourself an athiest. You recognizing good and evil emplies the opposite. With the absence of God or religion there is no right or wrong. There is no foundation for our laws and there is certainly no possible way that you could have a perceived idea of good and evil. But you are probably right I do not posses the knowledge or vocabulary to help you see. But I tried. As for the science thing. Yes what we think we know today is significantly different then hundreds of years ago and will be hundreds of years from now. When you have your D day you will understand. as for the noahs ark post there are many other people that can prove its reality, it would just take many papers or many hours to produce an understanding in which I venture to say y'all would not make it past a few minutes without calling it a lie. In other words you can't see the forest for the trees.


How did the animals get back to where they came from without going extinct?
If ONE of the two died...the species is done!!
What would the animals eat once the waters rescinded? All the plant life is dead. The meat eaters need to eat meat so that means the other animals are on the menu. Eat one...no reproduction occurs.
Koalas only eat eucalyptus leaves. Where did Noah get the leaves to feed them? Did the Koalas bring a few hundred pounds along with them when two of them swam across the ocean from Australia and then walk a couple thousand miles in order to get to the Ark? Where are they going to get them on their trip back to Australia? Everything else on the planet is dead...every plant has been under water for over a month.

You have certainly thought it through alright...
Too many papers and too many hours to prove it....yep, uh huh.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 7, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> I'm not sure yall have made a presentable argument. The fact that you recognize a lie as bad, gives credit to a creator. As in you have some type of moral compass. The fact that you recognize there is a good and an evil gives credit to a creator. Other wise you would not recognize a good or bad you would just be doing what is necessary to survive and/or thrive. In other words good and bad equals yin and yang, karma, heaven and he'll, God and Satan.... ECT. You can not possibley sit there and tell me our laws are not based off of religions because alot of them go hand and hand. And we're did humans get this moral compass from? Certainly it does not apply to the vast majority of animals just trying to survive. I'm not claiming I know anything I am on my own journey just like you. But certainly you realize you are lieing when you call yourself an athiest. You recognizing good and evil emplies the opposite. With the absence of God or religion there is no right or wrong. There is no foundation for our laws and there is certainly no possible way that you could have a perceived idea of good and evil. But you are probably right I do not posses the knowledge or vocabulary to help you see. But I tried. As for the science thing. Yes what we think we know today is significantly different then hundreds of years ago and will be hundreds of years from now. When you have your D day you will understand. as for the noahs ark post there are many other people that can prove its reality, it would just take many papers or many hours to produce an understanding in which I venture to say y'all would not make it past a few minutes without calling it a lie. In other words you can't see the forest for the trees.


Laws and morals evolved as humans evolved.  Do you think there was a police force in the Caves? Do you honestly think cavemen politely asked women out on dates? Did they read the bible for the 10 Commandments and follow them?
Priceless.....Turpentine.......Priceless


----------



## ky55 (Jun 7, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> For something that you guys don't believe in you sure spend a disproportionate amount of time, energy, money, and other resources directed towards God.  And then there's the whole other dimension of the vast public display of vitriolic emotions even the idea of a God brings out in you guys.  It's absolutely insane to have emotions of any kind toward something that doesn't exist, yet every single one of you display such emotions on this forum daily.



SFD, it seems to me like you are the one who gets his skivvies all wadded up when some of us don’t agree with your constant unproven claims and assertions. 
Do you realize you are posting in the A/A forum?
Do you really think everybody down here is going to agree with, or tolerate, or respect your constant (unsupported) claims of superstitious nonsense?
Really??


----------



## hopper (Jun 7, 2019)

Although we all have our sneaky suspicions, we dont really know Jack.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I wasn't saying that DNA by itself is a human.  My claim is that a fertilized, living zygote is a human.  Given any number of zygotes, a scientist could test them an determine which one is a human and which one is a chicken.  If you asked them to label each one they would label the human one "Human".  If you pointed to the living zygote and asked them "Is this a human" they would answer based on their own criteria of what a human is.  If you go with what Webster says
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human
> 
> ...



DNA is one of many attributes of a human but it’s not sufficient to classify something as a human. A zygote has human dna but so do all human cells including dead ones. What other attributes does that zygote have that make it distinctly human from zygotes of other species? At that point nothing. It lacks human form and it lacks any of the functions we would associate with being a human being. Of course we are far more complex than a man made structure but we are biological structures nonetheless so I think the analogy made the point.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> You've never met a one of us but you know our finances, energy level, what we do in public, our other resources.....
> I honestly can say I dont think Ive ever met another human being that can spew the crap like you can.



Well he does have omniscience on his side.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 7, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Laws and morals evolved as humans evolved.  Do you think there was a police force in the Caves? Do you honestly think cavemen politely asked women out on dates? Did they read the bible for the 10 Commandments and follow them?
> Priceless.....Turpentine.......Priceless



Such a stupid argument! “If there weren’t no god I’d have no idea whether it was bad or not to rape and pillage!” As if it were proven tomorrow with 100% certainty that no gods exist they suddenly would be unable to form a judgment as to whether the 9/11 attacks were good or bad.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 8, 2019)

Turpentine said:


> I'm not sure yall have made a presentable argument. The fact that you recognize a lie as bad, gives credit to a creator. As in you have some type of moral compass. The fact that you recognize there is a good and an evil gives credit to a creator. Other wise you would not recognize a good or bad you would just be doing what is necessary to survive and/or thrive. In other words good and bad equals yin and yang, karma, heaven and he'll, God and Satan.... ECT. You can not possibley sit there and tell me our laws are not based off of religions because alot of them go hand and hand. And we're did humans get this moral compass from? Certainly it does not apply to the vast majority of animals just trying to survive. I'm not claiming I know anything I am on my own journey just like you. But certainly you realize you are lieing when you call yourself an athiest. You recognizing good and evil emplies the opposite. With the absence of God or religion there is no right or wrong. There is no foundation for our laws and there is certainly no possible way that you could have a perceived idea of good and evil. But you are probably right I do not posses the knowledge or vocabulary to help you see. But I tried. As for the science thing. Yes what we think we know today is significantly different then hundreds of years ago and will be hundreds of years from now. When you have your D day you will understand. as for the noahs ark post there are many other people that can prove its reality, it would just take many papers or many hours to produce an understanding in which I venture to say y'all would not make it past a few minutes without calling it a lie. In other words you can't see the forest for the trees.





> I'm not sure yall have made a presentable argument


For your argument to be presentable you have to do more than just make ascertions.
Since your entire argument hinges on the existence of the Christian God, the first thing you have to do is prove that he exists.
Question for you -
Its easily provable that morality changes, is different over time, location, culture etc. Many Christians claim those changes go AGAINST God and the Christian religion.
Is God and Christian religion going AGAINST God and Christian religion?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 8, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> DNA is one of many attributes of a human but it’s not sufficient to classify something as a human. A zygote has human dna but so do all human cells including dead ones. What other attributes does that zygote have that make it distinctly human from zygotes of other species? At that point nothing. It lacks human form and it lacks any of the functions we would associate with being a human being. Of course we are far more complex than a man made structure but we are biological structures nonetheless so I think the analogy made the point.



I wasn't talking about dead cells.  I specifically said a living zygote.  Ask any woman who wanted her pregnancy what's inside her and she will say "a baby" no matter what stage it's at.  I think I have a pretty good reason to call a living  zygote a human or a baby or a person.  I think I outlined it pretty well.  What are your criteria and why?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 8, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I wasn't talking about dead cells.  I specifically said a living zygote.  Ask any woman who wanted her pregnancy what's inside her and she will say "a baby" no matter what stage it's at.  I think I have a pretty good reason to call a living  zygote a human or a baby or a person.  I think I outlined it pretty well.  What are your criteria and why?



Human form and human function. Both develop gradually over time but at the zygote stage there is neither that would be identifiable as a human being.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 8, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Human form and human function. Both develop gradually over time but at the zygote stage there is neither that would be identifiable as a human being.



Can you be more specific?  Can you list these attributes?  How would you explain to a woman who has been purposefully pregnant for two days that the mass of cells (zygote) in her is not a baby?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 8, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Can you be more specific?  Can you list these attributes?  How would you explain to a woman who has been purposefully pregnant for two days that the mass of cells (zygote) in her is not a baby?



She can call it whatever she wants but that doesn’t make it so. Look up a picture of a baby and look up a picture of a zygote. They aren’t remotely similar. A zygote will in time become a baby but it is not a baby, it’s a zygote. If you show her a picture of a baby and ask her what it is she can tell you. If you show her a picture of a walrus zygote she might say it’s a human baby but she would be wrong. Now show her a picture of a human zygote and a walrus zygote and see if she can tell you which one is her “baby” and which one belongs to the mother walrus.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> She can call it whatever she wants but that doesn’t make it so.



I'm trying to get at what she should call it and why.  She can call it an elephant but that would certainly not be true.  I agree that there's a technical term that describes an organism at that stage of development, that being "zygote".  I sometimes call my 10 year old daughter "my baby", though that may be technically wrong.  I suppose I should more accurately call her "my pre-teen".    Why shouldn't she call it a human as in "I have a human growing inside me"



atlashunter said:


> Look up a picture of a baby and look up a picture of a zygote. They aren’t remotely similar. A zygote will in time become a baby but it is not a baby, it’s a zygote.



You seem to think that what it looks like is important.  Is that one of your criteria?



atlashunter said:


> If you show her a picture of a baby and ask her what it is she can tell you. If you show her a picture of a walrus zygote she might say it’s a human baby but she would be wrong. Now show her a picture of a human zygote and a walrus zygote and see if she can tell you which one is her “baby” and which one belongs to the mother walrus.



That's why I think DNA is the qualifier.  Also, you didn't address the fact that zygote is a term that refers to an organism's stage of development, like human zygote vs walrus zygote or infant human vs infant walrus or mature adult human vs mature adult walrus.

I'm not being argumentative.  I'm just trying to see why and when you would call something a human.  Maybe my standards are wrong.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 9, 2019)

Yes it indicates a stage of development. If DNA is all that constitutes a human then a stand of hair is a human. Every cell containing human DNA is a human. It would be more accurate to say it is of human origin. A zygote is a clump of human cells that in time and under the right conditions will develop into an organism that we would identify as a human being. It isn’t at that stage an organism identifiable as a human being because it lacks the form and function of one. There is no brain, no nervous system, no organs, no capacity for independent existence, no capacity for self awareness, no capacity for experience. It contains an instruction set to develop all of that but at that stage those properties do not exist for that zygote. It’s like pouring the foundation of a structure and then calling it a skyscraper. Maybe the blueprints are actually for an airport or a house. It hasn’t yet acquired the characteristics that’s would make it identifiable as one of those. Examining the DNA or blueprints tells you what it can eventually become, not what it is. At that stage it’s unfinished work. Unfinished to the degree that at that stage it matches any other building or organism to be.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Yes it indicates a stage of development. If DNA is all that constitutes a human then a stand of hair is a human. Every cell containing human DNA is a human. It would be more accurate to say it is of human origin.



This doesn't seem like the same thing I'm saying.  It's clear that a clump of just any living human cells isn't a human.  A living dividing zygote seems like a different thing. A clump of cells detached from the organism will eventually die.  A zygote (clump of cells) develops in a way very differently than any other clump of human cells.  It seems to me to warrant a distinction.



atlashunter said:


> A zygote is a clump of human cells that in time and under the right conditions will develop into an organism that we would identify as a human being. It isn’t at that stage an organism identifiable as a human being because it lacks the form and function of one. There is no brain, no nervous system, no organs, no capacity for independent existence, no capacity for self awareness, no capacity for experience.



OK.  That's a list. Now I guess one would have to talk specifically about when those things qualify.   



atlashunter said:


> It contains an instruction set to develop all of that but at that stage those properties do not exist for that zygote. It’s like pouring the foundation of a structure and then calling it a skyscraper. Maybe the blueprints are actually for an airport or a house. It hasn’t yet acquired the characteristics that’s would make it identifiable as one of those. Examining the DNA or blueprints tells you what it can eventually become, not what it is. At that stage it’s unfinished work. Unfinished to the degree that at that stage it matches any other building or organism to be.



I've expressed why I think the building analogy isn't good.  Consider that when looking at a foundation for an airport one might ask "what is it?"or "what's that gonna be", to which the builder might say "It's the beginnings of an airport" or they might just say "It's an airport" even though it's not functioning as an airport yet.  That means that one would have to define at what point the structure is functioning enough to be called an airport.  You have to do the same thing with a person.  It all seems very arbitrary, which might be your point.  I think I've narrowed it down to a point that isn't arbitrary.

