You're a pontificator. I don't know what your style is. Maybe that's what it is.
Your thoughts, feelings and opinions speak for you and to who you are. Including your opinions of me. You're not the first person who has a problem with what I say, and I'm pretty certain you won't be the last. I accept that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
C'mon dude, where would the human race be without the power of imagination?
Imagination is a great thing, and it serves it's purposes.
We are talking about the nature of reality though. Saying "Everything exists because a flying spaghetti monster farted." is imagination, not fact. It doesn't provide any value-add to the topic of reality.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Your thoughts, feelings and opinions speak for you and to who you are. Including your opinions of me. You're not the first person who has a problem with what I say, and I'm pretty certain you won't be the last. I accept that.
I don't have a "problem" with your posts so much as I'm letting you know that what I see is that you're letting your imagination get the better of you. Comparatively, though you are ceative, you have flights of fancy. That's what I see. And that's okay. I don't have a problem with that. It just that sometimes, here, in this forum of debate, it's kind of nonsensical.
I just rolled 6 dice and they all came up 1. It's a miracle!
That's for the odds argument.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't have a "problem" with your posts so much as I'm letting you know that what I see is that you're letting your imagination get the better of you. Comparatively, though you are ceative, you have flights of fancy. That's what I see. And that's okay. I don't have a problem with that. It just that sometimes, here, in this forum of debate, it's kind of nonsensical.
Again, I hear your opinion. Thanks for sharing.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I just rolled 6 dice and they all came up 1. It's a miracle!
That's for the odds argument.
Ooh, I got a better one.
If I roll a billion sided die, the odds of any number coming up are 1:Billion.
Pretty slim, but one number has to come up.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Imagination is a great thing, and it serves it's purposes.
We are talking about the nature of reality though. Saying "Everything exists because a flying spaghetti monster farted." is imagination, not fact. It doesn't provide any value-add to the topic of reality.
Yeah. I easily see your point. I also see the point of those who are inspired to respond (you and I both included) with creative ways to communicate through our imaginations, through the creative/imaginative thought proccesses...just to communicate. Even if it is only to express the reality of realism.
Yeah. I easily see your point. I also see the point of those who are [i[inspired[/i] to respond (you and I both included) with creative ways to communicate through our imaginations, through the crative/imaginative thought proccesses...just to communicate. Even if it is only to express the reality of realism.
Holy shit, I'm becoming a he-angelica.
I'm guessing when you have an actual argument, you won't focus on personal attacks.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yeah. I easily see your point. I also see the point of those who are [i[inspired[/i] to respond (you and I both included) with creative ways to communicate through our imaginations, through the crative/imaginative thought proccesses...just to communicate. Even if it is only to express the reality of realism.
Holy shit, I'm becoming a he-angelica.
As long as you don't start talking about transcending reality, while containing within it, holons and the universe as wholeness within it's self and the outer space that makes up the shell that we transcend to get a better understanding, yet can't explain it.
I agree, imagination is a very useful tool and I use it constantly on this board. I use it to think of better ways to make points and communicate. When I feel artsy, I use my imagination, I use it all the time.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm guessing when you have an actual argument, you won't focus on personal attacks.
Let's go back a few pages on this thread.
They walked across a grassy marsh. What isn't to understand?
You said to me that I can't see spirituality so I can't understand. What am I missing? If I walk across a grassy marsh, am I going to be visited by God or something?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
They walked across a grassy marsh. What isn't to understand?
You said to me that I can't see spirituality so I can't understand. What am I missing? If I walk across a grassy marsh, am I going to be visited by God or something?
It's pretty clear to me that gue_barium and yourself are not interested in keeping the debate, in regards to me at least, on an even playing field, so I'm out of here. Have a good night, Ahnimus.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's pretty clear to me that gue_barium and yourself are not interested in keeping the debate, in regards to me at least, on an even playing field, so I'm out of here. Have a good night, Ahnimus.
Well, you are saying, unrealistically, that one type of human being is better than another. You've predetermined the type (those that see the spiritual), and the non-type (those, in your opinion, who do not see the spiritual). I guess we can't trust you, given the power, you don't push an annhilation button.
It's pretty clear to me that gue_barium and yourself are not interested in keeping the debate, in regards to me at least, on an even playing field, so I'm out of here. Have a good night, Ahnimus.
