Faithless a Choice?

[Hockeycowboy]

Does anyone recall the name of the Dutch theologian who said, "Atheists are our natural allies because they ask the right questions"? I recall the quote but not the author.

Kornelis Heiko Miskotte, I believe

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why does the world lack faith? Is it because there is lack of evidence, hence disbelief?

Yes.

Although I'ld also point out that if there IS evidence, then one doesn't have any use for "faith" anymore, because "faith" is the excuse given to believe things on bad or no evidence.

Or as some dude (forgot the name) once said: "Faith is what you need to believe things which you know aren't true..."

According to the Bible, No. This is not the case.

Well you can add that to the already long list of things the bible is wrong about then.

 

[Audie]

The ice on Antarctica isn't floating very far. It's still in Antarctica... floating.



Your post is full of opinions... nothing objective.
For example, the fact that the writers were honest is not just a claim.
The writers included details about their own serious failings.
Textual critics use certain criterion in examining ancient "historical" writings.
There is for one, the Criterion of Embarrassment, and for another, there is the Criterion of multiple attestation.
For these, I refer to earlier writings than Jesus. For example, there are accounts in the Bible, which are attested to by outside sources, from Assyrian annuls, and (I think Babylonian - speaking under correction). I linked these in a post somewhere, but now racking my brain to remember a key word that will help me locate it.
If you want that information, to confirm what I am saying, just let me know, and give me a few days to find it.

However, if you make the claim that we cannot use any document of the past, to evaluate their authenticity, then the entire ancient history should be erased - Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc., because they wrote things about themselves, and their activities, and they are generally accepted.
Also, the claims made about fossils are made by people looking at these - which have no writing on them, and which don't say anything - and coming to conclusion on what they interpret.
So, I would think if you are going to accept one, and dismiss the other, them I'm entitled to that too... in all fairness.

The Bible stated a clear fact - the earth hangs on nothing... It did so 3,500 years ago, at a time when people described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!

How could anyone know what Job knew back then?
The evidence suggests what was written nearly 2,000 years ago... (2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God . . . (2 Peter 1:21) . . .For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.
This is why the Bible seems way ahead of its time, on these matters.

It is the same with prophecy. The reason the Bible writers could write of events in advance of them occurring, is due to the fact that they were not writing according to their will, but God spoke by them.
Many of the events, and real people in the Bible have been confirmed, by extra-Biblical sources.
The evidence is there for one to see clearly.

You claimed the Bible isn't exactly loaded with claims evidenced in reality. I told you that's not true. I showed you that's not true.
Shifting one's gaze away to talk about what one does not understand, or what one does not find evidence for, is just demonstrating what the OP says.
It's really ones choice to deny it.

What the Bible says has nothing to do with "biblical logicians". So I have to wonder why you saw the need to mention that. Was that supposed to be a distractions - "lets look away from the evidence and focus on what people claim."?
The global flood conflicts with science? Are you sure? What science is that? I'll like to see it, please.
If you are referring to beliefs and opinions. Perhaps it does, but I'll have to see what you have in mind.



Bare / bear in mind that a global flood would not level the land. Every part of the earth wouldn't be erosive.


Yes, I was thinking you were making assumptions.
I had to look up Pando, since this is the first time I ever heard the word, to be honest.
Pando is a clonal colony of Populus tremuloides (quaking aspen) trees in south-central Utah, United States, that is estimated to be several thousand years old, possibly as much as 14,000 years. Unlike many other clonal "colonies", the above-ground trunks of these trees remain connected to each other by a single massive subterranean root system.

Pando's long term survival is uncertain due to a combination of factors including drought, human development, grazing, and fire suppression....
In areas of Pando lacking adequate protective fencing, grazing animals have prevented Pando from developing enough young stems to fully replace existing older stems as they die.

So can Pando die? Has it? Could it have survived the flood? Some questions we cannot answer, but all things are possible... with God.
How did they estimate the age of this organism though... do you know?
You might find this an interesting read - Pando (tree) : Age of Range Estimate.

Something to consider too, is that seeds grow in the earth. A flood does not make seeds unproductive. Root systems can remain in the eart too, depending on how destructive the water is. Water isn't tsunami like at all levels / heights.
We can't know every detail about the flood, since there was no camera recording... only what's given in the Bible, but we don't want our mind to run wild.

What are your thoughts on what is said in this article - Did a Comet Cause the Great Flood?