Consider also that if one begins to pour a foundation for a garage but then changes the design (DNA) to a carriage house then it will develop into a carriage house.  That can be done with clumps cells and then we make the distinction between carriage house and garage.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 9, 2019)

If they say it is an airport and try to deliver it as such they would be sued. What it is and what it will become are not the same. It is a foundation. In time and with further development it can become an airport. Yes where we draw the line does depend on how we define the item in development and that has some subjectivity involved. All I’m saying is a clump of cells with no organs is no more a human being than a foundation and set of blueprints is a building because the form and function we identify with those terms is absent.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If they say it is an airport and try to deliver it as such they would be sued. What it is and what it will become are not the same. It is a foundation. In time and with further development it can become an airport. Yes where we draw the line does depend on how we define the item in development and that has some subjectivity involved. All I’m saying is a clump of cells with no organs is no more a human being than a foundation and set of blueprints is a building because the form and function we identify with those terms is absent.



I understand.  Can you expound on the different words we use to describe an organism at different states of development?  I understand that some terms are arbitrary, for example the Jews call a 14 year old an adult and American law says it's at 18.  Webster says that at 8 weeks a human organism en utero is a fetus. Underlying all that is the recognition that it's a human.  You seem to want to make your own definition of what a human is based on appearance and function.  That seems extremely arbitrary.  What's your reason, philosophically or etymologically for your distinctions?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 9, 2019)

If you look up the definition of a human being it is a man, woman or child of the species homo sapien. I'm willing to grant the term child can go pre birth but I don't think it goes all the way back to the stage of fertilized egg. There seems to be a lot of emotional attachment around all of these definitions. If you kill a doe that is in the process of giving birth it's reasonable to say you've killed two deer. Roll that clock backwards and you've still killed two deer up to a point. All the way to a fertilized egg though? If you kill a doe with a zygote in it have you killed two deer? I wouldn't say that zygote should be called a deer any more than a day old fertilized chicken egg should be called a chicken. It has no features of a chicken or a deer at that stage of development. I don't know how many different ways the same point can be made. 

Now where exactly does it become an individual of that species? I don't have a precise answer for that. It's like saying when does that skyscraper under construction get identified as a skyscraper? Is it when the foundation is laid? Is it when the steel substructure is built? Is it when the walls and windows are installed? Is it when all of the internal systems are in place? Is it when it is 100% completed? There's no objectively correct answer to that. It isn't a digital transformation between one instant and the next. A baby has human form. It has a brain and it can take in information and process it and respond to it as we would expect a human to be able to. It can experience pain. It can observe and respond to a smile. It's human in form and in function at that point even though it's still not fully developed. Going backward in development that becomes less and less the case.

Give you another example. Anencephaly. If you don't have a brain you aren't a human being in my book. Someone who is brain dead may be a living human body if they are on life support but that is not a being. Nobody is home. It's just a slab of human meat at that point. Same applies to a baby born without a brain. You've got human form for the most part but the human functionality is so severely degraded that I don't think the capacity for personhood is there.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If you look up the definition of a human being it is a man, woman or child of the species homo sapien. I'm willing to grant the term child can go pre birth but I don't think it goes all the way back to the stage of fertilized egg.



That's the issue. It seems arbitrary and subjective.  I'm talking about language and etymology, in this case it's linked to philosophy a bit. 



atlashunter said:


> There seems to be a lot of emotional attachment around all of these definitions.



Unfortunately, that seems to me to be the main issue muddying the waters around this subject.



atlashunter said:


> If you kill a doe that is in the process of giving birth it's reasonable to say you've killed two deer. Roll that clock backwards and you've still killed two deer up to a point. All the way to a fertilized egg though? If you kill a doe with a zygote in it have you killed two deer? I wouldn't say that zygote should be called a deer any more than a day old fertilized chicken egg should be called a chicken. It has no features of a chicken or a deer at that stage of development. I don't know how many different ways the same point can be made.



I understand that.  At the museum, the display of petri dishes with 1 day old embryos will label the one of a deer "Deer" and the human one "Human".  I wonder if you asked the people who labeled them "Is that a deer?" what they would say.  I imagine it would depend on their moral philosophy, which is arbitrary.  I'm looking for a better , more objective criteria for the terminology.  I think I found it and as far as I can tell, the objection to it is subjective.



atlashunter said:


> Now where exactly does it become an individual of that species? I don't have a precise answer for that.



I think I found a good place.  It won't be popular with some people because of "emotional attachment", as you stated.



atlashunter said:


> It's like saying when does that skyscraper under construction get identified as a skyscraper? Is it when the foundation is laid? Is it when the steel substructure is built? Is it when the walls and windows are installed? Is it when all of the internal systems are in place? Is it when it is 100% completed? There's no objectively correct answer to that. It isn't a digital transformation between one instant and the next. A baby has human form. It has a brain and it can take in information and process it and respond to it as we would expect a human to be able to. It can experience pain. It can observe and respond to a smile. It's human in form and in function at that point even though it's still not fully developed. Going backward in development that becomes less and less the case.



Someone involved in the building of the skyscraper might lift the first gold shovel full of dirt and say "Here is the skyscraper".  Are they wrong? Kinda, maybe.  Maybe not in a certain sense.  I told you why I don't really like the skyscraper analogy because the skyscraper doesn't autonomously build itself once the first shovel of dirt is lifted.  If there were a "skyscraper seed" that you planted and it sprouted I could call that a sky scraper.  I call the sprouts in my yard "oak trees" and the ones in the garden "tomatoes".



atlashunter said:


> Give you another example. Anencephaly. If you don't have a brain you aren't a human being in my book. Someone who is brain dead may be a living human body if they are on life support but that is not a being. Nobody is home. It's just a slab of human meat at that point. Same applies to a baby born without a brain. You've got human form for the most part but the human functionality is so severely degraded that I don't think the capacity for personhood is there.



You are entitled to "your book".  For public policy and for communication, a less subjective standard of the term "human" is available.  Personhood is a different subject, I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

_Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty _

It's unsettled.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

The objective definition of zygote can be found in a dictionary and it doesn’t include personhood. A fertilized egg is a zygote before it even implants in the uterus. That’s like a fertilized seed that hasn’t been planted. Do you look at your tomato seeds and call them tomato plants? You know it’s estimated that 30-70% of zygotes don’t reach full human development? Why don’t they autonomously build themselves without outside help? That’s a lot of “people” that pop into existence that never even experience being human.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The objective definition of zygote can be found in a dictionary and it doesn’t include personhood. A fertilized egg is a zygote before it even implants in the uterus. That’s like a fertilized seed that hasn’t been planted. Do you look at your tomato seeds and call them tomato plants? You know it’s estimated that 30-70% of zygotes don’t reach full human development? Why don’t they autonomously build themselves without outside help? That’s a lot of “people” that pop into existence that never even experience being human.



I think you misrepresented everything I said.  

I called _sprouts_ tomatoes.  That would be like an implanted zygote.

I also separated the issue of when to call something human from the issue of person hood.

I don't care to prove you wrong.  I just want to make sure I'm thinking about this right.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

I know you used sprouts. But by definition an unplanted zygote is still a zygote. That’s the equivalent of a fertilized but unplanted seed.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

When we call something a human that indicates a human being ie personhood. We need to make the distinction between that and saying something is human ie of human origin.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I know you used sprouts. But by definition an unplanted zygote is still a zygote. That’s the equivalent of a fertilized but unplanted seed.



One day we will be able to grow a person ex utero.  Will that change the definition in your mind?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> When we call something a human that indicates a human being ie personhood. We need to make the distinction between that and saying something is human ie of human origin.



I very much separated the issue of personhood from the issue of being human.  I would call an anencephallitic baby a human, also a brain dead person.  See there?  I called the brain dead organism a person because that's how we use language.  Should I have used quotes around the word person?   When talking about the brain dead should we use air-quotes?  Do you think it's correct to label the petri dish "Human"?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

Am I wrong to call the sprouts in my yard oak trees?  I suppose it's a bit of a misnomer.  We have words to describe oaks at different stages of their lives.  We call them sprouts, seedlings, saplings, and mature trees.  Just like we call humans zygotes, feuses, babies, children, toddlers, etc...


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The objective definition of zygote can be found in a dictionary and it doesn’t include personhood. A fertilized egg is a zygote before it even implants in the uterus. That’s like a fertilized seed that hasn’t been planted. Do you look at your tomato seeds and call them tomato plants? You know it’s estimated that 30-70% of zygotes don’t reach full human development? Why don’t they autonomously build themselves without outside help? That’s a lot of “people” that pop into existence that never even experience being human.



I think a seed is in suspended animation, like a frozen zygote or Sea Monkey eggs.  I think that as soon as they start growing again they can be called tomatoes, humans and Sea Monkeys.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Am I wrong to call the sprouts in my yard oak trees?  I suppose it's a bit of a misnomer.  We have words to describe oaks at different stages of their lives.  We call them sprouts, seedlings, saplings, and mature trees.  Just like we call humans zygotes, feuses, babies, children, toddlers, etc...



A sprout as in a very small plant with a stem, leaves, roots, etc? That's an independent organism with features we identify with the adult plant. That's quite different from a few dividing cells with no independent body, no organs, no distinguishing features that would make it identifiable as an organism belonging to a particular species.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> One day we will be able to grow a person ex utero.  Will that change the definition in your mind?



Nope. For me it makes no difference whether the "seed" is planted or not. What matters is the degree of development toward meeting the definition of our terms. I was just making the point that if you're going to compare a human zygote to a plant the analogy includes fertilized seeds which few would argue are actual plants.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I think a seed is in suspended animation, like a frozen zygote or Sea Monkey eggs.  I think that as soon as they start growing again they can be called tomatoes, humans and Sea Monkeys.


Seems like, (which is not the same as "in fact"), that you have pre specified what type of egg it is is what is influencing your view.
If I handed you a bowl of uncooked scrambled eggs what would you call them?


----------



## 660griz (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Seems like, (which is not the same as "in fact"), that you have pre specified what type of egg it is is what is influencing your view.
> If I handed you a bowl of uncooked scrambled eggs what would you call them?


Fowl embryo.  Or, pre-breakfast.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Seems like, (which is not the same as "in fact"), that you have pre specified what type of egg it is is what is influencing your view.
> If I handed you a bowl of uncooked scrambled eggs what would you call them?



Not the same thing at all.  Please take note that I've been talking about fertilized eggs that are alive and dividing.  That's my baseline.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> A sprout as in a very small plant with a stem, leaves, roots, etc? That's an independent organism with features we identify with the adult plant. That's quite different from a few dividing cells with no independent body, no organs, no distinguishing features that would make it identifiable as an organism belonging to a particular species.



"What it looks like and how it functions".  That seems to me your baseline.  Pretty vague in my opinion.  And who is the arbiter of when it "functions and looks enough" since you said you have difficulty in determining that yourself?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Not the same thing at all.  Please take note that I've been talking about fertilized eggs that are alive and dividing.  That's my baseline.


And how would you know what type of fertilized, alive and dividing eggs they were?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

Baby marsupials are often born looking very much like fetuses.  With that in mind, I would eliminate the "what it looks like" criteria.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> And how would you know what type of fertilized, alive and dividing eggs they were?



Walt, please go back and read through.  I said it can be determined by the DNA.

Here is my stance:

A human zygote that is alive is a human.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

660griz said:


> Fowl embryo.  Or, pre-breakfast.




But might be turtle eggs or snake eggs or platypus eggs or.........


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

I would add that I would call a dead human zygote in a petri dish a dead human.  What else would you call it and why?  I'm trying to be as clinical and emotionally unattached in my reasoning for the use of these terms as possible.  I think I've established a baseline for the term human that's detached from philosophy and morality.  It's purely a descriptor of an object.  My reasoning in regards to this subject is apolitical and amoral.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Walt, please go back and read through.  I said it can be determined by the DNA.
> 
> Here is my stance:
> 
> A human zygote that is alive is a human.


I understand your stance. Not arguing against it.
But we keep predetermining what kind it is (human zygote/chicken zygote/whatever zygote.
Why are we having to do that?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

The question was posed "How far back do you go before you call it a human?"  You tell me, and as very specifically as you can.  Make that list and see if it's rationally sound.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I understand your stance. Not arguing against it.
> But we keep predetermining what kind it is (human zygote/chicken zygote/whatever zygote.
> Why are we having to do that?



Because we don't call human zygotes chickens.  The DNA very much matters.  The question is "Can we call a human zygote a human?"?  Why or why not?  So far Atlas has said it has to do with form and function.  OK list the specific traits.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> But might be turtle eggs or snake eggs or platypus eggs or.........


Correct. You asked what I would call them. Didn't say I was right. Just based on where I was and who you are. Not that I know you. Lots of assumptions. 
Like, if my wife handed them to me and I asked, "What are these?" She would look at me like I had lost my mind. 
Well, I get that look a lot anyway.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Because we don't call human zygotes chickens.  The DNA very much matters.  The question is "Can we call a human zygote a human?"?  Why or why not?  So far Atlas has said it has to do with form and function.  OK list the specific traits.


You are on an island, no access to any sort of "testing" equipment.
What kind of zygote have you got?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> You are on an island, no access to any sort of "testing" equipment.
> What kind of zygote have you got?



I wouldn't know.  What are you getting at?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> "What it looks like and how it functions".  That seems to me your baseline.  Pretty vague in my opinion.  And who is the arbiter of when it "functions and looks enough" since you said you have difficulty in determining that yourself?



Yes, what it looks like and what properties it has ie how it functions, behaves, etc is what I'm looking for to identify what something is. It can be vague but isn't necessarily so. If you show me a fetus with a head, brain, arms, fingers, toes, a beating heart, etc then we can talk about how far its development goes towards eeting the definition of a human being. Yes nature blurs that line we are looking to draw. But if you point to a few dividing cells and call it a human then what it looks like and how it functions isn't nearly so vague. The differences between that and a living, breathing, conscious human being are pretty stark. No less stark than if we were looking at a zygote of any other mammal. An egg is an egg. It might be a duck egg or chicken egg, etc. That describes it's origin and tells you what it could develop into. But what it is at that time (identified by its properties) is an egg. Different DNA but still an egg. Same applies to zygotes or anything else. If the question is "what is it?" then answer that question by telling me what it is based on the properties it has. Don't confuse what it might become for what it is.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

This discussion arose from McKinney's question "What do A/A's think about abortion?".  Why is the question of "is a zygote a human?" germane to that question?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I wouldn't know.  What are you getting at?


Im not quite sure 
But I know "form and function" comes into play if you don't prespecify what kind of zygote it is.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> This discussion arose from McKinney's question "What do A/A's think about abortion?".  Why is the question of "is a zygote a human?" germane to that question?


I thought we had gone beyond the original question and were discussing zygotes in general.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Yes, what it looks like and what properties it has ie how it functions, behaves, etc is what I'm looking for to identify what something is. It can be vague but isn't necessarily so.



I think the baseline that I'm using eliminates all the vagueness and represents reality.  It's true scientifically and doesn't require any subjective analysis.



atlashunter said:


> If you show me a fetus with a head, brain, arms, fingers, toes, a beating heart, etc then we can talk about how far its development goes towards meeting the definition of a human being. Yes nature blurs that line we are looking to draw. But if you point to a few dividing cells and call it a human then what it looks like and how it functions isn't nearly so vague.


 

That makes sense to me and seems like a more utilitarian place to talk about all the other subjects realted to being human.



atlashunter said:


> The differences between that and a living, breathing, conscious human being are pretty stark. No less stark than if we were looking at a zygote of any other mammal. An egg is an egg. It might be a duck egg or chicken egg, etc. That describes it's origin and tells you what it could develop into. But what it is at that time (identified by its properties) is an egg. Different DNA but still an egg.



An egg with a shell is a different case and it confuses the issue a bit.  By my logic, the thing inside the egg is a duck, chicken, turtle.  Indeed, the zygote around which a shell will develop is also a duck, chicken, turtle.  



atlashunter said:


> Same applies to zygotes or anything else. If the question is "what is it?" then answer that question by telling me what it is based on the properties it has. Don't confuse what it might become for what it is.



A zygote of an animal that gives birth to live young is no longer an egg.  The term egg in reference to shell encased embryos is a different thing.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not quite sure
> But I know "form and function" comes into play if you don't prespecify what kind of zygote it is.



In your thinking, what is the connection between form and function and when you can call it a chicken, human, possum?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

The first time my wife got pregnant she miscarried quite early in her gestation, which is quite common.  I can't see how to get around the notion that what her body expelled was a human.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I thought we had gone beyond the original question and were discussing zygotes in general.



Perhaps.  I hope that's what we're doing.  I hope that we're discussing etymology.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Because we don't call human zygotes chickens.  The DNA very much matters.  The question is "Can we call a human zygote a human?"?  Why or why not?  So far Atlas has said it has to do with form and function.  OK list the specific traits.



We don't call chicken zygotes chickens either. Start selling chickens online and send them some chicken zygotes and see what response you get. We've been back and forth at this a while now. If you want to call a human zygote a human then what is your definition of a human? What is it besides DNA that makes a human zygote a human?

This is the full definition of a human being I alluded to earlier.

a man, woman, or child of the species _Homo sapiens_, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

If you do an image search for "human child" you're going to see pictures of kids, toddlers, even babies. What you aren't going to see is a picture of this:







Nobody if asked what that was would say it's a child. That could be a zygote of any species. You can't tell without analyzing the molecular instruction set that will guide it's further development.



This on the other hand:






Is distinguishable from this:






That zygote _could_ develop into either of those two depending on the DNA it contains but it is at the zygote stage neither of those two. It's a zygote.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> In your thinking, what is the connection between form and function and when you can call it a chicken, human, possum?


I haven't decided that yet. That's why in my original post I said "I would really like to know at what point that fetus becomes self aware".
So my questions aren't an argument, Im just trying to get additional information/viewpoints.
My current line of thinking is aborting an egg and aborting say a 6 month old fetus is not the same thing.
So basically, the question you just asked me is the exact same question Im trying to work out.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> The first time my wife got pregnant she miscarried quite early in her gestation, which is quite common.  I can't see how to get around the notion that what her body expelled was a human.


Those are abortions from God.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> An egg with a shell is a different case and it confuses the issue a bit.  By my logic, the thing inside the egg is a duck, chicken, turtle.  Indeed, the zygote around which a shell will develop is also a duck, chicken, turtle.
> 
> 
> 
> A zygote of an animal that gives birth to live young is no longer an egg.  The term egg in reference to shell encased embryos is a different thing.



The egg is the entire thing. And a duck egg and chicken egg have far more in common with each other than they have in common with either a duck or a chicken.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> We don't call chicken zygotes chickens either. Start selling chickens online and send them some chicken zygotes and see what response you get.



I think that if I bought some live chicken eggs, or if it were possible, frozen chicken zygotes, that I would not be mistaken in saying "My chickens are here".



atlashunter said:


> We've been back and forth at this a while now. If you want to call a human zygote a human then what is your definition of a human? What is it besides DNA that makes a human zygote a human?



For purposes of labeling a petri dish, those are the only requirements.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/human-being

*human being*

_*noun*
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens._

This particular definition doesn't say anything about characteristics.  It seems to center on classification based on species.

Here's another one:

https://www.yourdictionary.com/human-being

 *human being*
noun

The definition of a human being is a member of the Homo sapiens species, characterized by walking on two feet, opposing thumbs, five fingers and binocular color vision.

According to that we could declassify people born without thumbs as un-human.





atlashunter said:


> This is the full definition of a human being I alluded to earlier.
> 
> a man, woman, or child of the species _Homo sapiens_, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
> 
> If you do an image search for "human child" you're going to see pictures of kids, toddlers, even babies. What you aren't going to see is a picture of this:



What's the term when one shifts the subject?



atlashunter said:


> Nobody if asked what that was would say it's a child. That could be a zygote of any species. You can't tell without analyzing the molecular instruction set that will guide it's further development.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you recognize that the term zygote only refers to an organism at a particular stage of development?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The egg is the entire thing. And a duck egg and chicken egg have far more in common with each other than they have in common with either a duck or a chicken.



Like I said before, I can have some fertilized chicken eggs (laid) or some frozen chicken zygotes (unlaid) shipped to me and I could call them chickens without being in error.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The egg is the entire thing. And a duck egg and chicken egg have far more in common with each other than they have in common with either a duck or a chicken.



They are uncommon by the subjective criteria of form and function.  At some point you can peel the shell away and by your very vague, subjective and unspecific standards you would call it a chicken.

Why do you find it so hard to be specific about the exact criteria you use to determine what it is?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I haven't decided that yet. That's why in my original post I said "I would really like to know at what point that fetus becomes self aware".
> So my questions aren't an argument, I'm just trying to get additional information/viewpoints.
> My current line of thinking is aborting an egg and aborting say a 6 month old fetus is not the same thing.
> So basically, the question you just asked me is the exact same question I'm trying to work out.



Well, you've started a list that satisfies you.  "Self aware".  Good luck trying to nail that down and use it for the basis of any kind of law.  I'd like to know what other criteria you add to that list and why.  I don't think aborting a fetus or a zygote or a crowning baby are the same either.  I think that saying that those are all forms of killing a human at different life stages is scientifically and etymologically correct.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> They are uncommon by the subjective criteria of form and function.  At some point you can peel the shell away and by your very vague, subjective and unspecific standards you would call it a chicken.
> 
> Why do you find it so hard to be specific about the exact criteria you use to determine what it is?



At some point... that IS the point. At the point we are talking about they are indistinguishable without analyzing the DNA. And we've already established that it takes more than just DNA. I've already given some criteria in several posts. I've given definitions, properties, and examples. I've also acknowledged that because we are talking about analog development of all of these properties that it is difficult to pinpoint a single point in time where we transition from not a human to a human. What I would say rather is that the development goes from not a human to a human. It's like looking at a gradient between white and black and asking at which point it ceases to be one and becomes the other. The simple answer is it just doesn't work that way. Nature doesn't care about our need for strict boundary lines. And just because I can't tell you a specific point on the gradient where white becomes black that doesn't mean that black and white are the same. You're looking at the tiniest indication of gray and calling it black and all I'm saying is it's not black at that point. It is what it is.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Well, you've started a list that satisfies you.  "Self aware".  Good luck trying to nail that down and use it for the basis of any kind of law.  I'd like to know what other criteria you add to that list and why.  I don't think aborting a fetus or a zygote or a crowning baby are the same either.  I think that saying that those are all forms of killing a human at different life stages is scientifically and etymologically correct.



What is your definition of "a human"?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> At some point... that IS the point. At the point we are talking about they are indistinguishable without analyzing the DNA. And we've already established that it takes more than just DNA. I've already given some criteria in several posts. I've given definitions, properties, and examples. I've also acknowledged that because we are talking about analog development of all of these properties that it is difficult to pinpoint a single point in time where we transition from not a human to a human. What I would say rather is that the development goes from not a human to a human. It's like looking at a gradient between white and black and asking at which point it ceases to be one and becomes the other. The simple answer is it just doesn't work that way. Nature doesn't care about our need for strict boundary lines. And just because I can't tell you a specific point on the gradient where white becomes black that doesn't mean that black and white are the same. You're looking at the tiniest indication of gray and calling it black and all I'm saying is it's not black at that point. It is what it is.



I'm not talking about the difference between what we call white, grey, and black.  What I'm talking about is more like wavelengths.  To go with that analogy, I would say that what I'm getting at is that at some very specific point, the wavelength is in the visible range.  That point is very specific.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> What is your definition of "a human"?



For scientific purposes I would say that a living, dividing,  fertilized human sex cell is a human.  I thought I made that clear.  I could point to one in a petri dish and say "that's a human".  I don't see how that would be wrong, obviously.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

660griz said:


> Those are abortions from God.



I guess so....


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

660griz said:


> Those are abortions from God.




Straight to Heaven.  I wonder what form it takes in Heaven.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> For scientific purposes I would say that a living, dividing,  fertilized human sex cell is a human.  I thought I made that clear.  I could point to one in a petri dish and say "that's a human".  I don't see how that would be wrong, obviously.



Then by that definition it's a human. My definition is narrower. To me a human isn't just a living organism with human DNA. It's more than that. If I could transplant a gorilla brain into the body of a human it wouldn't be a human it would be a gorilla in a human body. Human form but not human function, not a human. If we found an animal or an alien species that had the intelligence and emotional capacity of humans but was in a different form I would not call that human either. Shared functionality but not human in form. A living, dividing, fertilized human sex cell lacks any form that we identify as human and it lacks the functionality that makes humans unique from other species so I wouldn't identify it as a human. It simply lacks the requisite properties under my definition.

Now all that said, if everyone shared your definition of what a human could be with the understanding that when we call something a human we could be talking about a microscopic organism that has no capacity for any of the experiences or behaviors or functions we typically identify with being a human being that would be fine. It would allow us to make the proper distinctions that need to take those differences into account. The problem I have is when people want to expand the definition beyond the typical understanding of a term to escape taking into account the differences created by the expanded definition.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

That little vial on the left contained an embryo for 7 years that eventually became a child. For 7 years it was there in suspended state with no functioning brain, no perception, no pain, no capacity for experience or interaction with the world. No capacity for thought. It also wasn't growing during that time. Now what separates that "human being" from a dead one or one that never existed at all? Or from an unfertilized egg? It had the potential to become a child with the right inputs but so does the unfertilized egg. If "I think therefore I am" is true, what of those that never had a thought at all?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Then by that definition it's a human. My definition is narrower. To me a human isn't just a living organism with human DNA. It's more than that. If I could transplant a gorilla brain into the body of a human it wouldn't be a human it would be a gorilla in a human body.



Mixed DNA.  Not human.  Partially human.   



atlashunter said:


> Human form but not human function, not a human. If we found an animal or an alien species that had the intelligence and emotional capacity of humans but was in a different form I would not call that human either.   Shared functionality but not human in form.



Me neither.  The DNA is the difference.  We have a term for beings like that.  Humanoid.



atlashunter said:


> A living, dividing, fertilized human sex cell lacks any form that we identify as human and it lacks the functionality that makes humans unique from other species so I wouldn't identify it as a human. It simply lacks the requisite properties under my definition.



I understand that your definition relies on form and function.  I saw where you listed some traits, though not many.  Do you recognize that those criteria are subjective and as thus, are useless for some kinds of analysis?



atlashunter said:


> Now all that said, if everyone shared your definition of what a human could be with the understanding that when we call something a human we could be talking about a microscopic organism that has no capacity for any of the experiences or behaviors or functions we typically identify with being a human being that would be fine.



Are you talking about a microscopic organism that is a living, dividing, human sex cell?  That was my definition.  I'm only asking because this wording seems unlike you.  



atlashunter said:


> It would allow us to make the proper distinctions that need to take those differences into account. The problem I have is when people want to expand the definition beyond the typical understanding of a term to escape taking into account the differences created by the expanded definition.



I showed you two definitions that had very different criteria.  There are many more.  I also showed you how one could refer to a shovel full of dirt as a skyscraper or a box of fertilized chicken eggs as chickens.  If those can be said to be patently false statements then your point is made.  The baseline that I refer to is as demonstrable, measurable, and specific as visible wavelength.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> That little vial on the left contained an embryo for 7 years that eventually became a child. For 7 years it was there in suspended state with no functioning brain, no perception, no pain, no capacity for experience or interaction with the world. No capacity for thought. It also wasn't growing during that time. Now what separates that "human being" from a dead one or one that never existed at all? Or from an unfertilized egg? It had the potential to become a child with the right inputs but so does the unfertilized egg. If "I think therefore I am" is true, what of those that never had a thought at all?



It's a human in suspended animation.  My definition doesn't require the criteria you list.  

There are dead human beings, live human beings and human beings in suspended animation.  I'm talking more about science than philosophy.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> That little vial on the left contained an embryo for 7 years that eventually became a child. For 7 years it was there in suspended state with no functioning brain, no perception, no pain, no capacity for experience or interaction with the world. No capacity for thought. It also wasn't growing during that time. Now what separates that "human being" from a dead one or one that never existed at all? Or from an unfertilized egg? It had the potential to become a child with the right inputs but so does the unfertilized egg. If "I think therefore I am" is true, what of those that never had a thought at all?



I have a hard time believing that you can't answer that yourself, either scientifically or philosophically.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

I'm trying to think of this another way.  Why_ shouldn't _I call a zygote a human?  Why shouldn't I call a shovel full of dirt a skyscraper or a flat of fertilized eggs chickens?  Because that's not what they are?  I think I made a case that they can be called those things without error.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

Maybe it has something to do with the way we use language.  Someone might say "I planted my tomatoes today", when in fact they put some seeds in the dirt and watered them.  As soon as the first shoot comes up they may say "My tomatoes are coming in".  A builder might say to his wife at dinner "We started the skyscraper today" after the groundbreaking ceremony.  But these are different than the case I'm making.  I'm talking about a scientific way to determine what to call something, a way that isn't subjective.  A way that we can all agree is true and real.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

If you refer to a skyscraper nobody is going to think you're talking about a shovel full of dirt. And if you point to a shovel full of dirt and ask someone what it is they aren't going to tell you it's a skyscraper. They are two very different things. Same for chickens and eggs. Same for humans and zygotes.

As far as the distinctions between dead, live, suspended... I think that is ok as long as the distinctions are made clear when using the more general term "human being". To me, a body without a brain is not a being at all. It's just a corpse whether dead or in a suspended state. If someone blows my brains out, my capacity for being is destroyed and the being with it. All that remains is a pile of human flesh that was once a being but is no more.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I'm trying to think of this another way.  Why_ shouldn't _I call a zygote a human?  Why shouldn't I call a shovel full of dirt a skyscraper or a flat of fertilized eggs chickens?  Because that's not what they are?  I think I made a case that they can be called those things without error.



You can call them whatever you want but the question is this. When you use those terms with other people do they know what you are talking about or are you going to be talking about two very different things? The reason these things even have different names in the first place should make it clear that they are not the same thing.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

And with that I think I'll fix myself a duck omelet and go shovel a few skyscrapers out of the sheep pen.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Well, you've started a list that satisfies you.  "Self aware".  Good luck trying to nail that down and use it for the basis of any kind of law.  I'd like to know what other criteria you add to that list and why.  I don't think aborting a fetus or a zygote or a crowning baby are the same either.  I think that saying that those are all forms of killing a human at different life stages is scientifically and etymologically correct.


 


> Good luck trying to nail that down and use it for the basis of any kind of law.


The basis for law isn't even on my radar in this discussion. Im strictly asking questions etc to try to nail down exactly what my feelings are about abortion. That would determine how I feel about "laws" pertaining to abortion.
To borrow from Atlas's post, these criteria are what I find to be important points -


> no functioning brain, no perception, no pain, no capacity for experience or interaction with the world. No capacity for thought.





> I think that saying that those are all forms of killing a human at different life stages is scientifically and etymologically correct.


I would say technically you are correct. But lets not forget we already kill humans at various life stages. War, death penalty, self defense, "pulling the plug" ...... Those folks are also someones "baby".
So having said Im mostly against abortion and that I personally wouldnt approve of it (whether an egg, 1 month or 8 1/2 months old), I can stomach other people doing it under certain circumstances. When determining what those circumstances are, those points I borrowed from Atlas come into play.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> If you refer to a skyscraper nobody is going to think you're talking about a shovel full of dirt. And if you point to a shovel full of dirt and ask someone what it is they aren't going to tell you it's a skyscraper. They are two very different things. Same for chickens and eggs. Same for humans and zygotes.



"A builder might say to his wife at dinner "We started the skyscraper today" after the groundbreaking ceremony. "  Would you tell the builder "You are wrong."?  Depending on the context I would say that to him.  But that is not the same for chickens and eggs.  They are on an autonomous path.  They are living, growing organisms that should be referred to scientifically in a way that is accurate, understandable, and universal.  



atlashunter said:


> As far as the distinctions between dead, live, suspended... I think that is ok as long as the distinctions are made clear when using the more general term "human being". To me, a body without a brain is not a being at all.



That's more philosophical than scientific.  




atlashunter said:


> It's just a corpse whether dead or in a suspended state. If someone blows my brains out, my capacity for being is destroyed and the being with it. All that remains is a pile of human flesh that was once a being but is no more.



A dead human.  

Again, why should I _not _refer to a zygote as a human?  Because that's not what it is? Would I be making a categorical or scientific error?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> The basis for law isn't even on my radar in this discussion. Im strictly asking questions etc to try to nail down exactly what my feelings are about abortion. That would determine how I feel about "laws" pertaining to abortion.
> To borrow from Atlas's post, these criteria are what I find to be important points -



You do seem to care about how we refer to a zygote because it affects how you think of laws regarding it's treatment.





WaltL1 said:


> I would say technically you are correct. But lets not forget we already kill humans at various life stages. War, death penalty, self defense, "pulling the plug" ...... Those folks are also someones "baby".





WaltL1 said:


> So having said Im mostly against abortion and that I personally wouldnt approve of it (whether an egg, 1 month or 8 1/2 months old), I can stomach other people doing it under certain circumstances. When determining what those circumstances are, those points I borrowed from Atlas come into play.



Exactly my stance, Walt.  That is where we should center the dabate about laws regarding abortion or killing of humans in general.  To say "It's not human.  It's just a mass of cells" is disingenuous.  I have offered what I think are good reasons why we should allow killing of humans at various stages of life and under what conditions.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

The laws regarding euthanasia shouldn't be centered on "That's not a human anymore because it's brain dead".  They should accept that it's a brain dead human and then figure out whether or not things like functionality, sentience, quality of life, even finances should be considered.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe it has something to do with the way we use language.  Someone might say "I planted my tomatoes today", when in fact they put some seeds in the dirt and watered them.  As soon as the first shoot comes up they may say "My tomatoes are coming in".  A builder might say to his wife at dinner "We started the skyscraper today" after the groundbreaking ceremony.  But these are different than the case I'm making.  I'm talking about a scientific way to determine what to call something, a way that isn't subjective.  A way that we can all agree is true and real.





> A way that we can all agree is true and real.


Apparently you do believe in miracles


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Apparently you do believe in miracles



For me the goal is to keep saying things that are true and real and rational.  Subjective definitions of what makes something a human can be neither of those by the nature of their subjectivity.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

^Calling these human beings is accurate, understandable and universally understood.






^Calling this a human being is not.

People can decide for themselves which use of the term is disingenuous.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> ^Calling these human beings is accurate, understandable and universally understood.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Examine the criteria they use.  Is it incontrovertible science or subjective feelings?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> You do seem to care about how we refer to a zygote because it affects how you think of laws regarding it's treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I should probably clarify -


> You do seem to care about how we refer to a zygote because it affects how you think of laws regarding it's treatment.


I dont care if you refer to it as a Twinkie.
My assumption is a zygote, whether human, alien, chicken or platypus is not capable of having a clue of what is about to happen, is happening, no pain no NOTHING.
Under those circumstances my anxiety level is MUCH lower than a fetus that does have a clue or feeling etc etc.
Show me a Twinkie feels/knows/ANYTHING at lets say 30 seconds after conception well then up to 29 seconds I feel one way, at 31 seconds I feel a different way.
So Im not focused on what is, Im focused on if it has a clue/feelings etc.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2019)

Just a few thoughts...
At what point would the insurance co cover and pay for a skyscraper that suddenly collapses? First shovel full? Inner Framework? Completed building? 
I am guessing at all points along the way...but the value differs and I am sure the official description is more specific for "official use" than it is for personal description. 

Ambush I do not want this to sound harsh or uncaring but I am curious.
At what point are funerals held for miscarriages?  Individual choice I am guessing??


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I should probably clarify -
> 
> I dont care if you refer to it as a Twinkie.
> My assumption is a zygote, whether human, alien, chicken or platypus is not capable of having a clue of what is about to happen, is happening, no pain no NOTHING.
> ...



Well, Atlas seems to care that we _not_ call a zygote a human.  It's an issue for me too, because I believe words mean things and the meaning is important to the way we talk about them.  

As for a good reason to kill it, I care less about what it is than the reasons that you bring up; sentience, pain..... In that regard, I think it less egregious to kill a brain dead human or a zygote than a perfectly healthy, functioning person.  That metric creates a scale where mentally retarded people may be somewhere in the middle. Did you see the euthanasia thread in the PF? 

http://forum.gon.com/threads/of-child-suicide-and-abortion-eugenics.944470/


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Just a few thoughts...
> At what point would the insurance co cover and pay for a skyscraper that suddenly collapses? First shovel full? Inner Framework? Completed building?
> I am guessing at all points along the way...but the value differs and I am sure the official description is more specific for "official use" than it is for personal description.
> 
> ...



Since funerals are social constructs and subjective to cultures I would say that it's individual choice.  My mom had a miscarriage (a spot) and she flushed it down the toilet.  If it looked like a kangaroo newborn she might have fished it out.  That actually reveals something about the nature of Atlas's and Walt's position.  There's an emotional component to the distinctions based on form an function.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

When would you start calling a fertilized egg a human, Bullet?  And why?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Just a few thoughts...
> At what point would the insurance co cover and pay for a skyscraper that suddenly collapses? First shovel full? Inner Framework? Completed building?
> I am guessing at all points along the way...but the value differs and I am sure the official description is more specific for "official use" than it is for personal description.



That's why words matter.  Steven Pinker talks about that very thing in _The Stuff of Thought_.  The insurance claim payout from the 911 attacks on the Twin Towers had very much to do with the wording and interpretation of the policy.  Basically the owners wanted to get paid for two separate events.  The insurance company said it was one event and wanted to pay out as such.

It also speaks to why killing a pregnant woman gets you charged with two murders.  I don't know what the law says but by my reasoning that would a cover a woman who is .00003 seconds pregnant, I suppose.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Examine the criteria they use.  Is it incontrovertible science or subjective feelings?



We are talking about how we define things and communicate. That's not a matter of incontrovertible science. Nobody tries conflating the terminology of a fully developed animal and a zygote of any other species. It's a non-issue. The only reason the conflation is made in the case of humans is because of the abortion debate and we know whose purpose that serves.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> We are talking about how we define things and communicate. That's not a matter of incontrovertible science. Nobody tries conflating the terminology of a fully developed animal and a zygote of any other species. It's a non-issue. The only reason the conflation is made in the case of humans is because of the abortion debate and we know whose purpose that serves.



Well, I'm Pro-choice.  I just happen to think that the Pro-choice side is using language inaccurately to advance their agenda.  I think it's disingenuous (as I said before). I think it puts the focus on the wrong thing and I think it makes them look (with good reason) unscientific and inhumane.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Well, Atlas seems to care that we _not_ call a zygote a human.  It's an issue for me too, because I believe words mean things and the meaning is important to the way we talk about them.
> 
> As for a good reason to kill it, I care less about what it is than the reasons that you bring up; sentience, pain..... In that regard, I think it less egregious to kill a brain dead human or a zygote than a perfectly healthy, functioning person.  That metric creates a scale where mentally retarded people may be somewhere in the middle. Did you see the euthanasia thread in the PF?
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/threads/of-child-suicide-and-abortion-eugenics.944470/


I quickly read it and other than being horrified at the 12/13 "acceptable age to make a suicide decision" I dont remember much. I will re-read.
However I will say that mental retardation, for me personally, would play 0 role in my outlook on abortion. In fact, just somebody using a phrase like "they went full retard" makes me want to beat them to a pulp.  Not sure why that is such a trigger for me as I dont have any family/friends who are but if you want to see Satan rear his head out of Walt.... say it in my presense.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Nobody tries conflating the terminology of a fully developed animal and a zygote of any other species. It's a non-issue. .



If that's so, then you will have to show why someone speaking of a flat of fertilized eggs and proclaiming "My chickens are here" is in error.  Or why someone pointing to a petri dish and saying "That's a human" is also in error.  You might start with telling them "No it's not" and then telling them why (that would be your illusive list of subjective criteria).


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Well, I'm Pro-choice.  I just happen to think that the Pro-choice side is using language inaccurately to advance their agenda.  I think it's disingenuous (as I said before). I think it puts the focus on the wrong thing and I think it makes them look (with good reason) unscientific and inhumane.



Most people would probably say it's disingenuous to try to pass off a shovel full of dirt as a skyscraper or an egg as a chicken. We have the different terminology because there are distinctions to be made between things with vastly different properties.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I quickly read it and other than being horrified at the 12/13 "acceptable age to make a suicide decision" I dont remember much. I will re-read.



In that girls case I agree, but I can imagine a truly horrific and tragic situation where if my 10 year old daughter asked me to put her out of my misery I would do it.  What was weird to me was that people would let someone suffer in the face of certain death so as not to "play god".  That seemed so obviously immoral. 



WaltL1 said:


> However I will say that mental retardation, for me personally, would play 0 role in my outlook on abortion. In fact, just somebody using a phrase like "they went full retard" makes me want to beat them to a pulp.  Not sure why that is such a trigger for me as I dont have any family/friends who are but if you want to see Satan rear his head out of Walt.... say it in my presense.



If you believe that being a human depends on a list of certain criteria like feeling pain, mental states, sentience... then a person may be so mentally retarded (under developed) that they may check off those boxes.  There's also a spectrum of those criteria that you'll have to acknowledge.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Most people would probably say it's disingenuous to try to pass off a shovel full of dirt as a skyscraper or an egg as a chicken. We have the different terminology because there are distinctions to be made between things with vastly different properties.



How would you correct someone if they pointed to the petri dish and said "That's a human"?

"No it's not because.........."


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Most people would probably say it's disingenuous to try to pass off a shovel full of dirt as a skyscraper or an egg as a chicken. We have the different terminology because there are distinctions to be made between things with vastly different properties.



Underlying the distinctions and the terminology (infant, baby, toddler, old man, zygote) the fact is that it's human.  Is that patently false?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

Show me where, besides when I make subjective claims like "something is disingenuous", I have made a claim that's patently false.  If your reasons are good I will helplessly believe.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> In that girls case I agree, but I can imagine a truly horrific and tragic situation where if my 10 year old daughter asked me to put her out of my misery I would do it.  That was weird to me.  That people would let someone suffer in the face of certain death so as not to "play god".  That seemed so obviously immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that being a human depends on a list of certain criteria like feeling pain, mental states, sentience... then a person may be so mentally retarded (under developed) that they may check off those boxes.  There's also a spectrum of those criteria that you'll have to acknowledge.



Anencephaly would check off the boxes for me but I find these arguments to largely be a red herring. There are very few births in which the sentience would be comparable to that of a zygote that wouldn't be still births.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> In that girls case I agree, but I can imagine a truly horrific and tragic situation where if my 10 year old daughter asked me to put her out of my misery I would do it.  That was weird to me.  That people would let someone suffer in the face of certain death so as not to "play god".  That seemed so obviously immoral.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that being a human depends on a list of certain criteria like feeling pain, mental states, sentience... then a person may be so mentally retarded (under developed) that they may check off those boxes.  There's also a spectrum of those criteria that you'll have to acknowledge.





> asked me to put her out of my misery I would do it.


Since you are being technical, that's technically not suicide. Maybe "mercy killing" would be more accurate?
And point taken as to your 2nd paragraph.
I gotta think about it. Off the top of my head, I think its going to lead me to hypocrisy in my thinking. But maybe not.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Anencephaly would check off the boxes for me but I find these arguments to largely be a red herring. There are very few births in which the sentience would be comparable to that of a zygote that wouldn't be still births.



Determining sentience is pretty subjective.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Since you are being technical, that's technically not suicide. Maybe "mercy killing" would be more accurate?
> And point taken as to your 2nd paragraph.
> I gotta think about it. Off the top of my head, I think its going to lead me to hypocrisy in my thinking. But maybe not.



In the PF thread I qualified that I was in a state where I couldn't kill myself and wanted help.  If my girl was capable physically to say, shoot herself, I still wouldn't make her do it herself.  The discussion was strangely revealing about people's different standards of what's compassionate and moral.  I'm sure there were many people on my side that didn't want to say so.

You reason pretty well.  I'm sure you'll figure out a way to make it make sense.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Underlying the distinctions and the terminology (infant, baby, toddler, old man, zygote) the fact is that it's human.  Is that patently false?



Depends on what you mean by human. I already made this distinction earlier between "human" ie of human origin and "a human" ie a human being. A human hair is human but it's not a human. A zygote is human life. So is every living cell in the human body. To become a distinct human being takes much more development.

The definition of human being doesn't include zygotes just like the definition of a skyscraper doesn't include a shovel full of dirt. And if you modify the definition to include zygotes then you've just blurred the distinctions between man, woman, child and zygote. I realize some would like to do that and I understand why but it seems to me a more honest approach would be for them to acknowledge all the aspects of being human that are absent in a zygote and make their case with that in mind. I realize where you stand but I think you've pushed your definitions beyond the point of credibility. When you're trying to make the case that eggs are chickens and bits of dirt are skyscrapers I'm sorry but I just can't take that argument seriously. Regardless of what you call them the fact of the matter remains they are very different things. There is no getting around that.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Determining sentience is pretty subjective.



Well if you can show that sentience is possible without a brain I'd love to see it. Seems pretty objective to me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> In the PF thread I qualified that I was in a state where I couldn't kill myself and wanted help.  If my girl was capable physically to say shoot herself, I still wouldn't make her do it herself.  The discussion was strangely revealing about people's different standards of what's compassionate and moral.  I'm sure there were many people on my side that didn't want to say so.
> 
> You reason pretty well.  I'm sure you'll figure out a way to make it make sense.





> I still wouldn't make her do it herself.


Admittedly I cant know of any ulterior motives you may have floating around in your head, but I can almost see it as an "ultimate act of love".


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Underlying the distinctions and the terminology (infant, baby, toddler, old man, zygote) the fact is that it's human.  Is that patently false?



Infants, toddlers, old men, and fingernails are all human. But only three of those are human beings. Only three have human bodies with human brains. Only three have the functionality of human beings. A zygote also lacks a human body, a human brain, or any other human organ. It has the same level of sentience as the fingernail. If you don't have a human body or a human brain then you're not a human being.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Depends on what you mean by human. I already made this distinction earlier between "human" ie of human origin and "a human" ie a human being. A human hair is human but it's not a human. A zygote is human life. So is every living cell in the human body. To become a distinct human being takes much more development.
> 
> The definition of human being doesn't include zygotes just like the definition of a skyscraper doesn't include a shovel full of dirt. And if you modify the definition to include zygotes then you've just blurred the distinctions between man, woman, child and zygote. I realize some would like to do that and I understand why but it seems to me a more honest approach would be for them to acknowledge all the aspects of being human that are absent in a zygote and make their case with that in mind. I realize where you stand but I think you've pushed your definitions beyond the point of credibility. When you're trying to make the case that eggs are chickens and bits of dirt are skyscrapers I'm sorry but I just can't take that argument seriously. Regardless of what you call them the fact of the matter remains they are very different things. There is no getting around that.



That's an odd statement.  They're alive human cells but only one kind will grow and live develop into a full organism.  That's a distinction that requires a different categorization.

"The definition of human being doesn't include zygotes"

Which definition?  I showed a definition of human that said people born without thumbs aren't human.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Infants, toddlers, old men, and fingernails are all human. But only three of those are human beings. Only three have human bodies with human brains. Only three have the functionality of human beings. A zygote also lacks a human body, a human brain, or any other human organ. It has the same level of sentience as the fingernail. If you don't have a human body or a human brain then you're not a human being.



That's progress.  You're making the list I've been asking to see. Can you give me your full list?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> That's an odd statement.  They're alive human cells but only one kind will grow and live develop into a full organism.  That's a distinction that requires a different categorization.
> 
> "The definition of human being doesn't include zygotes"
> 
> Which definition?  I showed a definition of human that said people born without thumbs aren't human.



The definition that I looked up and gave.

"will grow and develop" That tells me what it could become. Not what it is. Two very different things.

Does a cell that could become a baby deserve distinction from one that couldn't? Sure. We call that distinction a zygote. But it's still just a cell or group of dividing cells at that point.

When a baby is born, that's a human being. When an egg is fertilized, it's a cell that could become a baby.

There's a joke that goes "Do you know the difference between a bathroom and living room? No? Then don't come to my house." Well if you don't know the difference between a fertilized egg and a baby....


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> That's progress.  You're making the list I've been asking to see. Can you give me your full list?



That's nothing that hasn't already been said. I already answered this before. No, there is no list. At birth a healthy baby is a human being. At conception a fertilized egg is not a human being, certainly not in form or function. The development of that form and function is a gradual process. What you're asking is like saying when exactly does one species become a different species? At which generation was the first human? Doesn't work that way because every generation between us and our non human ancestors was transitional. Small steps that accumulated over time to arrive at much larger changes. I know you don't find that answer satisfying but that's just the biological reality.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> When would you start calling a fertilized egg a human, Bullet?  And why?


My opinion would be with heartbeat and brain function. Week 10-12. Right around when embryo turns to fetus and the essential organs have begun to form. 
At 13 weeks miscarriage chances decrease. 21 weeks and 5 days is the earliest a premature baby has survived birth.
So, because of both Heartbeat and Brain Function.  10 to 12 weeks.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Well if you can show that sentience is possible without a brain I'd love to see it. Seems pretty objective to me.



Neurology doesn't have an answer to that either.  Mostly because sentience is subjective.  They disagree on at what point neural activity constitutes thought.   Neurologists and philosophers usually concentrate on consciousness, which they can't pin down either.  Have you ever heard of the term Panpsychism?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> The definition that I looked up and gave.  "will grow and develop" That tells me what it could become. Not what it is. Two very different things.



The one that supports what you believe.  The one you prefer.  That's fine.  That's what most people do. I'm proposing that defining something as human is like defining when is something in the visible light spectrum (to use the analogy you presented which I think is valid).



atlashunter said:


> Does a cell that could become a baby deserve distinction from one that couldn't? Sure. We call that distinction a zygote. But it's still just a cell or group of dividing cells at that point.
> 
> When a baby is born, that's a human being. When an egg is fertilized, it's a cell that could become a baby.



Another one to add to the list. Natural birth?  Cesarean?  Premature? I would like to see as much of the list as you can provide. 



atlashunter said:


> There's a joke that goes "Do you know the difference between a bathroom and living room? No? Then don't come to my house." Well if you don't know the difference between a fertilized egg and a baby....



I don't understand the analogy.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> My opinion would be with heartbeat and brain function. Week 10-12. Right around when embryo turns to fetus and the essential organs have begun to form.
> At 13 weeks miscarriage chances decrease. 21 weeks and 5 days is the earliest a premature baby has survived birth.
> So, because of both Heartbeat and Brain Function.  10 to 12 weeks.



Some neurologists say that "brain function" starts with the first neural cells.  

I appreciate that you can pin it down to your satisfaction.  Would you agree or disagree that the term "brain function" is subjective

If we are able to gestate a zygote to full term exutero would that change your definitions?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2019)

Quickening stage for me
http://www.brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> That's nothing that hasn't already been said. I already answered this before. No, there is no list. At birth a healthy baby is a human being.



There's a partial list.



atlashunter said:


> At conception a fertilized egg is not a human being, certainly not in form or function. The development of that form and function is a gradual process.



Does that mean you don't know exactly when it's a human?



atlashunter said:


> What you're asking is like saying when exactly does one species become a different species? At which generation was the first human? Doesn't work that way because every generation between us and our non human ancestors was transitional. Small steps that accumulated over time to arrive at much larger changes. I know you don't find that answer satisfying but that's just the biological reality.



