Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

the biggest avalanche in the world coudln't hide the ark. infact, the ark could not hide anywhere on this earth, you obviously have no idea of how big it would have needed to be: aquariums for all the species of fish and mammals that habitats would have been destoyed by the sea covering all of earths surface; the miles upon miles of food; the fact that more than two of each animal would be needed for any species to survive and successfully reproduce. the ark would have big so big it would have made the titanic look like a toy boat- noah is one efficient builder. you must surely be brainwashed into thinking noahs ark was even remotely possible. besides, what makes these people so sure it was the ark? it could just as easily have been a boat owned by person x 500 years ago. it's only your want of belief that you believe in it and these people who've supposedly seen it are in the same mindset as you are.

he has left nothing of his work behind, that is why i am most suspicious of the fact that he is supposed to exist. you may call me rebellious, but you rebel against all natural senses you have if you can believe in something as obviously full of crap as noahs ark.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I saw it on the history channel as well. This is the website to it is <a href="here">http://www.noahsarksearch.com/</a>

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First of all, proof of the ark wouldn't suffice as proof of anything supernatural. Secondly, the evidence provided by the testimony of 20 turks means about jack. You'd think one of them could have taken along a video camera or something? Regardless is doesn't make shit of a difference. What matter is an eledged big boat from long ago? I say, merely the matter of a big boat. I guess maybe there some shipbuilding anthropology to examine? Oh no, I'm sorry, let's make into someting supernatural to support the assertions of our cult! Yeah. Oh, I don't have a cult. Well, you can use it for yours then right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How inspired. Do you have any more unsupported supernatural assertions to make? I suspect you do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There were satallite photographs of what was described to be a ship. There have also been many quotes of different authors before 1900. http://www.nwcreation.net/noahsightings.html

 

Photos of the ark--phooey!

Originally posted by okinrus
----------
There were satallite photographs of what was described to be a ship. There have also been many quotes of different authors before 1900. http://www.nwcreation.net/noahsight...ere not photographs but artists conceptions!)

 

You don't really think I'm that foolish

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The sat photographs were released by the CIA I think. The pictures given by the history channel were satallite pictures show an ark like shape within the mountain ie., it could be a rock depression that looks like an ark. Certainly not conclusive proof but along with the other historical evidence, it's a possibility.

 

The Ark

Originally posted by okinrus
----------
You don't really think I'm that foolish? The sat photographs were released by the CIA I think. The pictures given by the history channel were satallite pictures show an ark like shape within the mountain ie., it could be a rock depression that looks like an ark. Certainly not conclusive proof but along with the other historical evidence, it's a possibility.
----------
(Well, I was beginning to wonder! Many years ago I read a book (not a new age book) that was on the discovery of the ark. They had some air photos, and I believe some mountain climbers ascended Ararat and found what looked to be like a boat frozen underneath a barrier of ice. The photos looked authentic. I saw something on the History Channel or somewhere on cable that discussed the ark. They showed computerized graphic drawings of it. It's an interesting topic!)

 

gee i don't know, the mission to spread ones belief washing other beliefs away. why do you think the middle east hates america so much? america not only did some bad shite but they are the beacon of christianity, which has tried time and time again to worm itself into their belief system when such activity is totally unwanted. that is just one example of many.

look you tard, of course there will be discrepancies in humans, we aren't perfect. if you believe in somone you believe in there faults too. with religion people don't believe in the faults or discrepancies that are present- even though they're balatantly obvious. don't even try to compare the two.

 

... or, you simply don't see the 'faults' as faults.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

.......oh yeah, right, i forgot the bible was a person.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If you were to ask someone from the middle east that question, i doubt whether religion would enter into their answer.

America is a business. It wants to spread itself over the world, such as McDonalds, KFC, GM food, films, TV, law enforcement, ideals, music and a whole host of other things. But in my travels around the world, i have never, ever seen an American church or religous institution.
So maybe from your point of veiw it is the beacon of christianity (i'm quite sure you're american), but from the rest of the worlds POV, nothing could be further from the truth.

Excuse me?????

In most cases, we don't see the faults.

Firstly it depends what you regard as religion, and secondly, people will see what they want to see. If they are happy with a situation whether religion, business or people, they will happily carry on.