Beats me. I don't go by the assumptions of scientists. Nor do I agree with the Young Earth Creationist.
Going by the Bible, without even considering science, I can see that the earth is very old.
First, the Bible tells us, that God created the earth, and then gradually made everything right before life could exist on it, and it needed to be prepared for man who would arrive much later.
Just by the reading alone, one can see a slow gradual process. Unlike what some Creationist say, as though by magic, God spoke, and whoosh - something happened... Blam!
That's unrealistic, and it's not the picture I see when I read the account.
Even when dry land appears, I see a graduate process. The lifting of the waters; the grass and other vegetation growing... Everything was a gradual process.
So I see many many years.
Man arrive quite late too... Very long after a great deal of animal life.
I think reading the Bible should be done with an open mind and heart, and with care.

Greenland is land. Antarctica is land.
There is ice that breaks off, floats away and melts.

So your idea about how the ice is floating
now and stays in place doesn't, you know,
float.


So you actually are claiming that mountain glaciers,
the ice on Greenland and Antarctica
were floated by the "flood " for many months,
but did not break apart or melt, thensettled right
back down where they had been, perfectly intact.

Is that going to work for you?

Try thinking this through.

Antarctica is all mountain ranges and valleys.
Do you see a problem getting the ice to refuse to melt or near apart, hold perfecty in place on open ocean, and the settle back down right where it was before?

Try looking at facts with an open mind.
If you are immobile in your flood-belief,
are you following your own advice?

 

[nPeace]

Yes.

Although I'ld also point out that if there IS evidence, then one doesn't have any use for "faith" anymore, because "faith" is the excuse given to believe things on bad or no evidence.

Or as some dude (forgot the name) once said: "Faith is what you need to believe things which you know aren't true..."



Well you can add that to the already long list of things the bible is wrong about then.

So you admit that you merely believe things and are faithless? Okay. I agree.

The one dude's description is perhaps his faith, or maybe yours. It doesn't describe mine.
My faith is built on evidence.
First comes the evidence; then belief; then faith.

You stop at belief. I think that's useless... but that's just me.

 

[nPeace]

Greenland is land. Antarctica is land.
There is ice that breaks off, floats away and melts.

So your idea about how the ice is floating
now and stays in place doesn't, you know,
float.


So you actually are claiming that mountain glaciers,
the ice on Greenland and Antarctica
were floated by the "flood " for many months,
but did not break apart or melt, thensettled right
back down where they had been, perfectly intact.

Is that going to work for you?

Try thinking this through.

Antarctica is all mountain ranges and valleys.
Do you see a problem getting the ice to refuse to melt or near apart, hold perfecty in place on open ocean, and the settle back down right where it was before?

Try looking at facts with an open mind.
If you are immobile in your flood-belief,
are you following your own advice?

Thank you. I am glad you figured it out, all by yourself without my help... or maybe it was with my help.
Glad I could assist. Recall, you are the one with the claim.

 

[Audie]

Thank you. I am glad you figured it out, all by yourself without my help... or maybe it was with my help.
Glad I could assist.

So you actually do think the ice stayed intact and settled back just so, mountain glaciers in their twisting valleys, continental glaciers fitting over their mountains like fingers into a glove.

I really doubt you thought this through despite your claim that you could have explained this to me.

Have you figured out why God would
do that, using a miracle to hide flood evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you admit that you merely believe things and are faithless? Okay. I agree.

Huh???
How you got that from what I actually wrote is mindblowingly baffling, tbh....

No, I don't "merely believe things". What on earth gave you that idea?

The one dude's description is perhaps his faith, or maybe yours. It doesn't describe mine.
My faith is built on evidence.

It is not. Evidence is something you can share to support a point or claim. You can't do that.
All you have is hearsay and supposed "personal experience", which doesn't mean a thing to anyone but yourself.

First comes the evidence; then belief; then faith.

Again, if you have evidence then you have no need for "faith".
"Faith" is the excuse people give to believe something for which they don't have evidence.

You stop at belief. I think that's useless... but that's just me.

I don't even start at "belief" - not in the sense of religious belief anyway.
I don't do "belief". It's one of the many reasons why I am an atheist.

I actually require justifiable and rational reasons for considering something to be (likely) true.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your post is full of opinions... nothing objective.

I agree.
To provide more would be too much work.
But then, I'm not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs.
I only explained why your Bible based non-rigorous arguments
don't compel me to believe it.
So to answer the titular question: I have no choice
to believe in unevidenced & wrong things. My brain
won't allow it.

 

[nPeace]

So you actually do think the ice stayed intact and settled back just so, mountain glaciers in their twisting valleys, continental glaciers fitting over their mountains like fingers into a glove.

I really doubt you thought this through despite your claim that you could have explained this to me.

Have you figured out why God would
do that, using a miracle to hide flood evidence?

Audie. You are the one who said this... Quote...I'd think it obvious that ice floats, and would not be there if flooded. Unquote.

I thought you figured it out. Why would a huge continental glacier need to be transported to point A, B, or Z?
Where was it in the first place?
How far did it move?
Did it need to move like paper? Why... if it's a continent?
What was the size of it... as it is now... ten times larger... ten times smaller?

So you tell me what you know, and let's work from there.
Where was this continent of ice... how far did it travel to?

 

[nPeace]

Huh???
How you got that from what I actually wrote is mindblowingly baffling, tbh....

No, I don't "merely believe things". What on earth gave you that idea?



It is not. Evidence is something you can share to support a point or claim. You can't do that.
All you have is hearsay and supposed "personal experience", which doesn't mean a thing to anyone but yourself.



Again, if you have evidence then you have no need for "faith".
"Faith" is the excuse people give to believe something for which they don't have evidence.



I don't even start at "belief" - not in the sense of religious belief anyway.
I don't do "belief". It's one of the many reasons why I am an atheist.

I actually require justifiable and rational reasons for considering something to be (likely) true.

We've been here before. You are talking about something foreign to me, and I am talking about something foreign to you. So until we can get on the same page, there is no use in us talking. Agreed?

 

[Audie]

Audie. You are the one who said this... Quote...I'd think it obvious that ice floats, and would not be there if flooded. Unquote.

I thought you figured it out. Why would a huge continental glacier need to be transported to point A, B, or Z?
Where was it in the first place?
How far did it move?
Did it need to move like paper? Why... if it's a continent?
What was the size of it... as it is now... ten times larger... ten times smaller?

So you tell me what you know, and let's work from there.
Where was this continent of ice... how far did it travel to?

Antarctica and Greenland are right there on the map. Both have thick, ancient ice sheets.

The ice on them is also right there, where its been for well over a 100,000 years.

A global flood would float that ice, move it, break it apart, melt it.

But it is intact, showing it was not flooded.

This is very simple

If you don't get it, fine.

 

[nPeace]

Antarctica and Greenland are right there on the map. Both have thick, ancient ice sheets.

The ice on them is also right there, where its been for well over a 100,000 years.

A global flood would float that ice, move it, break it apart, melt it.

But it is intact, showing it was not flooded.

This is very simple

If you don't get it, fine.

Where is the physical data? All I am hearing is words. Guesses. Assumptions. I need data. Not claims.
You said you have proof. Where is it?

 

[sayak83]

Why does the world lack faith? Is it because there is lack of evidence, hence disbelief?
According to the Bible, No. This is not the case. To the contrary.

There is a huge amount of clear evidence, and many do believe. However, the Bible highlighted the reasons for the lack of faith - the faithless.
It said... "The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: “He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.” Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him. All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but they would not acknowledge him because of the Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men even more than the glory of God." - John 12:39-43.

So the reasons the Bible gave are, 1) God prevents them from having that faith; 2) They fear men, because they prefer glory from men.
In other words, God leaves people in a spiritually blind state, because they don't want to accept, or they don't want to face rejection and ridicule from the faithless, but want to receive praise from them.

Why would God, not rather open their eyes though. Does he not want to save them?
The simple answer is given at 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12... That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

According to the Bible, the simple answer is... it's what they choose.
Do they want to be faithless? Is that what the Bible is saying? Evidently, in a way, yes.
A person may believe something but they may not want to believe it, for their own personal reasons.
For example, the text above states one reason. The text quoted earlier gave another, when it said, they love the glory of men, and they feared rejection.

Is God fair in letting people choose even though it results in the person's harm, rather than their benefit?
I'm glad I can make a free choice, and I am sure Atheists, and agnostics are equally happy that they can freely choose what they want to accept.

So whether one has faith or not, is actually up to an individual. It a personal choice.
Thoughts?

I can say word for word the same thing to you regarding your lack of faith on Hinduism.
The fact that the Bible (and other holy books too) say such things regularly is a detriment to their value, not a positive.

 

[nPeace]

I can say word for word the same thing to you regarding your lack of faith on Hinduism.
The fact that the Bible (and other holy books too) say such things regularly is a detriment to their value, not a positive.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

[Audie]

Where is the physical data? All I am hearing is words. Guesses. Assumptions. I need data. Not claims.
You said you have proof. Where is it?

The 'guess, claim, assumptions, and
just words" are all there is for the validity of your Bible.
Zero data, zero proof for any of the supernatural.
You do know that, right? Its why you must
have FAITH.

I can't put physical data on a forum.

But-
You are ware that Greenland and Antarctica
are real places, and deeply covered in ice?
If not, super easy to Google.

Do you agree that ice floats and melts?

Next, the age of the ice.
I can provide many links to the data, and how it is obtained.
But to describe for you-
Ice is dated by drilling, and bringing up cores.

Yearly layers can be counted visually, by
an e-log (electronic) that measures the
different conductivity of each year-layer.

Count the layers.

If you count back to AD 79, in Antarctica or Greenland you will find
ash and sulfuric acid from the Mt Vesuvius eruption that buried Pompeii.
Carbon 14 dating gives the same results. Other
eruption show their distinctive ash, and sulfuric acid for each of their years.

This is all very abundantly documented by teams of researchers
from many countries working for many years.

The ice layers continue down recording tens of thousands of years.

This is a fact. You can as well deny that
Australia is a fact, and say you want me to
give you physical proof.

All the physical data for the existence of
Australia, or the deep age of polar ice is
readily available.

Would I have to cut and paste links to evidence
for Australia, and you still say I didn't prove it?
Just guess and assumption? Please just say,
so as to spare me any further effort for you.
Or could you do a little search.
Same with polar ice, easy search. Type in something like
"Age of polar ice".

 

[nPeace]

The guess claim assumptions and words are
for the validity of your Bible. Zero data,, zero proof..

I can't put physical data on a forum.

But-
You aare ware that Greenland and Antarctica
are deep in ice?
If not, super easy to Google.

Do you agree that ice floats and melts?

Next, the age of the ice.
I can provide many links to the data, and how it is obtained.

Ice is dated by drilling, and bringing up cores.

Yearly layers can be counted visually, by
an e-log (electronic) that measures the different conductivity of each yesr-layer.

Count the layrrs.

If you count back to AD 79, in Antarctica or Greenland you will find ash and sulfuric acid from Mt Vesuvius eruption that buried Pompeii.
Carbon 14 dating gives the same results. Other
eruption show their distinctive ash, and sulfuric acid for each of their years.

This is all very abundantly documented by teams of researchers from many countries working for many years.

The ice layers continue down recording tens of thousands of years.

This is a fact. You can as well deny that
Australia is a fact, and say you want me to
give you physical proof.

All the physical data for the existence of
Australia, or the deep age of polar ice is readily available.

Would i have to cut and paste links to evidence?
Or could you do so.
Same with polar ice, easy search. Type in something like
"Age of polar ice".

Thanks. You have given enough. So how old do you believe it is? Scientists discover Antarctic ice sheet believed to be 1.5 million years old

 

[Audie]

Thanks. You have given enough. So how old do you believe it is? Scientists discover Antarctic ice sheet believed to be 1.5 million years old

I am thoroughly satisfied its a lot more than 100,000 years old.

When do you think " Noah's flood" occurred?

 

[nPeace]

I am thoroughly satisfied its a lot more than 100,000 years old.

When do you think " Noah's flood" occurred?

Noah's flood according to Biblical chronology, occured around 5,000 years ago.
Why are you so confident of your belief on that amount of years... What do you base it on?

 

[Audie]

Noah's flood according to Biblical chronology, occured around 5,000 years ago.
Why are you so confident of your belief on that amount of years... What do you base it on?

What do I base it on??
I just got through giving you a bunch of detail
on how the age is determined!

The ice is far more than 5000 years old!

Do you doubt that? No what basis can you
say all those researchers and all their work is wrong?

 

[nPeace]

What do I base it on??
I just got through giving you a bunch of detail
on how the age is determined!

The ice is far more than 5000 years old!

Do you doubt that? No what basis can you
say all those researchers and all their work is wrong?

I just wanted to be sure you were basing your belief on science, since you told me you can prove there was no global flood, and as you know, science does not deal with truth or proof... or is that statement wrong?

Also, since there are apparent discrepancies, I wanted to know what made you so sure that your belief in more than... or at least100,000 years was actually correct.

I'll say though that you did present a good argument, because if the ice we have today existed millions of years, or tens of thousands of years, it would call for a serious explanation for a global flood.
So I think you did well with your argument.

... but it's not proof... or do you think it is?

Do I doubt your belief... Is there any reason you think I should not?
Hasn't years of work and research in science been wrong numerous times? Why is this different?