This analogy is just like the white to grey to black analogy.  Until the wavelngth is in the visible spectrum, those terms are meaningless.  At some point our huuman ancestor was a protozoa.  At another point in the future our descendants may no longer exhibit the criteria you use to classify them as Human (Homonid, Sapien), they may not even fall into a classification like Mammalian.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Quickening stage for me
> http://www.brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/



Ok. Why? Can you lead me through your thought process?

I like the "When does life begin?" question, but we're talking about when can you call a fertilized egg a human.  Do you think there's a definite point? Why or why not?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Ok. Why? Can you lead me through your thought process?
> 
> I like the "When does life begin?" question, but were talking about when can you call a fertilized egg a human.  Do you think there's a definite point and why or why not?


My thought process in my mind and reasoning is described in the Quickening section. Brain function that allows a fetus to respond to external stimuli.  Prior to that, it is made up of cells doing what cells are designed to do and are unaware of themselves or external stimuli. In my mind, awareness seems to equal human.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> My thought process in my mind and reasoning is described in the Quickening section. Brain function that allows a fetus to respond to external stimuli.  Prior to that, it is made up of cells doing what cells are designed to do and are unaware of themselves or external stimuli. In my mind, awareness seems to equal human.



We don't know that for certain.  Consciousness is still deeply mysterious.  Check this out:


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> We don't know that for certain.  Consciousness is still deeply mysterious.  Check this out:


Like with most things, I go with the best available information. 
I agree with us not knowing the absolute accuracy of those figures, but it is what makes sense in my mind based off of what seems to be the majority of scientific and medical knowledge as of right now.
Until a brain is formed, I am unsure how much conciousness is available or when the part(s) of the brain responsible for conciousness are formed.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Like with most things, I go with the best available information.
> I agree with us not knowing the absolute accuracy of those figures, but it is what makes sense in my mind based off of what seems to be the majority of scientific and medical knowledge as of right now.
> Until a brain is formed, I am unsure how much consciousness is available or when the part(s) of the brain responsible for consciousness are formed.



No one does.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> No one does.


Right, so at the point described as/in the Quickening makes the most sense to me.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 10, 2019)

Y’all been busy. ?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 10, 2019)

bullethead said:


> My thought process in my mind and reasoning is described in the Quickening section. Brain function that allows a fetus to respond to external stimuli.  Prior to that, it is made up of cells doing what cells are designed to do and are unaware of themselves or external stimuli. In my mind, awareness seems to equal human.



There’s a study on that subject I was reading about the other day that is one of the more recent works on the subject where they think the earliest reflexes to stimulus are actually just nerve reflexes, not actual responses of the brain based on the degree of development in the first trimester. Basically the consensus from what I could gather was that the ability to feel pain didn’t come until the second trimester.


----------



## ky55 (Jun 10, 2019)

kmckinnie said:


> Y’all been busy. ?



Yep they sure have. 
It takes a lot of time and effort to actually think about something for yourself.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> There’s a study on that subject I was reading about the other day that is one of the more recent works on the subject where they think the earliest reflexes to stimulus are actually just nerve reflexes, not actual responses of the brain based on the degree of development in the first trimester. Basically the consensus from what I could gather was that the ability to feel pain didn’t come until the second trimester.



 "Pain" That's an interesting word.  Maybe we should discuss it.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Yep they sure have.
> It takes a lot of time and effort to actually think about something for yourself.



Many apologists that have come and gone here have said "Being an atheist is easy".


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2019)

ky55 said:


> Yep they sure have.
> It takes a lot of time and effort to actually think about something for yourself.


Especially with subjects like this one.
Be a whole lot easier if we were told "here this is what you believe".


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> There’s a study on that subject I was reading about the other day that is one of the more recent works on the subject where they think the earliest reflexes to stimulus are actually just nerve reflexes, not actual responses of the brain based on the degree of development in the first trimester. Basically the consensus from what I could gather was that the ability to feel pain didn’t come until the second trimester.


Yes, I have read up on the nerve reflex vs actual responses but I figure 10 to 12 weeks is getting close to the 2nd trimester and that period (in my head) is close enough to fit in the 2nd trimester of functions/growth with some wiggle room. It is just my thought process that says "close enough".


----------



## Israel (Jun 11, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Determining sentience is pretty subjective.




In one's self or in another?

Consensus, in particular, does not avail here.

I would tend more toward "I think, therefore _I think_ I am".

Many may think...they think "a lot". (See the above few comments) Of those a probable (how could I be sure?) amount think they "think well". Or, think enough of themselves...to think so.

Even were a man to think/confess "I don't think I am thinking right" I trust you (Ambush) see the obvious conundrum...


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 11, 2019)

Israel said:


> In one's self or in another?
> 
> Consensus, in particular, does not avail here.
> 
> ...



Thinking and reasoning and experimenting and discovering is the best way to determine what's true.   One just keeps trying to say things that are true and that comport with reality and facts on the ground.  One puts one's thoughts up against the thoughts of others and tries to determine which ones seem to describe what's real the best.

You seem to think this is an impossible task because you spend allot of time believing in fantasy. I'm speaking as truthfully as I can.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2019)

Israel said:


> In one's self or in another?
> 
> Consensus, in particular, does not avail here.
> 
> ...


I am glad you weren't thinking of things, the thoughts of all those things constantly being thought would be unthinkable.


----------



## Israel (Jun 11, 2019)




----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 11, 2019)

Israel said:


> View attachment 972580


----------



## bullethead (Jun 11, 2019)

Israel said:


> View attachment 972580


???


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 11, 2019)

Noah's flood was a local event. Common sense disproves a global event.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 12, 2019)

hobbs27 said:


> Noah's flood was a local event. Common sense disproves a global event.



http://forum.gon.com/threads/how-archaeology-disproves-noahs-flood.944431/post-11741869

I’ll buy that but it is incompatible with the claim of biblical inerrancy.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 12, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> They get to shake their fist at God.  That’s the gist of it,....and enjoy what little prideful happiness that brand of insanity brings.


 If you see an atheist, well anyone, shaking his fist at God, insanity is the word I would use as well.  





> To a man, they are as detached from reality as the one who finds each step he takes up the gallows funny.


 That is what we are here to talk about. Debating on who has a better grasp on reality. Well, some of us. 





> They are truely to be pitied, for this life is the best it will ever get for them.


I am ok with that. Carpe Diem!!


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 12, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> http://forum.gon.com/threads/how-archaeology-disproves-noahs-flood.944431/post-11741869
> 
> I’ll buy that but it is incompatible with the claim of biblical inerrancy.



No, there comes a line between inerrancy and mistranslated. There's also a misunderstood by the interpreters.

Almost everytime world is mentioned in scripture it doesn't  mean the global world.

I'll give you a New Testament example.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Romans 10:18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Colossians 1: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Here we have a prophesy in Matt 24, that Paul declares is fulfilled in Colossians and Roman's. The " world" was their known world, at that time, the Roman empire....And the world " age" was about " melo" to come to an end when Paul was writing . 

The old covenant age came to an end in AD70, that was the end they all looked to, for there is no end to come in our age. Ephesians 3:21


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 12, 2019)

There's a lot more issues than just the translation of world in Genesis. I went through and detailed many of them. Funny how the more we learn about how the world works the more theists have to go back and re-translate and reinterpret their texts away from the traditional understanding to avoid acknowledging the scriptures aren't always true.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 13, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> There's a lot more issues than just the translation of world in Genesis. I went through and detailed many of them. Funny how the more we learn about how the world works the more theists have to go back and re-translate and reinterpret their texts away from the traditional understanding to avoid acknowledging the scriptures aren't always true.



Actually a global flood doctrine is not so traditional. It was originally thought up and made a doctrine by Ellen G White. A false prophetess that founded the 7th day adventist.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 13, 2019)

hobbs27 said:


> Actually a global flood doctrine is not so traditional. It was originally thought up and made a doctrine by Ellen G White.


I know it is not hard to do but, you lost me. Ms. White wrote Genesis? Or, did folks translate Genesis into local flood till Ms. White came along?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

hobbs27 said:


> Actually a global flood doctrine is not so traditional. It was originally thought up and made a doctrine by Ellen G White. A false prophetess that founded the 7th day adventist.



Was that before or after Martin Luther wrote this in his commentary on Genesis?


“When therefore in the time of Noah the whole earth had been deluged by the Flood and every living creature except a few souls, bad been utterly destroyed, the age which immediately succeeded that of Noah lived without doubt in the fear of God.”


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

This is from John Calvin’s commentary.

And the flood was forty days, etc. Moses copiously insists upon this fact, in order to show that the whole world was immersed in the waters. Moreover, it is to be regarded as the special design of this narrations that we should not ascribe to fortune, the flood by which the world perished; how ever customary it may be for men to cast some veil over the works of God, which may obscure either his goodness or his judgments manifested in them. But seeing it is plainly declared, that whatever was flourishing on the earth was destroyed, we hence infer, that it was an indisputable and signal judgment of God; especially since Noah alone remained secure, because he had embraced, by faith, the word in which salvation was contained. He then recalls to memory what we before have said; namely how desperate had been the impiety, and how enormous the crimes of men, by which God was induced to destroy the whole world; whereas, on account of his great clemency, he would have spared his own workmanship, had he seen that any milder remedy could have been effectually applied. These two things, directly opposed to each other, he connects together; that the whole human race was destroyed, but that Noah and his family safely escaped.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2019)

hobbs27 said:


> Noah's flood was a local event. Common sense disproves a global event.





> Common sense disproves


When you get through the meat and down to the bone this is at the foundation of a lot of the A/A position on this entire overall subject.
It doesnt seem to work for us when discussing/debating God/gods/Bible/talking donkeys/rainbows etc etc etc
Not sure its going to work for you either ...…
The counter to "common sense disproves" seems to be "you just gotta believe".


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> When you get through the meat and down to the bone this is at the foundation of a lot of the A/A position on this entire overall subject.
> It doesnt seem to work for us when discussing/debating God/gods/Bible/talking donkeys/rainbows etc etc etc
> Not sure its going to work for you either ...…
> The counter to "common sense disproves" seems to be "you just gotta believe".



Why the appeal to common sense rather than scripture?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 13, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Why the appeal to common sense rather than scripture?



Most of the believers I know, who are in general critical thinkers, and want their worldview to be consistent with reality, almost always speak of Biblical miracles as metaphors.  Jordan Peterson is the epitome of this.  We should encourage all of them to move towards this way of thinking


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Most of the believers I know, who are in general critical thinkers, and want their worldview to be consistent with reality, almost always speak of Biblical miracles as metaphors.  Jordan Peterson is the epitome of this.  We should encourage all of them to move towards this way of thinking



Yeah it would be great if they were the norm among believers. Then we could finally get past these claims of biblical inerrancy.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Most of the believers I know, who are in general critical thinkers, and want their worldview to be consistent with reality, almost always speak of Biblical miracles as metaphors.  Jordan Peterson is the epitome of this.  We should encourage all of them to move towards this way of thinking





> We should encourage all of them to move towards this way of thinking


I really question whether that is a realistic expectation/goal.
In my opinion, the (not sure what word to use here) mystery? miracle? attraction? is a necessary part of belief/faith. Truly critical thinking would lead to dismissing 3/4 of the Bible. Can a believer dismiss most of the Bible as metaphor and still believe in an omni everything God? How far could a believer take it? All the way to God and his supposed attributes are just a metaphor for "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences"?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 13, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah it would be great if they were the norm among believers. Then we could finally get past these claims of biblical inerrancy.



It's moving in that direction.  They should be lauded and encouraged to try to reform others.  



WaltL1 said:


> I really question whether that is a realistic expectation/goal.
> In my opinion, the (not sure what word to use here) mystery? miracle? attraction? is a necessary part of belief/faith. Truly critical thinking would lead to dismissing 3/4 of the Bible. Can a believer dismiss most of the Bible as metaphor and still believe in an omni everything God? How far could a believer take it? All the way to God and his supposed attributes are just a metaphor for "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences"?



I think it's not only realistic but inevitable.  I do all I can to accelerate the transition. One can have all the mystery, miracle, and attraction without having to sacrifice being honest about science and reality.  You don't have to dismiss the stories.  You just re-interpret them.  You might enjoy listening to Jordan Peterson.  He eloquently talks about the value of ancient stories and never needs to advance superstition or anti scientific ideas.  Peterson extracts the message "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences" without having to appeal to the supernatural or make false claims about reality.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 13, 2019)

Believers often say that the way that the Bible stories were told was so that ancient people could understand them without the knowledge we have to day.  If there are truths about the nature of humanity, then they should be applicable to modern people who know that bats aren't birds.  They should apply to people who recognize that a world wide flood is impossible.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I really question whether that is a realistic expectation/goal.
> In my opinion, the (not sure what word to use here) mystery? miracle? attraction? is a necessary part of belief/faith. Truly critical thinking would lead to dismissing 3/4 of the Bible. Can a believer dismiss most of the Bible as metaphor and still believe in an omni everything God? How far could a believer take it? All the way to God and his supposed attributes are just a metaphor for "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences"?



