# ???



## Brother David (Nov 4, 2018)

Helpful information!!!


----------



## Brother David (Nov 4, 2018)

More info


----------



## Brother David (Nov 4, 2018)

Times 3


----------



## Brother David (Nov 4, 2018)

One more for thought


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 4, 2018)

Let the meme war begin!


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2018)




----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2018)




----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2018)




----------



## Brother David (Nov 4, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> View attachment 948052


It's not about Religion it's about caring !!!
I expect even being peaceful to be attacked!!!
I still love you !!! 
Nothing wrong with caring about others !!!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Nov 4, 2018)

"The day the squirrel went berserk"


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2018)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2018)




----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2018)

gemcgrew said:


> Let the meme war begin!



Now...what's really gonna bake your noodle is, would it have started...?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2018)

Brother David said:


> It's not about Religion it's about caring !!!
> I expect even being peaceful to be attacked!!!
> I still love you !!!
> Nothing wrong with caring about others !!!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 4, 2018)

I think what Brother Dave is teaching is the lesson on loving people even when they don't love you. To forgive your trespassers.

If a man wants your cloak, give him your shirt as well.

That we should all strive for peace and getting along with people who don't believe exactly as we do.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 4, 2018)

Could you go fishing with an Atheist? Hunting with a Christian? Eat supper with a Democrat. Wash the feet of a Republican. 
Invite a tax collector home. 
Help a Black Jehovah witness change his tire. Eat the Hindu's Paneer.
Hold the elevator door for a one eared Libertarian.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could you go fishing with an Atheist?


Yes. It does require a barbed hook of the right size.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could you go fishing with an Atheist? Hunting with a Christian? Eat supper with a Democrat. Wash the feet of a Republican.
> Invite a tax collector home.
> Help a Black Jehovah witness change his tire. Eat the Hindu's Paneer.
> Hold the elevator door for a one eared Libertarian.


Im ok with the other stuff but inviting a tax collector home is going too far.


----------



## Brother David (Nov 4, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Im ok with the other stuff but inviting a tax collector home is going too far.


Wait a minute now , my middle sister worked for the IRS and we still let her come for Christmas and Thanksgiving . She just can't stay long .


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Could you go fishing with an Atheist? Hunting with a Christian? Eat supper with a Democrat. Wash the feet of a Republican.
> Invite a tax collector home.
> Help a Black Jehovah witness change his tire. Eat the Hindu's Paneer.
> Hold the elevator door for a one eared Libertarian.




I'm assuming the Librarian has an armful of books?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Wait a minute now , my middle sister worked for the IRS and we still let her come for Christmas and Thanksgiving . She just can't stay long .


Every family has a black sheep


----------



## Brother David (Nov 4, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Every family has a black sheep


Lol


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2018)




----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2018)




----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2018)

This one is a little bit twisted but hey...….


----------



## Israel (Nov 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> This one is a little bit twisted but hey...….
> View attachment 948152



Either someone not on the Ark survived to make the picture, or Noah had a very long selfie stick.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> View attachment 948149


But he did say he had other sheep and our naysayers have spent hundreds of years and can’t find those other worlds ?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Israel said:


> Either someone not on the Ark survived to make the picture, or Noah had a very long selfie stick.


Probably the same guy that snapped a pic of Jesus when he was "alone".


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> This one is a little bit twisted but hey...….
> View attachment 948152



They deserved it.  We all deserve it.


----------



## ky55 (Nov 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> They deserved it.  We all deserve it.



Yep, God hates sinful infants.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

ky55 said:


> Yep, God hates sinful infants.


But, but, but Infants are Innocents....
I guess it depends on which one of the three personalities is calling the shots at the time.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 5, 2018)

Brother David said:


> Helpful information!!!View attachment 948033



I saw a quote yesterday that I thought very prescient:  “An atheist is like a fish in a deep wide sea denying the existence of water.”


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I saw a quote yesterday that I thought very prescient:  “An atheist is like a fish in a deep wide sea denying the existence of water.”


Yeah,not all quotes are accurate or even good


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I saw a quote yesterday that I thought very prescient:  “An atheist is like a fish in a deep wide sea denying the existence of water.”


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I saw a quote yesterday that I thought very prescient:  “An atheist is like a fish in a deep wide sea denying the existence of water.”