I'm sorry, but they walked across a grassy marsh. There is nothing supernatural to understand about that. So even if I can't "perceive" God, I can imagine a bunch of people walking across a grassy marsh. I don't see what is really to debate about.
People call me arrogant for using real facts to prove a point. But they let your wild explanations slide and when someone challenges you on it, you just say they can't possibly understand because they aren't as enlightened as you.
If you find that situation offensive, I'd suggest using cold hard facts, but you might get the same results I do. The majority of the people on this board seem to be in favour of your metaphysical version of truth and care little for observable facts.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ahnimus, I can prove, with evidence, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that you are a twat.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
I'm sorry, but they walked across a grassy marsh. There is nothing supernatural to understand about that. So even if I can't "perceive" God, I can imagine a bunch of people walking across a grassy marsh. I don't see what is really to debate about.
People call me arrogant for using real facts to prove a point. But they let your wild explanations slide and when someone challenges you on it, you just say they can't possibly understand because they aren't as enlightened as you.
If you find that situation offensive, I'd suggest using cold hard facts, but you might get the same results I do. The majority of the people on this board seem to be in favour of your metaphysical version of truth and care little for observable facts.
You're dwelling on the whole "grassy marsh" bit, which for starters is a Wiki entry, for crying out loud. When you have a bit of scholarly information as opposed to open-source information that anyone with an ax to grind about Biblical truth can post for the world to see, then maybe you'll have more credibility.
Secondly, the fact that you keep dwelling on the "grassy marsh" information is proof alone that even as you post these bits of "information" and decry those who display any disagreement, you aren't even willing to respond to differing points of view when citations are given. I posted a link about 4 pages back, and you have YET to address ANY of it.
Instead it seems that folks are far more interested in mocking other peoples' beliefs and taking shots at each other or pointing out the holes in the way people address issues rather than actually looking at the substance of what they have to say.
I'll post just the closing of that article, since it states far more eloquently what I've been trying to say:
Now, all of this simply suggests that we have come up far short of understanding the Old Testament as Scripture for the church when we become preoccupied with issues such as the specific location of the crossing of the sea, especially if we are tempted to make it test of whether people believe the Bible or not on such scant and imperfectly understood biblical evidence. It is an interesting historical question and certainly deserves historical investigation. And we can examine the evidence with all the methods of critical biblical and historical investigation to answer that question. But it cannot be allowed to become the central issue of the biblical account, or to shape our theology of Scripture.
You're dwelling on the whole "grassy marsh" bit, which for starters is a Wiki entry, for crying out loud. When you have a bit of scholarly information as opposed to open-source information that anyone with an ax to grind about Biblical truth can post for the world to see, then maybe you'll have more credibility.
Secondly, the fact that you keep dwelling on the "grassy marsh" information is proof alone that even as you post these bits of "information" and decry those who display any disagreement, you aren't even willing to respond to differing points of view when citations are given. I posted a link about 4 pages back, and you have YET to address ANY of it.
Instead it seems that folks are far more interested in mocking other peoples' beliefs and taking shots at each other or pointing out the holes in the way people address issues rather than actually looking at the substance of what they have to say.
I'll post just the closing of that article, since it states far more eloquently what I've been trying to say:
I agree. I appreciate your efforts dkst0426 and your approach.
Hiding behind "facts" and "proof" and "science" does not obfuscate one's unresolved emotional issues towards the subject matter.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I've waited for a while to come into this, but I will here. According to the study I have done (first degree was in theology), the stuff Ahnimus writes about the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds is widely believed to be correct by biblical scholars; indeed, my vicar believes the Red Sea is a mistranslation. Also, the stuff about the miracles having possible scientific explanations also has a fair bit of evidence to support it.
That said, to believe that any of that shakes or debunks the very foundations of Christian faith (as Ahnimus clearly does) is ridiculous, and misses the point entirely. Plently of people believe everything you have cited using Wikipedia, Ahnimus, and yet continue following God and believing in Christianity completely unhindered. Like me for example. The fact that science supports, and can explain, the possibility of the 10 plagues occuring one after another only strengthens my faith, actually.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
I don't know about the Bible, but I did read that that most heralded of atheist values, environmentalism, is nothing but a sham! haha, global warming is indeed not true at all!
I don't know about the Bible, but I did read that that most heralded of atheist values, environmentalism, is nothing but a sham! haha, global warming is indeed not true at all!
I've waited for a while to come into this, but I will here. According to the study I have done (first degree was in theology), the stuff Ahnimus writes about the Red Sea/Sea of Reeds is widely believed to be correct by biblical scholars; indeed, my vicar believes the Red Sea is a mistranslation. Also, the stuff about the miracles having possible scientific explanations also has a fair bit of evidence to support it.
That said, to believe that any of that shakes or debunks the very foundations of Christian faith (as Ahnimus clearly does) is ridiculous, and misses the point entirely. Plently of people believe everything you have cited using Wikipedia, Ahnimus, and yet continue following God and believing in Christianity completely unhindered. Like me for example. The fact that science supports, and can explain, the possibility of the 10 plagues occuring one after another only strengthens my faith, actually.
Now, consider that the Old Testament, the foundation of Judeo-Christian religon, was passed down verbally for hundreds of generations. Just imagine how fucked up the story got. In one single generation, the story went from "walking across a grassy marsh" to "parting a massive body of water". So maybe Abraham simply suggested their might be one god and all the idol smashing and stuff that followed was added as the story was mutated.
What you should be left with, is no fucking idea.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree. I appreciate your efforts dkst0426 and your approach.
Hiding behind "facts" and "proof" and "science" does not obfuscate one's unresolved emotional issues towards the subject matter.
Don't forget, emotion is the product of an engram in the brain. When one neuron in the engram fires, the engram fires and produces an emotional state, which is corroborated by a surge of peptides supportive of the emotional state. When you talk about emotion, you are talking about a logically structured process of reaction. Yet, it's only as logical as the structure that causes it.
Emotional states aren't constant experiences that everyone shares. I don't share your emotional state surrounding God. I'm not ignoring it, it's just simply not there. I deconstructed that engram ten years ago.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok, so you acknowledge that their was a translational error. Such an error that the event is commonly described as "Moses raising his staff to part the sea, and god forces the water to separate into massive walls" as seen in these pictures.
Firstly, my faith does not have a few artistic renditions (found on Google, might I add) as its bedrock. Neither does the Jesus I know have bright blue eyes and blonde hair. So I've spared you the Google search on that one as well.
Now, consider that the Old Testament, the foundation of Judeo-Christian religon, was passed down verbally for hundreds of generations. Just imagine how fucked up the story got. In one single generation, the story went from "walking across a grassy marsh" to "parting a massive body of water". So maybe Abraham simply suggested their might be one god and all the idol smashing and stuff that followed was added as the story was mutated.
What you should be left with, is no fucking idea.
Not strictly true. The Sea of Reeds example is simply one assertion of hundreds of thousands of biblical issues of scholarly debate of which, on this subject, many people have reached a conclusion. Once again, pats on the back for the Google search; the Sea of Reeds is just one issue which probably is not debatable or disprovable. Everything you've mentioned above, however, deserves its own vigorous study. If you're prepared to take it on, feel free to debuff the stories of Abraham and the growth of the Isrealite nation. All you've done here so far is speculation. 'So maybe...' 'simply suggested' 'idol smashing stuff' etc. Consider? Imagine? Oh please.
By the way, as far as the fact that most of the Bible came about through the oral tradition, yes, you are right. It did. As did our entire, global human heritage. Nothing in this world was written down at all until around the time of the Ancient Egyptians, and yet, before the ancient Egyptians, there were the roots of not only religion, but history, geography, mathematics, science, and all other forms of academic enquiry. So this, in itself, is no argument against anyone's right to informed religious faith.
Anhimus, even your own beloved Science was once an oral tradition.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Firstly, my faith does not have a few artistic renditions (found on Google, might I add) as its bedrock. Neither does the Jesus I know have bright blue eyes and blonde hair. So I've spared you the Google search on that one as well.
Not strictly true. The Sea of Reeds example is simply one assertion of hundreds of thousands of biblical issues of scholarly debate of which, on this subject, many people have reached a conclusion. Once again, pats on the back for the Google search; the Sea of Reeds is just one issue which probably is not debatable or disprovable. Everything you've mentioned above, however, deserves its own vigorous study. If you're prepared to take it on, feel free to debuff the stories of Abraham and the growth of the Isrealite nation. All you've done here so far is speculation. 'So maybe...' 'simply suggested' 'idol smashing stuff' etc. Consider? Imagine? Oh please.