It would be one thing if someone said "Yeah common sense tells us that didn't happen. The bible got that wrong." It's another thing when we get the "what the bible really meant to say" game.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> It's moving in that direction.  They should be lauded and encouraged to try to reform others.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's not only realistic but inevitable.  I do all I can to accelerate the transition. One can have all the mystery, miracle, and attraction without having to sacrifice being honest about science and reality.  You don't have to dismiss the stories.  You just re-interpret them.  You might enjoy listening to Jordan Peterson.  He eloquently talks about the value of ancient stories and never needs to advance superstition or anti scientific ideas.  Peterson extracts the message "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences" without having to appeal to the supernatural or make false claims about reality.



Saying the Genesis flood account wasn't a world wide flood isn't a re-interpretation. It's a rewriting.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I really question whether that is a realistic expectation/goal.
> In my opinion, the (not sure what word to use here) mystery? miracle? attraction? is a necessary part of belief/faith. Truly critical thinking would lead to dismissing 3/4 of the Bible. Can a believer dismiss most of the Bible as metaphor and still believe in an omni everything God? How far could a believer take it? All the way to God and his supposed attributes are just a metaphor for "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences"?


When I set out to back up the writings in the bible with facts,and instead had to admit it was 3/4 worth of dismissal of facts in favor of suspending rational and logical thought...It turned me into another direction completely that I initially fought.
I truly believe that most do not want to even tempt their faith like that.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 13, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> This is from John Calvin’s commentary.



I'm not much on John Calvin, and I mischaracterized Ellen Whites theology. She actually created the young earth theory, in which she uses a global flood to explain the extinction of dinosaurs , and geological formations .
Sorry about getting that confused,  it's been a while since I've looked into that exact study.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 13, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Saying the Genesis flood account wasn't a world wide flood isn't a re-interpretation. It's a rewriting.



Not if you understand they didnt even know the world beyond their region. If their region was flooded, it was the entire world to them.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

hobbs27 said:


> Not if you understand they didnt even know the world beyond their region. If their region was flooded, it was the entire world to them.



But it wasn't the entire world and the creator of the universe (who we are told this book speaks for) would have known that.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2019)

hobbs27 said:


> Not if you understand they didnt even know the world beyond their region. If their region was flooded, it was the entire world to them.


What you say above is true. I think just about every Agnostic and Atheist in here agrees with it.

But, weren't they getting their information from their God? Shouldn't that information be specific and accurate?
Or
Are you telling us the bible is a man made book filled with fable, folklore and stories by an ancient culture written as best they could??


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> It's moving in that direction.  They should be lauded and encouraged to try to reform others.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's not only realistic but inevitable.  I do all I can to accelerate the transition. One can have all the mystery, miracle, and attraction without having to sacrifice being honest about science and reality.  You don't have to dismiss the stories.  You just re-interpret them.  You might enjoy listening to Jordan Peterson.  He eloquently talks about the value of ancient stories and never needs to advance superstition or anti scientific ideas.  Peterson extracts the message "this is how you should act or you will suffer bad consequences" without having to appeal to the supernatural or make false claims about reality.


I get what you are saying (I think). It just strikes me that what you are saying in a roundabout way is " believers should critically think their way right out of believing in God" or at the very least completely redefining what it is they believe in.


> You just re-interpret them.


How much of the Bible do you think a believer can reinterpret and still believe in an omni everything God?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 13, 2019)

bullethead said:


> When I set out to back up the writings in the bible with facts,and instead had to admit it was 3/4 worth of dismissal of facts in favor of suspending rational and logical thought...It turned me into another direction completely that I initially fought.
> I truly believe that most do not want to even tempt their faith like that.


I think this ^ is more or less my point.
At some point in reinterpreting or accepting as metaphor...… you don't believe in what you used to believe in anymore. And that would be the existence of God. Or at least God as represented by Christianity.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 13, 2019)

As for the bible, it's an ancient text. We mess it up by reading it through our western and modern eyes. Thankfully there's some really studied men today that take the time to learn ancient near east text, and culture, then compare that with the old testament scriptures, especially the pentateuch.

The scriptures are clearly accurate, and perfect. They tell a story of God bringing Adam into relationship out of an already populated earth, the creation story is about the building of a temple, the sin Adam brought into that land , separated him from God, creating a need for a Savior foretold in that scene. Jesus fulfills that , now man can once again have the relationship with God that Adam had.
 I suggest you search and listen to John Walton on the subjects of the creation story, and flood event. He has many 7 minute youtube videos called 7 minute seminary, he's also written several books on the subject. Very intelligent man.
 Peace out!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2019)

I think Adam was the first in Creation(Israel) to be in covenant. There were surely more humans on the earth by the time this happened.

Creation knew God and were without excuse to worship him. They exchanged that worship for that of idols.

The "world" was aware of God and was therefore required to worship him. They chose not to and "exchanged" his worship for that of idols.

This just shows that the world was not the whole world and creation is not the whole world.

Psalm 106:20 
They exchanged their glorious God for an image of a bull, which eats grass.

This is what "creation" did.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2019)

hobbs27 said:


> As for the bible, it's an ancient text. We mess it up by reading it through our western and modern eyes. Thankfully there's some really studied men today that take the time to learn ancient near east text, and culture, then compare that with the old testament scriptures, especially the pentateuch.
> 
> The scriptures are clearly accurate, and perfect. They tell a story of God bringing Adam into relationship out of an already populated earth, the creation story is about the building of a temple, the sin Adam brought into that land , separated him from God, creating a need for a Savior foretold in that scene. Jesus fulfills that , now man can once again have the relationship with God that Adam had.
> I suggest you search and listen to John Walton on the subjects of the creation story, and flood event. He has many 7 minute youtube videos called 7 minute seminary, he's also written several books on the subject. Very intelligent man.
> Peace out!


Soooo the bible was written in a language, style and in ways intended for ancients to understand , not to be easily universally understood but by only a very small percentage of roughly 1.2 Billion "followers" who have to study ancient eastern ways and pass their findings on through YouTube ministry??
That is a lot of work in order to get the real truth out of the worlds largest misunderstood religion.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

If the scriptures were perfect and clear people wouldn't spend thousands of years believing they meant something different than they really meant. Or trying to change the meaning that has been understood for thousands of years. Genesis clearly describes a world wide flood and that's how it's been understood from the early church to the present day. We know now that it's untrue so rather than just acknowledge it christians either ignore the evidence and insist it is true anyway or they say it doesn't mean what it says.

So if Genesis should have described a local flood that leaves us with a god that is so disappointed in the evil of men that he created that he decides to kill all of them... in one region. Apparently men in other parts of the world that had no idea about him weren't evil enough to be wiped off the earth. But he had to save one man and his family to repopulate the earth. Except there were still plenty of people to repopulate the region. Same for animals in the region. And he promised to never again do what he did, which was killing a bunch of people in a local region with a flood. A promise that had it been made would have since been broken many times over. And a scripture that claims the earth was repopulated by the sons of Noah even though we now know that's not true.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think Adam was the first in Creation(Israel) to be in covenant. There were surely more humans on the earth by the time this happened.
> 
> Creation knew God and were without excuse to worship him. They exchanged that worship for that of idols.
> 
> ...



Nice story but that's not what Genesis says.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 13, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Saying the Genesis flood account wasn't a world wide flood isn't a re-interpretation. It's a rewriting.


Fine.  Do you want to be right or let them reform?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 13, 2019)

John 18:20
"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

Did Jesus talk to the Eskimo?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Fine.  Do you want to be right or let them reform?



Is that what Hobbs is doing?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 13, 2019)

If everyone is descended from Adam why would people in one region of the world be expected to worship Yahweh but not the rest? Why wouldn’t they all be held equally accountable? And what were people in the Middle East doing that was particularly offensive that people in other parts of the world weren’t doing?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 13, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Is that what Hobbs is doing?



I think so.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 14, 2019)

I think it may be a type of reform. Trying to convey that what the early Christians believed might be different that what they believe now about the bible. I mean now one might read a verse and say it stands for the 12 tribes and the lost tribe and the sea represents your enemies and the mountain is Jesus. When back then, it may have not meant all that.

Maybe a reform to read the bible the way they did back when it was written. Not just the bible but scripture that predates the bible.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 14, 2019)

It would be like listening to the song about Jack and Diane, 100 years from now and say Jack was America and Diane was Russia, and the Tastee Freeze was the Middle East.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 14, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> It would be like listening to the song about Jack and Diane, 100 years from now and say Jack was America and Diane was Russia, and the Tastee Freeze was the Middle East.


And the 'Bobbie Brooks' are secrets. I am with ya. Continue.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think it may be a type of reform. Trying to convey that what the early Christians believed might be different that what they believe now about the bible. I mean now one might read a verse and say it stands for the 12 tribes and the lost tribe and the sea represents your enemies and the mountain is Jesus. When back then, it may have not meant all that.
> 
> Maybe a reform to read the bible the way they did back when it was written. Not just the bible but scripture that predates the bible.



How does that apply to the flood story? And what do you do when you know the original meaning and understanding of scriptures was based on a flawed understanding of the world?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> I think so.



There’s a difference between reforming and evolving. Real reform requires a certain degree of honesty.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 14, 2019)

660griz said:


> And the 'Bobbie Brooks' are secrets. I am with ya. Continue.


 
Diane sitting on Jacky's lap was Trump canoodling with the Russians. lol


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 14, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> How does that apply to the flood story? And what do you do when you know the original meaning and understanding of scriptures was based on a flawed understanding of the world?



The flood story as being worldwide has a different meaning now as when written. It's the same as with Creation. Creation is Israel.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 14, 2019)

Read every verse that has "world" in it and then tell me they all mean everyone. Start with John 3:16.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 14, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Read every verse that has "world" in it and then tell me they all mean everyone. Start with John 3:16.


So you are saying that God sent his Son to save the Jews(Israelites). The Jews are God's world, they are his people and he is their God. 
Correct?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 14, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> There’s a difference between reforming and evolving. Real reform requires a certain degree of honesty.



You do like to quibble.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> You do like to quibble.



So do you apparently.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> The flood story as being worldwide has a different meaning now as when written. It's the same as with Creation. Creation is Israel.



I won’t deny the ignorance of the authors of the Bible. That’s the entire point. If they couldn’t get facts about our own planet right and made grossly exaggerated stories out of local events then why should anyone expect the rest of their myths to be factual?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 14, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> The flood story as being worldwide has a different meaning now as when written. It's the same as with Creation. Creation is Israel.



When Genesis 7:19 says every mountain under the entire heavens was covered in water that would include all mountains everywhere on the planet. The intended meaning from this and the rest of the verses is clear that the author means to describe a flood that covers the entire world and kills everyone but Noah and his family. The meaning today is the same as it was then. It’s not as if the author of the story changed their mind since then. They were simply wrong about what happened.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 14, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> So do you apparently.



So I've been told.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 14, 2019)

> atlashunter said:
> So do you apparently.





ambush80 said:


> So I've been told.


HEY! I wanna quibble toooo 


> When Genesis 7:19 says every mountain under the entire heavens was covered in water that would include all mountains everywhere on the planet


If the writers thought their area was the entire world, then every mountain under the entire heavens would/could still pertain to their limited/wrong view of how big the entire world was. 

Of course to Bullets point, if the Bible was God's word HE would have known how big the entire world actually was.


----------



## hobbs27 (Jun 14, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> When Genesis 7:19 says every mountain under the entire heavens was covered in water that would include all mountains everywhere on the planet. The intended meaning from this and the rest of the verses is clear that the author means to describe a flood that covers the entire world and kills everyone but Noah and his family. The meaning today is the same as it was then. It’s not as if the author of the story changed their mind since then. They were simply wrong about what happened.


 No, that would not include the entire world and everyone in it, but you're agenda is to " prove " scripture wrong, not study the actual meanings of the words and exegete from the verses. Therein lies my frustration when speaking scripture to those that aren't interested in it.
 Carry on, I'm out of here for a while.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 15, 2019)

hobbs27 said:


> No, that would not include the entire world and everyone in it, but you're agenda is to " prove " scripture wrong, not study the actual meanings of the words and exegete from the verses. Therein lies my frustration when speaking scripture to those that aren't interested in it.
> Carry on, I'm out of here for a while.



Already went line by line through the verses and referenced two leading figures in the Christian faith who expressed the same understanding centuries earlier than you initially claimed it came about. You already have told us that a thousand year prophecy actually happened in a forty year period and the second coming of Christ which the church has been expecting for two thousand years already happened. You’re already way outside the mainstream Christian understanding of scripture. Maybe like most other Christians you have a better understanding than anyone else of what the Bible really meant to say but so far all we have is the assertion, not the demonstration.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 15, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> HEY! I wanna quibble toooo
> 
> If the writers thought their area was the entire world, then every mountain under the entire heavens would/could still pertain to their limited/wrong view of how big the entire world was.
> 
> Of course to Bullets point, if the Bible was God's word HE would have known how big the entire world actually was.