Explain how that quote is even remotely accurate, let alone "prescient".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> View attachment 948263


All of which are held to the exact same scrutiny.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> View attachment 948263





bullethead said:


> All of which are held to the exact same scrutiny.



I apply different type and level of scrutiny to different kinds of claims.  Everybody does, even believers.  But they have a different criteria for scrutinizing scripture that's only reserved for scripture.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> View attachment 948263


Horoscopes and fortune cookies are nonsense however a Magic 8 Ball is legit.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 5, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I saw a quote yesterday that I thought very prescient:  “An atheist is like a fish in a deep wide sea denying the existence of water.”


Great. Now I gotta look up "prescient".
Why couldn't you just say "fitting" or something?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Horoscopes and fortune cookies are nonsense however a Magic 8 Ball is legit.


I agree on the horoscopes and fortune cookies. But there is something about those dang science journals........and the thing is, folks have to “just believe” it because we know they haven’t tested it for themselves 

Don’t know anything about a magic 8 ball though.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 5, 2018)

Israel said:


> Either someone not on the Ark survived to make the picture, or Noah had a very long selfie stick.


I considered not posting it but given the "facts" of the Flood story...…..


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I agree on the horoscopes and fortune cookies. But there is something about those dang science journals........and the thing is, folks have to “just believe” it because we know they haven’t tested it for themselves
> 
> Don’t know anything about a magic 8 ball though.


Science journals are not the Bible.
Science journals are read knowing the science can change by the time you finish the journal.
Science journals don't tell me that those who don't believe it are condemned...…..


----------



## ky55 (Nov 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Horoscopes and fortune cookies are nonsense however a Magic 8 Ball is legit.



“Yes”
“No”
“Not right now”

Now what does that sound like?


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Science journals are not the Bible.
> Science journals are read knowing the science can change by the time you finish the journal.
> Science journals don't tell me that those who don't believe it are condemned...…..


So you want a book with happy endings for all regardless of their lifestyle choices and no solid foundation for any?


----------



## Israel (Nov 5, 2018)




----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I agree on the horoscopes and fortune cookies. But there is something about those dang science journals........and the thing is, folks have to “just believe” it because we know they haven’t tested it for themselves
> 
> Don’t know anything about a magic 8 ball though.




Ridiculous.  No one has to "just believe" anything.  The only people I've ever heard suggest to "just believe" are religious people.  I was told to "just believe" as a child.  That's some bad stuff.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> So you want a book with happy endings for all regardless of their lifestyle choices and no solid foundation for any?



No.  I want the truth as best as can be determined.  I want to hear the science behind why a lifestyle choice is good or bad, not archaic opinions.  I understand the utility of ancient wisdoms.  They got us through some rough times, but the combination of the rough times and the profound limitations on their knowledge caused ancient people to come up with some truly idiotic ideas.  It's only because of ideas like "just believe" that we can't examine those bad ideas without people getting their feelings hurt.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Ridiculous.  No one has to "just believe" anything.  The only people I've ever heard suggest to "just believe" are religious people.  I was told to "just believe" as a child.  That's some bad stuff.


Ok where’s your own work to prove the science you read and trust as accurate?

“Just believing” is a separate topic. Again, you are indicating that you failed to study and relied on others.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Ok where’s your own work to prove the science you read and trust as accurate?
> 
> “Just believing” is a separate topic. Again, you are indicating that you failed to study and relied on others.


I'm still a little over $900 million short on finishing my backyard Haldron Collider to reaffirm or refute those in the zany Higgs Boson crowd.
But
I don't have to take a 2nd bite of the meadow muffins left behind from authors of the Bible to know their taste is something different than what they claim.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Ok where’s your own work to prove the science you read and trust as accurate?
> 
> “Just believing” is a separate topic. Again, you are indicating that you failed to study and relied on others.


See Spotlite, all we have to go by is personal experience and knowledge gained by ourselves or other human individuals.  I cannot argue with that.  But when someone interjects an outside source, a devine source, a god that is above and beyond all human capabilities such as you describe, then the standards change. 
I can back up my claims with my work or based off the work of others who are more educated, more intelligent and more well funded who as a profession have thousands of others working daily to affirm and reaffirm to the best that the capabilities allow. We fully admit that humans are our source.
You and your like claim you get your information from a source that is beyond and greater than all that and we expect to see proof and evidence that match your claims. 
Until then, being that we are all humans and on equal ground, the human scientific side is crushing the god religion side in evidence and the ability to back up claims.

It is that simple.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I'm still a little over $900 million short on finishing my backyard Haldron Collider to reaffirm or refute those in the zany Higgs Boson crowd.
> But
> I don't have to take a 2nd bite of the meadow muffins left behind from authors of the Bible to know their taste is something different than what they claim.


Lol the whole idea is not take second bites from anyone.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> See Spotlite, all we have to go by is personal experience and knowledge gained by ourselves or other human individuals.  I cannot argue with that.  But when someone interjects an outside source, a devine source, a god that is above and beyond all human capabilities such as you describe, then the standards change.
> I can back up my claims with my work or based off the work of others who are more educated, more intelligent and more well funded who as a profession have thousands of others working daily to affirm and reaffirm to the best that the capabilities allow. We fully admit that humans are our source.
> You and your like claim you get your information from a source that is beyond and greater than all that and we expect to see proof and evidence that match your claims.
> Until then, being that we are all humans and on equal ground, the human scientific side is crushing the god religion side in evidence and the ability to back up claims.
> ...



So energy is your source? I do find it interesting that our experience is unusable by non believers until it’s favorable for them to rely on experience.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Ok where’s your own work to prove the science you read and trust as accurate?



Science describes many things that we know from experience.  Cavemen knew that rocks fall down but it took scientists to come up with an equation that describes gravity in such detail that it allows us to calculate orbits of planets so that we can land on the Moon. So, I know about gravity from first hand knowledge, I learned about Gravitational Theory, and I've seen how that understanding has allowed us to do undreamed of things.  There are many other things that science has described that I can test myself, like the Bernoulli Principle.  Furthermore, I understand the scientific method and so do you.  It absolutely rejects the proposition "just believe".




Spotlite said:


> “Just believing” is a separate topic. Again, you are indicating that you failed to study and relied on others.



They told me that I must simply "believe that Jesus rose from the dead".  I looked into the possibility of it (despite their recommendation to "just believe") and discovered it to be unfounded.  Why do you believe it?  What's your evidence?  We have gone over the fact that historical records are inconclusive.  Bullet has pointed out many times that the resurrection story is poorly corroborated.



bullethead said:


> I'm still a little over $900 million short on finishing my backyard Haldron Collider to reaffirm or refute those in the zany Higgs Boson crowd.
> But
> I don't have to take a 2nd bite of the meadow muffins left behind from authors of the Bible to know their taste is something different than what they claim.



Of any scientific claim you can go and do the research or experiments yourself.  You can look at their experiment.  They want you to see how they did it.  They don't want you to take anything on faith.  They want you find flaws in their experiments or calculations because they don't want to be mistaken.  They want to be as correct as they can.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Lol the whole idea is not take second bites from anyone.


That is not how things work. Not for me. Not for you. It is called reality.



Spotlite said:


> So energy is your source?


Can you show me where I spelled out that energy is my source ANYWHERE in my reply?
I made it a point to distinctly point out that the humans and their work in the fields of science is my source and the sources that guide all of our lives daily.  I full well admitted that I rely on the work of other humans when my abilities and own capabilities are limited.

And you reply with, "So energy is your source"

Priceless, Spotlite...seriously priceless.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

"Makes me feel good".  "Gives me grace".  "I will have everlasting life in Paradise".  "I will be spared from He11". "I know what my purpose is and where I came from".  "I am forgiven of my sins".  "I have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe".  These are some the things I've heard from believers about the nature of their beliefs.  I get it.  At this point, I almost don't care if one has good reasons or not to believe those things.  What I still won't accept, and will take my time to rebut, is when someone claims that their reasons are good but won't allow those kinds of reasons for anyone else.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> "Makes me feel good".  "Gives me grace".  "I will have everlasting life in Paradise".  "I will be spared from He11". "I know what my purpose is and where I came from".  "I am forgiven of my sins".  "I have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe".  These are some the things I've heard from believers about the nature of their beliefs.  I get it.  At this point, I almost don't care if one has good reasons or not to believe those things.  What I still won't accept, and will take my time to rebut, is when someone claims that their reasons are good but won't allow those kinds of reasons for anyone else.



I also don't like that they base their beliefs on something unverifiable and then base their ideas about how to arrange society on those beliefs (except the good parts).


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> So energy is your source? I do find it interesting that our experience is unusable by non believers until it’s favorable for them to rely on experience.


Listen, if you want to go see the Haldron Collider you can go see it. If you want to read up on how it works and how they get results, test the results and retest the results so they keep getting the same results,  you can.
They do not say "I have a feeling that this is how it works" and just leave it at that. They do not say that they had a thought and then it thundered and that is proof their thought was correct. They do not rely on the writings of 2000 to 5000 year old scientists as the do all, be all end all limits to the scientific way.

You drop a rock and I drop a rock and each time our rocks fall down. The experience for each is the same.
You say (all specifics missing because you never told us what exactly happened that you know the God as written in the Bible is 100% responsible for the outcome) and expect me to believe that that experience is the same as a testable and verifiable experience.

It just is not so.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> So energy is your source? I do find it interesting that our experience is unusable by non believers until it’s favorable for them to rely on experience.



How many times have you seen me type something like "I recognize the utility of ancient wisdoms"?  How many times?  Do you know what I mean by that?  I've also said many times that I think it useful for people to "act right" because they're afraid of a fictional (or unprovable) Boogey man.   But I also know that there are good reasons to be good because I've examined them.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How many times have you seen me type something like "I recognize the utility of ancient wisdoms"?  How many times?  Do you know what I mean by that?  I've also said many times that I think it useful for people to "act right" because they're afraid of a fictional (or unprovable) Boogey man.   But I also know that there are good reasons to be good because I've examined them.


I am sure we both can agree that our arguments are in general and do not apply to all, there are exceptions in many cases.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Listen, if you want to go see the Haldron Collider you can go see it. If you want to read up on how it works and how they get results, test the results and retest the results so they keep getting the same results,  you can.
> They do not say "I have a feeling that this is how it works" and just leave it at that. They do not say that they had a thought and then it thundered and that is proof their thought was correct. They do not rely on the writings of 2000 to 5000 year old scientists as the do all, be all end all limits to the scientific way.
> 
> You drop a rock and I drop a rock and each time our rocks fall down. The experience for each is the same.
> ...


I think the misconnect here bullet is this, I don't expect anything from you. Point is, this experience belongs to me and is self evident for me alone. And that is the great thing about it, no-one but me can smear that.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> That is not how things work. Not for me. Not for you. It is called reality.
> 
> 
> Can you show me where I spelled out that energy is my source ANYWHERE in my reply?
> ...


Not in that specific reply bullet, but often times you have referred to energy as possibly something else out there. It was a simple question based on previous conversations. And the source seems to be the issue for you in your reply?

Usually when I discuss things with people, I am not single track minded to what is being said in those few sentences. I keep in mind everything that has ever been said in regard to the subject.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I think the misconnect here bullet is this, I don't expect anything from you. Point is, this experience belongs to me and is self evident for me alone. And that is the great thing about it, no-one but me can smear that.


Yay, wonderful, glad for you. It means nothing except to you. Yet you want to use it as evidence of something that is of something from beyond.
The experiences that are testable like in science ( drop a rock) are what you overlook when you say that we say personal experiences do not count. 

You certainly can think and link your personal experiences to whatever you want to, but it/they certainly are different and are held to different standards to the other experiences thst you constantly try to mesh them in with.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> They told me that I must simply "believe that Jesus rose from the dead".  I looked into the possibility of it (despite their recommendation to "just believe") and discovered it to be unfounded.  Why do you believe it?  What's your evidence?  We have gone over the fact that historical records are inconclusive.  Bullet has pointed out many times that the resurrection story is poorly corroborated.


And we have gone over the fact the way we view and describe events / things / words today are not the way things were viewed and described 100 years ago also.

Less than 50 years ago around here the word "sigh" meant huh and "directly" meant, about to, very soon or fixing to. In 5000 years, I wonder how many people would read something I left behind where my Grandparents told me "Im gona wear your tail out directly if you swear again" and think I had a tail like a lizard??????      

What is my evidence? I don't rely on a resurrection story as proof, I am reassured many times with things that make you, doctors and scientist continue saying "we don't know"


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Not in that specific reply bullet, but often times you have referred to energy as possibly something else out there. It was a simple question based on previous conversations. And the source seems to be the issue for you in your reply?
> 
> Usually when I discuss things with people, I am not single track minded to what is being said in those few sentences. I keep in mind everything that has ever been said in regard to the subject.


Well, Energy does in fact exist.  It seems to be the longest surviving source in the Universe based off of the best available knowledge and evidence. It doesn't have a will or an agenda or a goal. It is used to both create and destroy equally.

I do not use it as my source of knowledge or a superior source above and beyond what humans have and can provide. 
I realize the human potential and limits.
I do not go beyond humans in order to place a face with I and they have not been able to understand or understand yet.
If scientists are inspired by energy to do their job, I do not regard energy as their or my god.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Yay, wonderful, glad for you. It means nothing except to you. Yet you want to use it as evidence of something that is of something from beyond.
> The experiences that are testable like in science ( drop a rock) are what you overlook when you say that we say personal experiences do not count.
> 
> You certainly can think and link your personal experiences to whatever you want to, but it/they certainly are different and are held to different standards to the other experiences thst you constantly try to mesh them in with.


Move on from the rock, that is pre-school material. Tell us what you have done besides throwing a rock down to prove anything else that is testable (God did say doesn't nature itself teach you) ...................what about evolution of man or how old the earth is?? Those are testable aren't they?

I think part of this of this discussion took off from a meme concerning not believing in books written by men (Bible) but will believe in scientist journals written by men?? So which is it, you believe in some writings because they say its true based on their tests or have you tested them? 

Yea we know all about the different standards approach................


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And we have gone over the fact the way we view and describe events / things / words today are not the way things were viewed and described 100 years ago also.
> 
> Less than 50 years ago around here the word "sigh" meant huh and "directly" meant, about to, very soon or fixing to. In 5000 years, I wonder how many people would read something I left behind where my Grandparents told me "Im gona wear your tail out directly if you swear again" and think I had a tail like a lizard??????
> 
> What is my evidence? I don't rely on a resurrection story as proof, I am reassured many times with things that make you, doctors and scientist continue saying "we don't know"



Can you describe them to me?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And we have gone over the fact the way we view and describe events / things / words today are not the way things were viewed and described 100 years ago also.
> 
> Less than 50 years ago around here the word "sigh" meant huh and "directly" meant, about to, very soon or fixing to. In 5000 years, I wonder how many people would read something I left behind where my Grandparents told me "Im gona wear your tail out directly if you swear again" and think I had a tail like a lizard??????
> 
> What is my evidence? I don't rely on a resurrection story as proof, I am reassured many times with things that make you, doctors and scientist continue saying "we don't know"


Exactly, regarding things/events/happenings that me, ambush, doctors,  scientists and really nobody knows....YOU know because you interject a being as the answer. Literally a mysterious, invisible, magical being that you convinve yourself exists based off of results that you otherwise cannot explain. 
A person has cancer, the person does not have cancer = God did it. Not just any God but the exact God your religion describes EXACTLY did it....with ZERO proof other than you are able to convince yourself that is what happened. You base it off ancient writings of ancient humans who's stories were selected to be part of religious content with no room to change.....NOT by you actually being visited by or having a conversation with THE GOD they talk about. 

And you want to argue that we are just as bad because we go by testable and verifiable evidence which is repeatable and verified by humans who developed procedures who are constantly looking to prove themselves wrong and change as new evidence allows.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Move on from the rock, that is pre-school material. Tell us what you have done besides throwing a rock down to prove anything else that is testable (God did say doesn't nature itself teach you) ...................what about evolution of man or how old the earth is?? Those are testable aren't they?
> 
> I think part of this of this discussion took off from a meme concerning not believing in books written by men (Bible) but will believe in scientist journals written by men?? So which is it, you believe in some writings because they say its true based on their tests or have you tested them?
> 
> Yea we know all about the different standards approach................



My first response to that meme was that we all, you included, require different levels of proof to believe anything written down in any book or magazine but believers make ONE exception.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> And we have gone over the fact the way we view and describe events / things / words today are not the way things were viewed and described 100 years ago also.
> 
> Less than 50 years ago around here the word "sigh" meant huh and "directly" meant, about to, very soon or fixing to. In 5000 years, I wonder how many people would read something I left behind where my Grandparents told me "Im gona wear your tail out directly if you swear again" and think I had a tail like a lizard??????
> 
> What is my evidence? I don't rely on a resurrection story as proof, I am reassured many times with things that make you, doctors and scientist continue saying "we don't know"



We have different ways of recording events now. We don't have to rely on oral tradition.  People in the future will have a very accurate account of our lives and events that take place.  You are really making my point here.  Our record keeping was crap back then compared to today yet people trust it like it was of the same caliber.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Move on from the rock, that is pre-school material. Tell us what you have done besides throwing a rock down to prove anything else that is testable (God did say doesn't nature itself teach you) ...................what about evolution of man or how old the earth is?? Those are testable aren't they?
> 
> I think part of this of this discussion took off from a meme concerning not believing in books written by men (Bible) but will believe in scientist journals written by men?? So which is it, you believe in some writings because they say its true based on their tests or have you tested them?
> 
> Yea we know all about the different standards approach................


