Faith VS Science & Athiests

They wondered the desert for FORTY years. That's long enough to have a second generation of children, born wondering in the desert. MILLIONS of people and you are saying they barely had any possessions (which I'm willing to agree would be true). How did they feed, clothe, shelter, and provide water for ALL of these people for forty years? But hey, supplies are one thing. There is worn out clothes, dead pack animals, burials, footprints. [SNIPPED]

reply to post by Krazysh0t

A few years ago, I was visited by a couple who revealed to us, with photos and their personal video, a spectacular discovery in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, this was one of these situations-surprisingly frequent in our strange enterprise-which we couldn't disclose publicly because certain lives would have been endangered. Fortunately, information has now come out in public sources that makes it possible to reveal what appears to solve one of the great mysteries in the Bible: Where is the real Mount Sinai?] Bob Cornuke,1 a dear friend, visited us this past week and shared with us one of his recent adventures, which parallels several previous surreptitious visits to Saudi Arabia and clearly appears to corroborate some surprising discoveries. Bob Cornuke and Larry Williams managed - by means we will defer discussing here - to spend some time in Saudi Arabia and made it a point to check out an astounding theory about the Exodus in the Bible. [SNIPPED]

www.khouse.org...

Possible evidence for Exodus.

didn't they live in tents and stuff?

does it say they built cities?

besides, ever see a mango swamp? or a swamp?

plants can survive.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Yeah maybe, too bad it can't be authenticated. What about along this new supposed route to this mountain? They could certainly search for evidence along this route if they cannot go back to the mountain. Surely there would be evidence of encampments and human presence to get to that mountain?

reply to post by tsingtao


Examples of plants that can survive partially submerged or completely submerged don't mean that all plants share this ability. That's like saying that since a basketball player can jump eight feet in the air, so can every other human. Actually its even worse than that, that is like saying that since there are mammals that can run 30 mph, so can all mammals. It's a ridiculous premise. The two examples of plants that -I- gave don't share those attributes and wouldn't be able to survive completely submerged under water, let alone 3 miles under water.

As for your tents question, I'm not asking for examples of established cities. Materials wear out, they would have discarded things. There is also animal waste, human waste, evidence of campfires, tracks, dead animals and humans, even evidence of where they may have camped for a night or two should show up. The desert is remarkably good at preserving things too and not to mention, we are talking millions of people here. Not just a few hundred. It shouldn't take too much digging to find this evidence.

I hate these type of threads. The existence/nonexistence of an all powerful creator isn't provable. No amount of cute or clever or "thought provoking" stories have ever caused a strong willed person to change their beliefs - in either direction. Only life experiences will do that and since everyone lives only their own life the argument is pointless. Debating the fact seems more like a way for people express how much more enlightened they are than the people who have different beliefs.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yes. You are absolutely right. But the image of baphomet which most are familiar with was drawn by alphonse levi.

reply to post by RedParrotHead

What we can do is calculate the probability and likelihood of any of these claims that are attributed to a god or any supernatural event. So when someone says "god is compassionate." That is also an unknowable claim. However, if you compare the def of compassion and apply it to the stories in the bible where god is commanding moses to kill entire villages and keep the young and virgins for his people, or when jesus tells you what is the acceptable punishment for slaves, then i dont get where compassion comes in to play. God is basically telling moses to kill everyone they come in to contact with.

Any claim in the bible which doesnt fit the model of modern physics gets negative points for credibility. No one can walk on water, or turn water into wine, raise from the dead, raise thousands of people from the dead, make donkeys talk, blip things into existance, heal the sick with their wishes, turn sticks into snakes, part the red sea, etc, etc, etc. Any claim like these should automatically be seen as exageration or imaginitive story telling. How can you have a modern education and still accept 2000+ yr old claims. The people in the area were not well educated. As few as 10% were even literate. A few had their heyday with astronomy and algebra, but that was a very short time and as soon as islam got a grip, education plummeted.

For anyone to accept any of the above mentioned claims is one thing, but to accept some of these newer claims like predictive dreams, mind reading, telekinesis, ghost channeling, goes even one step further. We can test these claims in the here and now and prove, prove, prove, there is no validity in them.

How many people, right here on ATS, claim to have these abilities to manipulate things around them. I have seen countless threads made for predictions, visions, ghost stories, dreams, and none of them make any sense. No evidence and consensus between any of these claims.

So in this looming shadow of bad information, some just pick out what intrigues them, and run with it. That is what makes sense in light of all the B.S.

If we are saying that science can't prove these claims are wrong, then i am disagreeing with you. I think the methods of science do a particularly fine job of reducing the probability of many of these claims to 0%. For claims which are not provable or falsifiable, they are still reduced to such a low number, 1% or lower, they should never even come into the equation. Still, the majority of people hold on to these ideas and use them as if they are real.

reply to post by Woodcarver


I agree that certain details of a religious text can be "proven" impossible through science, especially the more physical based claims - but those are not the big question - "Does God/a creator of the universe exist?" That can't be proven or disproven in any way IMO.

Well, he/she/it could prove it by physically manifesting in front of every living person on earth and performing undeniable miracles. I'd say this would be well within any all powerful being's ability. Some would say "Don't hold your breath for that," and others would say "Just look around you."

reply to post by RedParrotHead


And that is why the best answer to this question is agnosticism. I don't know. Any other answer requires a leap of faith in the face of lacking evidence.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Are you then agnostic about unicorns, fairies, and goblins? Or are you certain enough that they dont exist?

reply to post by Woodcarver


Sure, they could exist. There are probably tons of planets in the universe that have all sorts of different types of life on them and any of those animals may exist on one of those planets. HOWEVER, the better question should have been, do you think it is likely that they do or don't exist? Because we agnostics deal in probabilities (except for 0% and 100%)

reply to post by Krazysh0t


But you dont input data like unicorns into your daily life because there is a sufficiently low probability of its occurance. This low probability is directly attributed to the complete lack of physical evidence. 0.00000000001% or less

The same complete lack of evidence is found when you investigate supernatural claims. The probability is exactly the same. Its not like we have a 20% probability of these things being real.

reply to post by Woodcarver


Exactly, I don't entertain claims of exceedingly low probability and default to the more likely answers or explanations. There are things that have low probabilities of being true that I would really like to be true, like ghosts or alien visitation on this planet, but that doesn't mean that I will just say that they are true because of my hopes and wishes. But I always keep my mind open, because even though the probability of such things being true is low, it still isn't 0 so if someone were to give me good, hard evidence to show them as true, then I would change my viewpoint. The same goes for things that have high probabilities of being true and evidence being presented that debunks them.

Also for situations where the scientific explanation is just as lacking as any other explanation, the default answer is "I don't know" or "anything is possible." Be careful with the second one though, believers can latch onto that phrase and try to extrapolate things with it that shouldn't be the case so it's safer to use the first one.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I am pretty familiar with your point of view. I think you know im not refering to you. I'm not even talking about halfway reasonable folks. Im refering to those who really believe in these things.

reply to post by Woodcarver


Of course. I understand that. That's why I didn't get defensive and agreed with you. Just trying to elucidate my beliefs so that people other than you who may be reading this can understand me as well.

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


Other than adaptation, within the same specie, please supply us with "evidence" of your "everybody knows that statement".
You are a result a mind control experiment:

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Please check out: www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...



archive.org.../n1/mode/2up

Project Monarch:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...


"JFK's Speech on Secret Societies" April 27, 1961.
Karl Marx was not an "Atheist", he was a Satanist and FreeMason. It is in his poetry and his correspondences to his father.

www.youtube.com...

The Head of World FreeMasonry is Prince Philip, the Duke of Kent:

www.youtube.com...


"World Bank Whistle Blower Exposes All"
Karen Hudes spent 20 years as Chief Council to the World Bank

www.youtube.com...

docs.google.com...

reply to post by mcguyvermanolo


Someone forgot to leave a trail of bread crumbs when they went down the rabbit hole.

Can you flesh a bit of this out? Im not sure how this pertains to a discussion about faith vs. science.

reply to post by mcguyvermanolo


Youtube oughta be banned as a source of reference material on ATS.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Woodcarver

 

Sure, they could exist. There are probably tons of planets in the universe that have all sorts of different types of life on them and any of those animals may exist on one of those planets. HOWEVER, the better question should have been, do you think it is likely that they do or don't exist? Because we agnostics deal in probabilities (except for 0% and 100%)

Ever seen the study done on the probability of a person fulfilling just 9 of the 300 messianic prophecies? It came out to be a statistical improbability, yet Jesus fulfills all 300.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


I can see now why people persecuted the christians so long ago.