That would still mean their intended meaning was there wasn’t a single mountain in the world that wasn’t submerged by the flood. That is what Genesis says regardless of whether the authors fully understood the extent of the heavens.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2019)

It's a hard task to get religious folk to do a 180 and proclaim their holy texts are outright lies.  They needn't, because fairy tales and myths are not always entirely lies.  They may contain useful ideas or may have historical value.  If you want to get believers to deny that god exits, that's also a very difficult task, because the idea of god can also be utilitarian.   All these things can be reinterpreted to align with reality.  Of course it's not impossible for one to do a 180, obviously that's what many atheists have done, but since atheists don't know everything either, they should admit that "the gaps" are big enough for "god" to be in.  It doesn't have to be a "guy".  It doesn't have to have a "consciousness" like we understand that term. It's true agnosticism.

_https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic_
_
1*: *a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably __unknowable_

This is not deism.  This is an acknowledgement that people have always come up with ideas of god and the transcendent and that they are worthy of examination.  People who have made moves towards reinterpreting traditional notions of scripture and god, as to have them comport with reality, should be encouraged.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> It's a hard task to get religious folk to do a 180 and proclaim their holy texts are outright lies.  They needn't, because fairy tales and myths are not always entirely lies.  They may contain useful ideas or may have historical value.  If you want to get believers to deny that god exits, that's also a very difficult task, because the idea of god can also be utilitarian.   All these things can be reinterpreted to align with reality.  Of course it's not impossible for one to do a 180, obviously that's what many atheists have done, but since atheists don't know everything either, they should admit that "the gaps" are big enough for "god" to be in.  It doesn't have to be a "guy".  It doesn't have to have a "consciousness" like we understand that term. It's true agnosticism.
> 
> _https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic_
> 
> ...


Do me a favor please. Explain what you mean by 





> have them comport with reality


Reality would dictate there are no gods simply because no gods have been proven to exist.
So how could their beliefs "comport with reality" without them denying a god, in this case God, exists?
And Im not quibbling/arguing, I agree with the bulk of what you are saying, but I am stuck on this part.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> All these things can be reinterpreted to align with reality.



^That is where the wheel falls off for me. There is a certain dishonesty to it because it refuses to acknowledge the authors got it wrong and instead suggests that they were right but that we misunderstood or misinterpreted their message. That’s fine if it’s actually the case and in some instances I’m sure it is. But when it’s not and we use that tactic to avoid acknowledging a real error was made then the error remains uncorrected. And that always leaves the door open to fundamentalists correcting the false reinterpretation and going back to the original meaning. You don’t reform an untruth by trying to cover it up with more untruths. Like making the claims that it doesn’t mean what it says or the traditional understanding is actually more recent when it’s not. Better to acknowledge it for what it is.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Do me a favor please. Explain what you mean by
> Reality would dictate there are no gods simply because no gods have been proven to exist.
> So how could their beliefs "comport with reality" without them denying a god, in this case God, exists?
> And Im not quibbling/arguing, I agree with the bulk of what you are saying, but I am stuck on this part.



You reinterpret god and the texts in such a way that they don't contradict science.  

That being said, someone that is brutally honest will recognize that we don't know everything.  We don't know if physics allows for an actual resurrection or any other number of miracles.  As far as we know, physics doesn't allow for resurrection, but again, we don't know everything about physics.  My personal opinion is that we should operate only by what we know about physics and never make truth claims about physics that exceed what we DO know.  It would be true to say that people who live their lives under the assumption that physics works in any way other than how we currently understand it are living in a fantasy world. That's how we classify something as fantasy.

_https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fantasy

5 *: *the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need    _ 

We can see many of the problems that arise when people decide to live that way.  The benefits of "religion" or a notion of "god" can be had without having to believe in fantasy.  We have to broaden and redefine those terms or come up with other ones.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 15, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Let's look at it in a bit more detail.
> 
> Genesis 6
> 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
> ...



^ These scriptures still have not been explained if the author meant a local flood and not a global one.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> ^That is where the wheel falls off for me. There is a certain dishonesty to it because it refuses to acknowledge the authors got it wrong and instead suggests that they were right but that we misunderstood or misinterpreted their message. That’s fine if it’s actually the case and in some instances I’m sure it is. But when it’s not and we use that tactic to avoid acknowledging a real error was made then the error remains uncorrected. And that always leaves the door open to fundamentalists correcting the false reinterpretation and going back to the original meaning. You don’t reform an untruth by trying to cover it up with more untruths. Like making the claims that it doesn’t mean what it says or the traditional understanding is actually more recent when it’s not. Better to acknowledge it for what it is.



All that would be accomplished by moving current religious texts to the Mythology section.  Is there no practical need for a Religious section?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> ^ These scriptures still have not been explained if the author meant a local flood and not a global one.



Perhaps as far as they knew, it was the whole Earth.  That's a possibility, seeing how little they knew about the entire world, so that's how they wrote it.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> All that would be accomplished by moving current religious texts to the Mythology section.  Is there no practical need for a Religious section?



You lost me there.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Perhaps as far as they knew, it was the whole Earth.  That's a possibility, seeing how little they knew about the entire world, so that's how they wrote it.



Look at the verses again. Genesis 6:7 god says he is going to wipe the human race from the face of the earth. 

Is that true or false that he said that? If he did but he only intended to kill middle easterners but leave the rest of humanity then he was lying. If he didn’t know about the rest of humanity then he’s not omniscient.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Look at the verses again. Genesis 6:7 god says he is going to wipe the human race from the face of the earth.
> 
> Is that true or false that he said that? If he did but he only intended to kill middle easterners but leave the rest of humanity then he was lying. If he didn’t know about the rest of humanity then he’s not omniscient.



It's false, but not a lie. They didn't know what they were talking about, factually.

I'm saying that to call the Odyssey or the Iliad a lie may be a categorical mistake.  I understand that some believers refuse to put the Bible in the same category.  That can change.  Do you see a reason to have a Religion section at the library or should all religious texts be classified as Mythology?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> It's false, but not a lie. They didn't know what they were talking about, factually.
> 
> I'm saying that to call the Odyssey or the Iliad a lie may be a categorical mistake.  I understand that some believers refuse to put the Bible in the same category.  That can change.  Do you see a reason to have a Religion section at the library or should all religious texts be classified as Mythology?



Is a believer going to acknowledge that verse is false? That’s not what Hobbs is doing. It’s false but that’s hard to acknowledge for anyone who claims biblical inerrancy. I think we are on the same page but I’m more set on holding feet to the fire than you are.

Religion vs mythology section? Don’t know. Most of the contents in the mythology section once belonged in the religion section didn’t they?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> You reinterpret god and the texts in such a way that they don't contradict science.
> 
> That being said, someone that is brutally honest will recognize that we don't know everything.  We don't know if physics allows for an actual resurrection or any other number of miracles.  As far as we know, physics doesn't allow for resurrection, but again, we don't know everything about physics.  My personal opinion is that we should operate only by what we know about physics and never make truth claims about physics that exceed what we DO know.  It would be true to say that people who live their lives under the assumption that physics works in any way other than how we currently understand it are living in a fantasy world. That's how we classify something as fantasy.
> 
> ...


Im going to ask you to put on your "be patient with Walt" hat".
Totally agree we don't know everything.
Totally agree we should operate by what we do know and shouldn't make "fact" claims beyond that. (thats why Im not sold on the BB Theory or any other theory that "explains" our existence including a god or God).
Is your end game that believers should or will incrementally reinterpret the Bible/God/texts and arrive at "yeah some good lessons here but that God stuff just isnt reality"?

And of course the flip side (for believers) of 


> You reinterpret god and the texts in such a way that they don't contradict science.


is


> You reinterpret science and the texts in such a way that they don't contradict God.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 15, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> ^ These scriptures still have not been explained if the author meant a local flood and not a global one.


If you could remove all that you know presently and replace it with as far as I know the only mountains are in North Ga, the only animals are the ones in North Ga, the only world under the heavens is North Ga, the only people who survived the flood in North Ga were Noah and his sons....... it would make sense (sorta).


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 15, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> If you could remove all that you know presently and replace it with as far as I know the only mountains are in North Ga, the only animals are the ones in North Ga, the only world under the heavens is North Ga, the only people who survived the flood in North Ga were Noah and his sons....... it would make sense (sorta).



That would be all well and good if we weren’t talking about a book purported to be inerrant that speaks on behalf of an omniscient creator of the universe. That raises the bar a bit.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 15, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> That would be all well and good if we weren’t talking about a book purported to be inerrant that speaks on behalf of an omniscient creator of the universe. That raises the bar a bit.


And therein lies the problem with trying to make the entire thing make sense.
If you get one part to make sense.... it contradicts another part or contradicts part of the story/beliefs.
That's why you just gotta beeeelieeeve….


----------



## Capt Quirk (Jun 15, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Religious arrogance at its finest.
> We are saving them but A/As are trying to make us doubt our faith.
> Boo Freaking Hoo.


Speaking as one that your religion would have burned at the stake, simply for believing the Earth is not flat, nor that the Sun circles the Earth... No thank you. I'm doing fine without another voice telling me what to believe.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Im going to ask you to put on your "be patient with Walt" hat".
> Totally agree we don't know everything.
> Totally agree we should operate by what we do know and shouldn't make "fact" claims beyond that. (thats why Im not sold on the BB Theory or any other theory that "explains" our existence including a god or God).
> Is your end game that believers should or will incrementally reinterpret the Bible/God/texts and arrive at "yeah some good lessons here but that God stuff just isnt reality"?
> ...



Good questions, Walt.

My end game is for people to reinterpret their idea of god and scripture in such a way that it comports with reality as we presently understand it . 

I don't think any believers want to try to reinterpret science so that it doesn't contradict god when they board an airplane or go in for open heart surgery.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Is a believer going to acknowledge that verse is false? That’s not what Hobbs is doing. It’s false but that’s hard to acknowledge for anyone who claims biblical inerrancy. I think we are on the same page but I’m more set on holding feet to the fire than you are.
> 
> Religion vs mythology section? Don’t know. Most of the contents in the mythology section once belonged in the religion section didn’t they?



Baby steps.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> That would be all well and good if we weren’t talking about a book purported to be inerrant that speaks on behalf of an omniscient creator of the universe. That raises the bar a bit.



The fact that ancient people anthropomorphised god shouldn't be surprising.  In fact, history has shown that that's what all people who have a god mythology have done.  Ancient people were in error about allot of things.  Some of the things they tried to express have utility to this day.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 15, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> And therein lies the problem with trying to make the entire thing make sense.
> If you get one part to make sense.... it contradicts another part or contradicts part of the story/beliefs.
> That's why you just gotta beeeelieeeve….



That would be one way of doing it.  Another would be to look at the texts with a modern understanding, including the understanding that people tried to express ideas that they were incapable of completely grasping. They might have been doing the best they could with what they had.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> Good questions, Walt.
> 
> My end game is for people to reinterpret their idea of god and scripture in such a way that it comports with reality as we presently understand it .
> 
> I don't think any believers want to try to reinterpret science so that it doesn't contradict god when they board an airplane or go in for open heart surgery.





> My end game is for people to reinterpret their idea of god and scripture in such a way that it comports with reality as we presently understand it .


I would have to acknowledge the possibility of that happening. I think we could even say we are seeing the infantile (zygote? ) stages of that happening now.
Ya know what I see as even more possible?
Christianity being replaced by an even more hard core religion which not only negates that but drags us even further backwards.
Maybe after that.......
Of course the wild card is does science prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt how all this, including us, got here.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 15, 2019)

ambush80 said:


> That would be one way of doing it.  Another would be to look at the texts with a modern understanding, including the understanding that people tried to express ideas that they were incapable of completely grasping. They might have been doing the best they could with what they had.


My deep seated mistrust of organized religion makes that hard for me to swallow.
But yes its possible.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 15, 2019)

Capt Quirk said:


> Speaking as one that your religion would have burned at the stake, simply for believing the Earth is not flat, nor that the Sun circles the Earth... No thank you. I'm doing fine without another voice telling me what to believe.


My religion?
In think wires got crossed somewhere because I would be burning one stake over from you.
Unless I misunderstood your point which, and you can ask anybody here, is entirely possible


----------



## Capt Quirk (Jun 15, 2019)

Coul


WaltL1 said:


> My religion?
> In think wires got crossed somewhere because I would be burning one stake over from you.
> Unless I misunderstood your point which, and you can ask anybody here, is entirely possible


Could be. Wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 15, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I would have to acknowledge the possibility of that happening. I think we could even say we are seeing the infantile (zygote? ) stages of that happening now.
> Ya know what I see as even more possible?
> Christianity being replaced by an even more hard core religion which not only negates that but drags us even further backwards.
> Maybe after that.......
> Of course the wild card is does science prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt how all this, including us, got here.



Valid concern. Europe seems to be going that direction and the US tends to follow Europe.


----------