The rock is a simple and as intricate as it needs to be. You want to try to take something that is testable and verifiable and compare it with something that is not like a God's involvement. I will continue to use the pre-school material until you or your god can disprove or change even the most simple pre-school rudimentary standards.

I compare all human writings equally. What is written in the bible by humans and what is written in science journals by humans are exactly the same to start.  It is when each are scrutinized,  tested, checked for accuracy and subjected to tests which either confirm or deny the claims is where the differences start.

I believe the writings from humans that can be confirmed or are the results from the best evidence available at the time.

Evolution.... fossils that show evolutionary traits or a book that says a god made a (for the lack of better terms) modern man.
The evidence points to Evolution


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Move on from the rock, that is pre-school material. Tell us what you have done besides throwing a rock down to prove anything else that is testable (God did say doesn't nature itself teach you) ...................what about evolution of man or how old the earth is?? Those are testable aren't they?
> 
> I think part of this of this discussion took off from a meme concerning not believing in books written by men (Bible) but will believe in scientist journals written by men?? So which is it, you believe in some writings because they say its true based on their tests or have you tested them?
> 
> Yea we know all about the different standards approach................



How do you decide what to believe when you read something?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Move on from the rock, that is pre-school material. Tell us what you have done besides throwing a rock down to prove anything else that is testable (God did say doesn't nature itself teach you) ...................what about evolution of man or how old the earth is?? Those are testable aren't they?
> 
> I think part of this of this discussion took off from a meme concerning not believing in books written by men (Bible) but will believe in scientist journals written by men?? So which is it, you believe in some writings because they say its true based on their tests or have you tested them?
> 
> Yea we know all about the different standards approach................


I am WAAAAY more impressed with the Bible for the amount of knowledge or guesswork that is included in the writings due to humans. It is impressive to see what humans knew or thought back then.
I embrace it for what it is without the added realm beyond humans.

Those writings reflect what the people of THAT particular area of the planet thought at THAT time period it was written. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER CULTURE does and has done since humans could express themselves.
It happened long before them and long after them. It happens today. I take it for what it is,  not what I want it ot need it to be.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> How do you decide what to believe when you read something?


You really only have two choices. Either put it in action (test) or simply believe it’s correct.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> The rock is a simple and as intricate as it needs to be. You want to try to take something that is testable and verifiable and compare it with something that is not like a God's involvement. I will continue to use the pre-school material until you or your god can disprove or change even the most simple pre-school rudimentary standards.
> 
> I compare all human writings equally. What is written in the bible by humans and what is written in science journals by humans are exactly the same to start.  It is when each are scrutinized,  tested, checked for accuracy and subjected to tests which either confirm or deny the claims is where the differences start.
> 
> ...



We’ve told you multiple times that you’re trying cross the spiritual realm with physical evidence. Not going to happen. But that doesn’t make me wrong, or inaccurate, does it?

No evidence only leaves you with an assumption, doesn’t it?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> We’ve told you multiple times that you’re trying cross the spiritual realm with physical evidence. Not going to happen. But that doesn’t automatically make me wrong, does it?


What you(we've) tell me means absolutely nothing until You (we) can prove there is a spiritual realm.
I regard the spiritual realm the same as I do the cartoon realm, fiction realm, fantasy role play realm, Comic Con realm, Klingon race and all the other similar things that people interject into real life.

You(we) tell me/us that the spiritual realm interacts with our realm all the time and leaves evidence.
I think the reason you forget that and admit that it isn't going to happen is because deep down you know it is make believe too. 
If not which is it?? Does the spiritual realm leave evidence here or not?

It makes your claims a non factor. You cannot be wrong about the make believe.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> We have different ways of recording events now. We don't have to rely on oral tradition.  People in the future will have a very accurate account of our lives and events that take place.  You are really making my point here.  Our record keeping was crap back then compared to today yet people trust it like it was of the same caliber.



I would agree that we are improving in all aspects, and will continue. But sometimes that lack of history writing gets used as an arguing point to “prove” it didn’t happen or it literally meant (local verses global floood). 

Which is really the drowning man cry.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 5, 2018)

bullethead said:


> What you(we've) tell me means absolutely nothing until You (we) can prove there is a spiritual realm.
> I regard the spiritual realm the same as I do the cartoon realm, fiction realm, fantasy role play realm, Comic Con realm, Klingon race and all the other similar things that people interject into real life.


I totally get that and that’s why I don’t waist time trying to convince anyone. However, I will challenge them when they are telling me what it isn’t.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I totally get that and that’s why I don’t waist time trying to convince anyone. However, I will challenge them when they are telling me what it isn’t.


Without evidence you provide no challenge. Just hollow assertions and claims.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I totally get that and that’s why I don’t waist time trying to convince anyone. However, I will challenge them when they are telling me what it isn’t.


There is What Is, what may be possible and What Isn't. 
Am I to understand that you only agree that two of those choices exit?


----------



## Israel (Nov 6, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I considered not posting it but given the "facts" of the Flood story...…..



I think it's alright just as it is. Just more interested in the perspective as framed in the illustration.

"The love of God." It has written on it.

What it means "in the boat" _may be_ one of many things to the things alive in the boat.

What's outside the boat being drowned, can neither attest to, nor refute it.

"I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. "

Being told "be ready for what you do not expect" is something all impoverished by the _trying_ to "do it". Yet it is said. 

The right of perfect frustration is no less attributable _as right_ to all power, and no less to be acknowledged by what believes in salvation. For all proceeds not from man's ability to do, but the authority of God to form in his speaking.

Only a believer can have two things to observe. 

"Behold then the kindness _and_ severity of God"

I see the love of God...in the frame. In allowance...to see.


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 6, 2018)

bullethead said:


> There is What Is, what may be possible and What Isn't.
> Am I to understand that you only agree that two of those choices exit?


Well....... you know sometimes you throw that rock at me about “possibilities” so I sort of got away from “possibilities”..........but.......I guess it currently fits your argument so now they’re possible??


----------



## Spotlite (Nov 6, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Without evidence you provide no challenge. Just hollow assertions and claims.



We have found that to be a two way street. I believe we had no choice but to go with “argument from ignorance”.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> We have found that to be a two way street. I believe we had no choice but to go with “argument from ignorance”.





> Argument from Ignorance
> 
> ad ignorantiam
> 
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Well....... you know sometimes you throw that rock at me about “possibilities” so I sort of got away from “possibilities”..........but.......I guess it currently fits your argument so now they’re possible??


I was taking it as the two choices you use are What Is, and What Is Possible because What Isn't does not fit your stance.

What examples can you give of what you consider to be "Isn't" or "does not exist"???


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2018)

Argument from Ignorance

Not to be confused with negative evidence, which is where there is no evidence for something when there should be.

“”The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden.

—C.S. Lewis (in a glimpse of clarity)

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacythat claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

Form[edit]X is true because there is no proof that X is false.

Or

You do not know what X is. Therefore we do.Variations

Another form that this fallacy can take is the form that of an argument from incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction) which is that one's personal incredulity or credulity towards a premise is a logical reason for acceptance or rejection. This incredulity can stem from ignorance (defined as a lack of knowledge and experience) or from willful ignorance (defined as a flat out refusal to gain the knowledge). The concept of irreducible complexity is based entirely around this idea of personal incredulity. One person (Michael Behe) cannot see how something evolved naturally, therefore it can't possibly evolve naturally.

Examples

Almost all the claims from the anti-science movement revolve around some form of personal incredulity or argument from ignorance.

Proponents of the anti-science movement will usually pick some aspect of a currently accepted scientific theory and argue that it must be wrong because they do not believe it explains some aspect of the natural world. Common examples of this are such claims as "you can't prove global warming is caused by humans," "I don't see how evolution could increase the complexity of an organism," "materialproperties of the brain cannot presently explicitly explain consciousness so it must be caused by non-materialist processes," or "I don't know how this alternative medicine works, but it does."


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 6, 2018)




----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 6, 2018)




----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 6, 2018)




----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 6, 2018)




----------



## Israel (Nov 6, 2018)




----------

