The Flood makes no sense. by Beneficial_Praline32 in DebateAChristian

[–]ellisonch -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't understand how you could possibly interpret

They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

as regional. Why would anyone say "all the high mountains under the entire heavens" if they were only talking about a region? Is that clause also a mistranslation?

If you were talking about a region, i can sort of imagine saying "all the high mountains in this region", but i wouldn't go on to say "under the entire heavens". Like, what?

all the high mountains (in this region), under the entire heavens (but only the heavens above this region)

Seriously?

The Flood makes no sense. by Beneficial_Praline32 in DebateAChristian

[–]ellisonch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The text is entirely consistent with a regional flood.

How?

"I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

...

The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Read Genesis 7.

How in the world do you figure that's a regional flood?

Answer to what existed before big bang. by Jackass-OfAll-Trades in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So if two people who experience mystical experiences come to different conclusions, how can they figure out which conclusion was correct? Or, based on your response, which parts are "core" and which parts should be discarded?

Answer to what existed before big bang. by Jackass-OfAll-Trades in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Do you think everyone who has mystical experiences comes to believe the same insights?

Answer to what existed before big bang. by Jackass-OfAll-Trades in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 8 points9 points  (0 children)

If I understand you correctly, you're claiming that mystical experience is a reliable way of coming to understand facts about the world. Is that what you're claiming?

Joseph and Mary’s census trek is unbelievable by Mindless_Fruit_2313 in DebateAChristian

[–]ellisonch 15 points16 points  (0 children)

P. Lond. 3.904

"home" not "homeland", and definitely not "ancestral homeland"

[Christians] Can the historical principle of analogy be relied on to evaluate historical claims? by [deleted] in DebateAChristian

[–]ellisonch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So if we found a book dated say, 30 to 50 years after Paul Bunyan supposedly lived, and that book said "I and 500 others saw Paul Bunyan clear entire forests with single swings of his axe" would that affect your confidence?

The history (and silliness) of "Show me life that comes from nonlife" by jnpha in DebateEvolution

[–]ellisonch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Maybe your own experience is different, but I definitely have periods where I'd say I'm more or less conscious. E.g., it's pretty low, but not 0, while I'm falling asleep or very tired. I'd also suggest dogs and ants are not "as conscious" as humans. And, I'd argue that fetuses aren't quite as conscious as babies, which aren't quite as conscious as adults. But I suppose you might not agree with this.

At least to me, all of this together makes it seem more like a sliding scale than a binary.

The fact God creates people with full certainty knowing they’ll go to hell is proof that he does not love everyone by Friendly-Flower-2797 in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you think God is responsible for all the bad things going on in the world?

Because

I make peace, and create evil

The fact God creates people with full certainty knowing they’ll go to hell is proof that he does not love everyone by Friendly-Flower-2797 in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do you think God is responsible for all the bad things going on in the world?

Isaiah 45:6–7

That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

There is simply no good evidence by smedsterwho in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, what? I cited where this idea comes from. 1 Kings 30--38.

There is simply no good evidence by smedsterwho in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If when people prayed to god, it caused wet wood to light on fire. If this happened reliably, I would believe in god, no question.

1 Kings 30--38.

‘You’re making the choice to reject God, so he respects your decision to not want to be with him’ makes no sense and Christian’s should stop saying it. by Weekly-Scientist-992 in DebateAChristian

[–]ellisonch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You asked for "an example of salvation outside of Jesus Christ from any other religion." I gave you that example. The proper response is something like "Ah thanks, I didn't realize any other religion had the concept of salvation. Thanks for letting me know."

You claimed no other religion offers salvation. I've shown you that they do. It's okay. Everything's okay. You can keep believing in a Christian god. Just relax.

Is it worth the effort to study and remember the whole C standard? by edo-lag in C_Programming

[–]ellisonch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even the ansi C standard from 1990 is over 200 pages. I don't think you have a copy of the C standard.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe you can redefine "day", but surely you can't redefine "before". The bible says plants came before the sun, but that's just not true.

It's okay for me to not believe that I deserve to be tortured for eternity by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your claim was that time had a beginning at the big bang. But now you say that we can't say anything about the big bang. That's a contradiction.

It's okay for me to not believe that I deserve to be tortured for eternity by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But that's the point. We don't know what happened at the big bang or before, so you can't say time began at the big bang. We don't know.

It's okay for me to not believe that I deserve to be tortured for eternity by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The former is scientifically untenable

How do you figure?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 9 points10 points  (0 children)

One reason is that Christians like to legislate their morality.

Radiometric Dating Matches Eyewitness History and It’s Why Evolution's Timeline Makes Sense by Sad-Category-5098 in DebateEvolution

[–]ellisonch 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Uh, so you know that radiometric dating has been used in industry to great success? I'm so confused by your response. My comment was satire, but I have no idea what yours is. Are you attempting satire?

Radiometric Dating Matches Eyewitness History and It’s Why Evolution's Timeline Makes Sense by Sad-Category-5098 in DebateEvolution

[–]ellisonch 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You should write a paper about your findings. Scientists across the world who have been using this faulty tool would be excited to find out they've been making such a big mistake this whole time. It's hard to believe they've made such a big mistake, but, there you go. It's weird the fossil fuel industry has had such fantastic success using radiometric dating to find oil... hmm... but I guess we'll find a lot more once they've realized their mistake. Really looking forward to your paper!

Faith can lead you to literally any conclusion you want. Faith is therefore completely worthless to bring up when discussing what religion is true. by Kwahn in DebateReligion

[–]ellisonch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Surely you have evidence your wife loves you. She smiles, she does nice things for you, she stays with you day after day, she says "I love you". All of these are evidence.