It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As it is your right. You have the right to your own beliefs, but not your own facts. There may be a God, but the historical veracity of the Bible would still be unsupported (at best!) if there was one.
Wouldn't it be great if God suddenly struck one of us down or appeared to us like Saul on the road to Damascus to give his beleaguered mate Draggers a much needed helping hand?
But then again the whole thing about belief is that surviving the tests life throws at you gets you credit in the bank come judgement day so Draggers is probably pretty content with all the slings and arrows he's fielding as he knows that it's all moving him a few rows closer to sitting on God's right hand when he pops his clogs.
Just as long as he's right and God exists of course....
So far no theist here (and elsewhere I might add) has been able to demonstrate this assessment, the above claim has not met its burden of proof. In fact, both "pure" and human sciences pretty much disprove the Bible, such as the Flood.
Some info on the subject by AronRa. Yes he is an atheist, but his argument is actually watertight regardless of one's personal belief:
As long as that serves you well, go ahead, friend.
It's all I've got left.
What happened to all the evidence you were quoting? You've still got that to fall back on surely?
Yes.
Phew.
It seems I will just continue to let you down. Hence, little point in continuing.
Well, they believe they've found parts of the Ark in Turkey. That's always something.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/871000/Noah-s-Ark-found-Mount-Ararat-Turkey
Indeed, but it may only be traces of it. It certainly seems to be in the right location:
In the Book of Genesis, the mountains of Ararat (Biblical Hebrew הָרֵי אֲרָרָט, Tiberian hārēy Ǎrārāṭ, Septuagint: τὰ ὄρη τὰ Ἀραράτ) is the place where Noah's Ark came to rest after the great flood (Genesis 8:4).
Not sure if that's the same hoax but the finding of Noah's ark is an old urban legend: https://www.snopes.com/religion/noahsark.asp
Even if a wooden structure that looked like a boat was to be found in Turkey or elsewhere it would neither prove the Flood nor the Ark. You and other creationists make a presumption that it is the ark. You would still need to explain how such operation could be possible which would need to save ALL the species of animals of the world. Without leaving a trace. Same with the world Flood which apparently left no trace.
I have seen the tomb of Merlin. I can provide photo evidence and witnesses if needs be. I'm not joking. But I do not think this tomb is proof of the existence of Merlin. I've seen many places mentioned in Arthurian legends, none of them proving the existence of Arthur. But would that be enough to convince you that there was a Merlin or a Arthur?
Here also is a letter in reply to that article (just scroll down to read it) from Encounter:
http://www.unz.org/Pub/Encounter-1972mar-00090
"they also had a flood" "they found some old wood that could be the Ark",
in any World court, in any peer review group, this would not last 1 min,
Of course, its the opposite when religious theories are disproved. Look at all of the work and research Darwin had to produce and he was still laughed at by Christians. Imagine if Darwin's "evidence" had been as flimsy as "they've found some old wood"?
The key difference between the religious methodology and the scientific one is that the religious mind comes up with a conclusion then desperately seeks evidence that supports it and discards any that disproves it.
The scientific mind comes up with a hypothesis and then looks at the evidence on both sides to see whether the hypothesis is supported or not. Then based on the evidence it rethinks the hypothesis and then tests that and so on.
If humanity had only ever used the religious methodology we'd still be sat in caves.
More rejection of science to please Religion.
It tells you in the Bible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42780226
A Catholic deacon accused of killing at least 10 people - including his own mother - has gone on trial in Belgium.
Former nurse Ivo Poppe is suspected of killing his victims by injecting air into their blood, causing a fatal embolism.
The offences are alleged to have taken place at a clinic in Menen, where he worked as a nurse - and later, after being ordained, in a pastoral role.
Given Australasia had separated from the other continents 100s of millions of years before the 'events' of the bible occurred how did the marsupials end up getting there from Mt Ararat?
Unless you are going to deny plate tectonics and continental drift now?
Well I was taught both plate tectonics and continental drift theory in a Catholic school. So if even they are being forced to admit it I tremble in fear at where you are getting your 'facts' from.
I was an 'A' Level Geography student; got an A grade. I know that. Mine was a Protestant school, but still.