Town Heretic said:No, it's childish to begin a discussion of an event that could only be described as or occur by way of the miraculous and then suggest the end game fit neatly within the natural order.
I read a journal article the other day (a scientific study) on the effects of presenting solid contrary evidence to those with strong convictions not supported by evidence. Interestingly, those with strong convictions not supported by evidence don't change their minds even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, rather, they dig their heels in in resistance to the evidence (essentially plugs their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you!"). I will try to find that article and post it if anyone is interested.
Of course they use the most forgiving analysis to date the non-biblical texts as old as possible and the most ungracious to date the bible young.
And they expect us to go along with it. That's the funniest part.
Sounds like an interesting principle/study. Those tend to break down the moment you need them for a particular point though. Care to try one?I read a journal article the other day (a scientific study) on the effects of presenting solid contrary evidence to those with strong convictions not supported by evidence. Interestingly, those with strong convictions not supported by evidence don't change their minds even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, rather, they dig their heels in in resistance to the evidence (essentially plugs their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you!"). I will try to find that article and post it if anyone is interested.
I possess a doctorate, an IQ that would afford me entry into a fairly select grouping and almost never go about waiving my arms. lain: Unless, of course, I'm trying to hail a cab or helping to land an airplane, but then who wouldn't?Arm-waving and declarations of miracles are less and less convincing to those that are increasingly better educated.
There's a decrease in traditional religious life, not an exodus en mass to the bleak shores of atheism. And that's almost entirely in the West. So I'm not sure what's being met there other than a rejection of traditional approach.It's the reason why there is a decreasing percentage of people identifying themselves as religious,
I read a journal article the other day (a scientific study) on the effects of presenting solid contrary evidence to those with strong convictions not supported by evidence. Interestingly, those with strong convictions not supported by evidence don't change their minds even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, rather, they dig their heels in in resistance to the evidence (essentially plugs their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you!"). I will try to find that article and post it if anyone is interested.
I read a journal article the other day (a scientific study) on the effects of presenting solid contrary evidence to those with strong convictions not supported by evidence.
Interestingly, those with strong convictions not supported by evidence...
Arm-waving and declarations of miracles are less and less convincing to those that are increasingly better educated. It's the reason why there is a decreasing percentage of people identifying themselves as religious, and increasing percentage of people identifying themselves as non-religious, every year.
Sounds like an interesting principle/study. Those tend to break down the moment you need them for a particular point though. Care to try one?
I possess a doctorate, an IQ that would afford me entry into a fairly select grouping and almost never go about waiving my arms. lain: Unless, of course, I'm trying to hail a cab or helping to land an airplane, but then who wouldn't?
There's a decrease in traditional religious life, not an exodus en mass to the bleak shores of atheism. And that's almost entirely in the West.
So I'm not sure what's being met there other than a rejection of traditional approach.
You'll find any number of the faithful here who wouldn't describe themselves as being religious.
:e4e:
I got that.The message was actually targeted to the OP. A suggestion that his arguing with reason and science against a global flood (the calculations he provided showing the necessary atmospheric pressures in order to literally achieve the torrential rainfall alluded to in Genesis) is futile for those that don't possess either a kindergarten level education; or, are unwilling to apply any critical thinking to their cherished religious beliefs (ie: those who believe, without doubt, in a world wide deluge designed to terminate all existence on earth by an all-knowing and all-powerful, deity).
I'd take exception to your attempt to indicate anything more than a relative social snapshot. That is to say that if you mean to advance the notion that the more educated in this day and age tend to be among the least likely to possess strong or any religious notion relative to the wider population I'd say it's a valid observation--unless you mean to suggest causality. And if you don't what are you really noting?I didn't say that is was formula without exception. I asserted that it was a trend. If you wish, I can and will provide the evidence for it.
Again, you appear to be conflating a particular and recent expression of Western bias with something more that strangles on exception and context.You mean, almost entirely where public education systems are successful and accessible (which is almost entirely in the west). Agreed.
Most of the studies I've seen involve people rejecting the established practices and wholesale acceptance of particular dogma, to be more precise and not a rejection of the belief in God.It's not just a "rejection" of a "traditional approach". Whatever that means...(?) Do you mean to say "rejection" of horrific biblical teachings (like the murder of children for disobedience/dishonor)?
Only if you confuse religion as it's popularly considered with something more fundamental.A very queer notion to someone who truly isn't religious.
I'd take exception to your attempt to indicate anything more than a relative social snapshot. That is to say that if you mean to advance the notion that the more educated in this day and age tend to be among the least likely to possess strong or any religious notion relative to the wider population I'd say it's a valid observation--unless you mean to suggest causality. And if you don't what are you really noting?
I'd respond that this idea is more reflective of culturally ingrained bias than objective causality and in the not too distant past and for large parts of history the greater lights of the ages were men who not only possessed faith but were driven in part by it and found it both compatible and supportive of their examinations. If God is then His work is a sort of truth and its exploration is a celebration of faith, not a challenge to it.I would argue that it's both (the cause and a relative social effect). The reason is that secular education encourages and stimulates independent critical thinking and reflection (which is counter to our evolved, yet more primitive, social habits)...
I'm devoted to God, to the highest truth I've discovered. If that's what you mean by religion, fine. If not...For those that are intelligent, well educated and strongly devoted to religion (like you),
Broadly assumptive and unsupportable. But it does come to context.it seems they are simply unwilling or unable to apply the same critical thinking and reasoning to their own religious ideas that they would to, say, their neighbor telling them that they poses supernatural powers of flight and telekinesis.
The message was actually targeted to the OP.
What makes you think that version is the original? Nearly every culture on Earth has a flood legend. There are hundreds of these stories floating around out there.