Belief is belief, whether religion or family, they are comparible under the banner of belief.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

right, i'm sure you can prove this just as well as i can prove my point, but i would personally be surprised if religion did not have a part in the answer.

i hold dual citizenship, but out of the years of my life i can't actually remember any of the time i lived there (i've gone back and visited and they are one of the nicest people that i've met the world over). i disagree with your point about america wanting to spread itself around the world, look at it's policy of isolation that it has held for the past hundred years and i would dare you to refute the idea.
my point of view is the same as many others, where else do you here of christians bombing abortion clinics? where else is the head of state proclaiming a want to spread his ideals and values across the world (when he is a born again devout christian)? you can argue with me over this, but you disregard the fact that, being the most visible state in the world, every facet of its workings comes under scrutiny. coupled with the insistance of missionaries across the world trying to spread their belief, america therefore becomes the default point of origin (even though it often is not) because it is biggest most visible target that is obvioulsy christian. you are welcome to argue my point, but when did you become the authority on what the world thinks OR the truth?

it's a expresion of affection

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, just like you say "love, jan ardena". it was in reply to what i thought was a silly point you were trying to make.

once again, when did you become the authority on what everyone does and doesn't see? i see the faults in my friends and my family, you'd have to be blind not too (you're trying to tell me you don't notice their faults at all? don't you take any notice of your friends?). but i accept those faults (faults are what make us human), and often eventually consider them not to be faults. that doesn't mean they don't exist, and i'm sure i'm not the only one who sees things this way.

ok, specifically i was talking about christianity (i live in a predominantly christian based society). unfortunately the type of belief you describe is the type that should be most avoided (and the type taught by christianity). you can't glaze things over so you can keep on living happily in lies. how do you think 1930's germany saw hitler, exactly the way most people who believe in christianity, see christianity. it's an extreme comparison (and i'm not likening christianity to hitler) but none the less it is a valid comparison.

no, they are not. one is based in the physical reality with relevant ramafictions and the other is based on myth and fairy tales that has no basis in this universe but something made up in someones mind who had a far from complete understanding of what occurs around them (far more so than today).

Tard

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A Theory

 

Maybe others have said what I am going to say but because this thread is soooo large exciue me if I repeat something said elsewhere.

To me this whole question is in it self evidence o something.

The mere fact that the word "God" or Diety exists as an arguement or question is in it self presupposing something.

The belief that it is worth argueing in the first place.

That in it self suggests a belief in the word "God" or "diety" by default.

The belief that it is in deed worth arguing suggests that the object of that arguement exists in some form. either as a nonexistance or an existance. The God in question is always an image in the persons mind that the person is either arqueing for or argueing against, but the image of "God" exists regardless of the debate.

So in my view God Must exist and even the belief that he/she/ it doesn't is a demonstration to the contrary even if this is just as a mental construct.

 

QQ,

How would your reasoning apply to the proposition that the world is flat?

Take two scenarios – 1000 years ago and present day.

That something is widely discussed or is believed by a large number of people gives zero guidance as to whether the proposition is true or not.

In the end only evidence decides the issue.

As yet there is zero evidence for gods, unless of course you can show otherwise.

 

I think my answer is shown in your question.

You refer to "Gods" and I ask you what in your mind is "Gods"

To ask a question the subject of that question exists. There for the reality of that subject exists even if it is just a fantasy it still exists.

I am no tarhueing whether it is true or not but suffice to say that it exists or doesn't. But as soon as you refer to "it" then it exists. Of this there is no doubt.

 

QQ,

I can't decide whether you are just arguing about the rules of the English language or that if I state something like “I believe there is a tarantula crawling across your head” that we are expected to believe it actually exists because it is the subject in a sentence.

 

A fair enough comment.

To argue about something one must have an idea of the object of theat arguement whether a belief or disbelief.

When saying that Gods don't exists you are talking about Gods as you know them to be in their many and varied forms.
So therefore a contruct exists in the mind of the object of discussion.

Thus "Gods" exist, even as a negative belief.

A author by the Name of Anne Randt ( spellings) argued this point in her writings on the art of objectivity I think. 1929?? (I iread it about 15 years ago so forgive me my sketchiness)

The point is that Gods exist, whether you are argueing for or against.

 

QQ,

Not necessarily. I have argued a number of times in this forum that the definition for a god remains just a vague and largely arbitrary term for something that no one can clearly define, despite my many requests to theists for a definitive description.

I think you mean that the person discussing the issue has a mental image of a god in their mind.

No that is not correct. Only a personal concept of a god or gods exists in the mind of the debater. The actual existence or non-existence of the object “gods” remains unproven.

You mean Ayn Rand. You should realize that Ayn Rand was an atheist.

I believe you have seriously misunderstood Rand’s philosophy.