By the way, as far as the fact that most of the Bible came about through the oral tradition, yes, you are right. It did. As did our entire, global human heritage. Nothing in this world was written down at all until around the time of the Ancient Egyptians, and yet, before the ancient Egyptians, there were the roots of not only religion, but history, geography, mathematics, science, and all other forms of academic enquiry. So this, in itself, is no argument against anyone's right to informed religious faith.
Anhimus, even your own beloved Science was once an oral tradition.
Well, Science is provable, Mathematics are provable, today. We can look at each and every historical representation of Science or Mathematics and validate it or disprove it. Stories, we can't validate. The stories themselves are speculative.
Given that the stories have been mutated and we now know about several mental conditions leading to false beliefs, false memories and cognitive discrepencies leading to mass hallucination and pareidolia. I don't see how the Bible has a single shred of factual anything. It's a fairy tale.
I don't see how anyone can believe a word of what it says. However, as a gentleman suggested to me today; Under a given amount of psychological stress, people will believe anything that gives them an escape.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, Science is provable, Mathematics are provable, today. We can look at each and every historical representation of Science or Mathematics and validate it or disprove it. Stories, we can't validate. The stories themselves are speculative.
Given that the stories have been mutated and we now know about several mental conditions leading to false beliefs, false memories and cognitive discrepencies leading to mass hallucination and pareidolia. I don't see how the Bible has a single shred of factual anything. It's a fairy tale.
I don't see how anyone can believe a word of what it says. However, as a gentleman suggested to me today; Under a given amount of psychological stress, people will believe anything that gives them an escape.
Well as long as you don't see how anyone can, Ahnimus, it must not be possible. End of debate. I apologise for having a go, oh super debater.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Comments
C'mon dude, where would the human race be without the power of imagination?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I don't see that at all in Angelica. And for you to call her a 'pontificator' is pretty much saying you know her style and what you think of it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Imagination is a great thing, and it serves it's purposes.
We are talking about the nature of reality though. Saying "Everything exists because a flying spaghetti monster farted." is imagination, not fact. It doesn't provide any value-add to the topic of reality.
I don't have a "problem" with your posts so much as I'm letting you know that what I see is that you're letting your imagination get the better of you. Comparatively, though you are ceative, you have flights of fancy. That's what I see. And that's okay. I don't have a problem with that. It just that sometimes, here, in this forum of debate, it's kind of nonsensical.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
That's for the odds argument.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ooh, I got a better one.
If I roll a billion sided die, the odds of any number coming up are 1:Billion.
Pretty slim, but one number has to come up.
Yeah. I easily see your point. I also see the point of those who are inspired to respond (you and I both included) with creative ways to communicate through our imaginations, through the creative/imaginative thought proccesses...just to communicate. Even if it is only to express the reality of realism.
Holy shit, I'm becoming a he-angelica.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
As long as you don't start talking about transcending reality, while containing within it, holons and the universe as wholeness within it's self and the outer space that makes up the shell that we transcend to get a better understanding, yet can't explain it.
I agree, imagination is a very useful tool and I use it constantly on this board. I use it to think of better ways to make points and communicate. When I feel artsy, I use my imagination, I use it all the time.
i'm more interested in why you called ME out?
Let's go back a few pages on this thread.
They walked across a grassy marsh. What isn't to understand?
You said to me that I can't see spirituality so I can't understand. What am I missing? If I walk across a grassy marsh, am I going to be visited by God or something?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, you are saying, unrealistically, that one type of human being is better than another. You've predetermined the type (those that see the spiritual), and the non-type (those, in your opinion, who do not see the spiritual). I guess we can't trust you, given the power, you don't push an annhilation button.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm sorry, but they walked across a grassy marsh. There is nothing supernatural to understand about that. So even if I can't "perceive" God, I can imagine a bunch of people walking across a grassy marsh. I don't see what is really to debate about.
People call me arrogant for using real facts to prove a point. But they let your wild explanations slide and when someone challenges you on it, you just say they can't possibly understand because they aren't as enlightened as you.
If you find that situation offensive, I'd suggest using cold hard facts, but you might get the same results I do. The majority of the people on this board seem to be in favour of your metaphysical version of truth and care little for observable facts.
but but.. i saw it in that movie.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Me too!!! So it must be true!!! Just like the killer tomatoes... saw those too.. really scary...
You're dwelling on the whole "grassy marsh" bit, which for starters is a Wiki entry, for crying out loud. When you have a bit of scholarly information as opposed to open-source information that anyone with an ax to grind about Biblical truth can post for the world to see, then maybe you'll have more credibility.
Secondly, the fact that you keep dwelling on the "grassy marsh" information is proof alone that even as you post these bits of "information" and decry those who display any disagreement, you aren't even willing to respond to differing points of view when citations are given. I posted a link about 4 pages back, and you have YET to address ANY of it.
Instead it seems that folks are far more interested in mocking other peoples' beliefs and taking shots at each other or pointing out the holes in the way people address issues rather than actually looking at the substance of what they have to say.
I'll post just the closing of that article, since it states far more eloquently what I've been trying to say:
Hiding behind "facts" and "proof" and "science" does not obfuscate one's unresolved emotional issues towards the subject matter.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That said, to believe that any of that shakes or debunks the very foundations of Christian faith (as Ahnimus clearly does) is ridiculous, and misses the point entirely. Plently of people believe everything you have cited using Wikipedia, Ahnimus, and yet continue following God and believing in Christianity completely unhindered. Like me for example. The fact that science supports, and can explain, the possibility of the 10 plagues occuring one after another only strengthens my faith, actually.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Read on and become enlightened atheists!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
-Enoch Powell
Because you're THE Christian
naděje umírá poslední
That's not what the article says at all. And don't pretend only atheists take the global warming threat seriously.
naděje umírá poslední
Ok, so you acknowledge that their was a translational error. Such an error that the event is commonly described as "Moses raising his staff to part the sea, and god forces the water to separate into massive walls" as seen in these pictures. http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=parting%20of%20the%20red%20sea&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Now, consider that the Old Testament, the foundation of Judeo-Christian religon, was passed down verbally for hundreds of generations. Just imagine how fucked up the story got. In one single generation, the story went from "walking across a grassy marsh" to "parting a massive body of water". So maybe Abraham simply suggested their might be one god and all the idol smashing and stuff that followed was added as the story was mutated.
What you should be left with, is no fucking idea.
Don't forget, emotion is the product of an engram in the brain. When one neuron in the engram fires, the engram fires and produces an emotional state, which is corroborated by a surge of peptides supportive of the emotional state. When you talk about emotion, you are talking about a logically structured process of reaction. Yet, it's only as logical as the structure that causes it.
Emotional states aren't constant experiences that everyone shares. I don't share your emotional state surrounding God. I'm not ignoring it, it's just simply not there. I deconstructed that engram ten years ago.
Firstly, my faith does not have a few artistic renditions (found on Google, might I add) as its bedrock. Neither does the Jesus I know have bright blue eyes and blonde hair. So I've spared you the Google search on that one as well.
Not strictly true. The Sea of Reeds example is simply one assertion of hundreds of thousands of biblical issues of scholarly debate of which, on this subject, many people have reached a conclusion. Once again, pats on the back for the Google search; the Sea of Reeds is just one issue which probably is not debatable or disprovable. Everything you've mentioned above, however, deserves its own vigorous study. If you're prepared to take it on, feel free to debuff the stories of Abraham and the growth of the Isrealite nation. All you've done here so far is speculation. 'So maybe...' 'simply suggested' 'idol smashing stuff' etc. Consider? Imagine? Oh please.
By the way, as far as the fact that most of the Bible came about through the oral tradition, yes, you are right. It did. As did our entire, global human heritage. Nothing in this world was written down at all until around the time of the Ancient Egyptians, and yet, before the ancient Egyptians, there were the roots of not only religion, but history, geography, mathematics, science, and all other forms of academic enquiry. So this, in itself, is no argument against anyone's right to informed religious faith.
Anhimus, even your own beloved Science was once an oral tradition.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Well, Science is provable, Mathematics are provable, today. We can look at each and every historical representation of Science or Mathematics and validate it or disprove it. Stories, we can't validate. The stories themselves are speculative.
Given that the stories have been mutated and we now know about several mental conditions leading to false beliefs, false memories and cognitive discrepencies leading to mass hallucination and pareidolia. I don't see how the Bible has a single shred of factual anything. It's a fairy tale.
I don't see how anyone can believe a word of what it says. However, as a gentleman suggested to me today; Under a given amount of psychological stress, people will believe anything that gives them an escape.
Well as long as you don't see how anyone can, Ahnimus, it must not be possible. End of debate. I apologise for having a go, oh super debater.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison