• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
Do you ever bother to research before posting?
He had successes and based his work on earlier designs.
Click to expand...

He wasn't even the first person to 'invent' it, Humphry Davy had a working electric light in 1802, Warren de la Rue had a working, but expensive, filament bulb in 1840 and Joseph Swan beat Edison to the patent on an affordable bulb. Edison deserves credit for making electric lighting a practical and affordable option and was a driving force behind putting the necessary infrastructure in place, but he wasn't developing electric light bulbs as a visionary opposing popular opinion, it was an idea that's time had come and there was a race to perfect a product that had been in development for about 80 years. Lewis Hamilton Latimer made a cheaper and longer lasting bulb a couple of years later, but for some reason I can't fathom he never became a national hero...
 
P.J. Denyer said:
It doesn't matter how often you post that, it won't magically make it true or clever.
Click to expand...
It seems like readers either don't know what it means, or can't fathom it being true.

It means, I could say the same thing back in your direction. It's true of you as well.
 
JayUtah said:
That's certainly true. He was more an entrepreneur than an inventor. But the broken analogy doesn't have to touch on that.


This is what I was getting at. The prospect of an incandescent light bulb wasn't at all farfetched. Everyone knew how it would have to work. Edison just kept experimenting with different filaments until he found one that would do the job. Most of the problem was actually how to mass-manufacture it at low cost. This is something we have to think about all the time in commercial engineering. All the players knew that it was just a matter of working out the details through trial and error. Someone would eventually get there first.

In contrast, practically no one believes the Bible flood story is literally true. This includes religious people who accept Genesis as canonical holy writ. The only religion who thinks Noah existed and actually did all the things attributed to him in Genesis are American Evangelicals. Hence it's only those people who imagine there is any point to digging around Mt. Ararat thinking they will actually find an ark. It's not a matter of persistence. It's a fool's errand from the very beginning. That's why all those attempts come up with exactly nothing.
Click to expand...

As I said in my CofE Church school in the UK, Noah's Ark was a nice story for the infants but an older child still believing it would have been regarded as in need of additional attention.
 
Rusty Tyler said:
It seems like readers either don't know what it means, or can't fathom it being true.

It means, I could say the same thing back in your direction. It's true of you as well.
Click to expand...

Oh, we understand it (Trust me, you're not a conundrum we're struggling to unpick), but you've demonstrated your failings multiple times in your short time here. Still believe the video about the cave under the Euphrates that the content creators say is fictional? Wanna double down on it again?
 
Rusty Tyler said:
It seems like readers either don't know what it means, or can't fathom it being true.

It means, I could say the same thing back in your direction. It's true of you as well.
Click to expand...

Oddly, some of us are familiar with English language idioms (a test you repeatedly failed, remember), which is why and how we know that your repeated usage of it is utter bollocks.
 
Rusty Tyler said:
It means, I could say the same thing back in your direction. It's true of you as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, we understand what you mean by it because we are all fluent in English.

No, merely saying so doesn't make something as true for us as it is for you. And people are telling you explicitly why their position is better founded than yours is. It seems we know more about our sources than you do. We also know more about your sources than you do. We know more about our beliefs than you do. We also know more about your beliefs (or at least your religion) than you do. You are not at the same intellectual level as your critics.
 
In the rectory study:
"Reverend, about that book that Mr. Darwin wrote --"
"I know of it! It will lead you to error! Have you read it?"
"Well, yes --"
"Your first error! There are more to come, sure as sure! Did you understand
this Mr. Darwin's book?"
"Oh yes, Reverend, it's quite clear and --"
"Your second error! And a greater one! You must, as all christianists must,
harden your mind! Bar that gate! Defend your citadel against DAMNATION!
and every nation that deploys insidious, baneful FACT against FAITH!"
"But Reverend, using my reason -- Ow! Ouch!"
"Reason with this, ye dry twig yearning to burn! And this, and this!"
The rectory study is a shambles.
 
As I was saying before, at least the Catholics are perfectly ok with Darwin being correct. Or any other science. AT LEAST since the founding of the Jesuits. They're happy to just claim that God SOMEHOW had a hand with it, such as using loaded dice in the random mutations and/or which were selected for.

Plus generally, the Catholic take is that most of the Bible is metaphorical... except for the parts they want to be literal. (As opposed to Evangelicals, where most is literal... except the parts they want to be metaphorical. BIG difference there;)) But it's mostly the NT that the Catholics want to be literally written by those guys... except the parts they think aren't. Like, literally, most Catholic bible studies experts agree that Timothy PROBABLY wasn't written by Paul. But they still use a line from Timothy to forbid women to be priests.

Try not to think too much about it ;)
 
Rusty Tyler said:
It seems like readers either don't know what it means, or can't fathom it being true.

It means, I could say the same thing back in your direction. It's true of you as well.
Click to expand...

But it never is true of us as well.

Let's look at the most recent example.

P.J. Denyer said:
You were 'told' and you uncritically accept anything that fits your dogma.
Click to expand...

Rusty Tyler said:
That saw cuts both ways.
Click to expand...

I can quote umpteen examples of you posting utter nonsense which you have uncritically accepted because it fits your dogma. Every one of your threads consists pretty much entirely of you doing so, and then having your arse handed to you as various posters patiently described the evidence which proves it to be nonsense. I defy you to find a single example where the reverse happened.

The scientific consensus on evolution, the age of the earth etc is the exact opposite of religious dogma because it (a) is the product of centuries of painstaking observation and verification and (b) can be challenged at any time by anyone with a new observation or a better interpretation - and such challenges are celebrated if successful, because they increase our knowledge and understanding.
 
Last edited:
Rusty Tyler said:
There was a common disclaimer to do with how the video was produced. That's all.
Click to expand...
False.

It was clearly labeled as fiction. It explicitly said you were not supposed to take it as fact. It's not just a CYA disclaimer. It's an explicit instruction from the makers not to use it as you did.

Now you're just lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom