Proof and analysis of Biblical end time accuracey [Synnegi]

Again, we're hearing the same old stuff. Maybe you can help me on two little points.First, give me one good reason I should accept the Bible over the Prose and Poetic Eddas or the Koran or any of the countless oral traditions about gods and creation and so forth.Second, show why a mythic mindset is valid in the first place. Why do we need gods?

No, I don't think it has. Show me something beyond your word. A lot of other religious texts also got a few hits here and there. Again, why is the bible somehow superior? Watch it. I certainly need no help of the kind you suggest, and it is rude for you to say I do. It isn't so because you say it is. Bring out something real as support, if you can. Because I am a naturally occurring biological organism, just like everyone else and that's how such organisms are created. They were also handy to have around to protect and support me when I couldn't for myself. Then, I became an adult and can function independently. No. Whatever gave you that silly idea. I certainly never said it. You're begging the question of whether or not gods or spirits exist. Show that they do and then you might be able to make this kind of statement.This is exactly what I meant by the same old same old. A bunch of bland assertions about why someone believes in some god or other, all operating from the assumption that it is their particular idea of this supposed deity. It gets tiresome. Some of you may remember that I first came to this forum and took pains to be very polite and respectful. Posts like this have beaten that out of me.

There area few real locations mentioned in the bible that have been subsequently found. Do you somehow think this is evidence for the supernatural events that supposedly occured there? If so, why? Recently, some wine bottle shards were found in what may have been the town (the name escapes me) where christ supposedly turned water into wine. Is this find any evidence for the miraculous occurence? No, it isn't.Further, what of other biblical claims that are patently false, like a boat prserving life during a worldwide flood? I am hardly threatend by you. As my grandfater used to say, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day. What you are is wrong, arrogantly self assured, and annoying about it. You have manged to annoy me but sadly have made no progress I can see. Of course you do. It was painfully obvious. That's why I called you on it. My, my, my, so much to say... I am an atheist. I am also quite well read in various mythologys, including christianity. It is amusing and unsurprising that you would dismiss questions you cannot answer as irrelevant and call them spam. My replies are neither.I am also amused and unsurprised that you invoke the state of my soul and condescendingly wish me mercy for it while at the same time letting it be known how weak and evil I am while you are wise and kind. Crap. You are neither. Yes, and obnoxious. No, I hold no promise for you faith. Whatever gave you that inane idea? Also, trust me that I have no desire to gain faith in your mythology? Why would you think I would? Perhaps you are so convinced of your superiority and that of your ideas that you think others really, really want to be just like you. Trust me, they don't. Me especially. Your analogy fails. The existence of dogs, dog owners, civilians and police can be easily verified. "Higher spirits" "God" and "Angels" have never been verified. Your assertion that it is unscientific is thus logically invalid. It is also invalid because you are clearly using a non-standard definition of science. Science is by definition a naturalistic process, thus it cannot address mythology. Learn what words mean before you use them. I don't and if you mean by impossible to talk to me that I won't just accept your baseless assertions, you are right. I won't. Wow, that's not a request that's going to be fulfilled. Also, rest assured that my mouth belongs exactly here, calling you on your lies. I ain't going anywhere. If you mean by that we die, you're right. If you mean that we go on in some kind of afterlife, no. In thousands of years of people believing that, not one iota of evidence has ever been found. It's an unfounded assertion. The difference is that the so called "truths" and "observations" of religion are unique to the individual and not repeatable. The observations of science are falsifiable, verifiable and repeatable. The two are not remotely the same thing. You should consider that when you tell people that your myths are true and science is not. Unfortunately, you are wrong and I am not ignorant on this. I've seen people speaking in tongues in person and in various recorded media. No person who has claimed to have done so has ever uttered anything other then gibberish. It could be I am wrong... provide the evidence and documentation you cite. Other, I'm sticking with that it's gibberish. So, while science hasn't done what you ask, it hasn't happened due to religious ecstacy either.This is a good lesson for you about how debate works. You have made an assertion, that those in religious ecstacy speak other languages. I ask for support, so you must provide it or withdraw the claim if you want to debate in good faith. I await either the evidence or your withdrawal. I will be stunned to see either. No, I was just pointing out that your exceptionally inane line of argument was silly and it ended in a particulat silly place. That's all. I want no part of your "deeper understanding". I have examined it closely and know how shallow it is. You're a cat psychic? Really? Do you also have to wear tinfoil hats to keep the aliens from beaming mind control rays into your head? I was taking you about half seriously till I read this. A cat psychic... the mind boggles.Your delusions aside, this is still a subjective thing that you are only providing your word on. It may convince you but it won't convince anyone else (except maybe your cat).I know I'm being sarcastic, but really. Again, you're going tohave to let yourself be tested by science before I believe that you are a cat psychic. I'm going to have a hard time asking the wild animals about the lord, because I don't have that animal telepathy power you claim to have. Also, they might eat me.Your arrogance is manifest here also. You think that if I only think enough or rightly, I will inevitably come around to your point of view. Ain't gonna happen.You're still lost in what Sagan called the demon haunted world. You're welcome to it.

Wow, you really do like repeating yourself. I will leave your empty and foolish maundering for later.Right now, let's examine a specific point. I know it will be hard for you, but try and keep up. Again, you dolt, you are making the same error. Maggots and men can be verified to exist. Your higher beings cannot. Also, I am currently unaware of the sensory capabilities of the maggot, but I'll wager that they can sense humans. Wow, when you commit an error, you really commit to it. You make the same mistake here. Infants, birth, and the opening of an infants physical eyes are all real, verifiable things. Your alleged rebirth or eye opening is not.In response to my challenge to provide support of your assertion that people in a religious fervor have been known to speak in languages previously unknown to them. You said: You failed to provide any evidence. At least you didn't waste anyones time quoting verses from your holy book, since they clearly do not constitute evidence. Neither does the website you provide the link to. It's about after death visions.So, as I expected, you were unable to defend your claims and lacked the character to admit you are wrong. Unsurprising; pathetic, but unsurprising.In any case, unless the quality of your posts improve vastly, I am stopping. Your inane preaching and bawling out that you know the truth and it's your way or the hellfire for all us poor sinners is tiresome. Say something rather then just shouting over and over like a fool, "My religion is right". Grow up.Oh, by the way, I would keep that whole cat psychic thing secret if I were you. (I know, you say you aren't a cat psychic, but then I read your further description and my phrase seems accurate.) It shows that you are deluded and it may get you into trouble. I imagine being declared incompetent by the court is not fun.

No, I don't think I'm finished with you. Your more recent posts at least have the limited virtue of brevity, so they are an improvement.So, you can believe the stories on that page all you want, but you still have provided no support for your claim that any reasonable person will accept. It didn't even address the issue in question.Will you withdraw your claim or not?

Still waiting for that backup of your claim about speaking in tongues or your retraction of it.

and I can't recall you providing any support, Umliak. It's also odd that only you think that you have provided any support for your assertion. Perhaps you are just ignorant.No... in fact you are worse. You have the nerve to call me a liar, you deliberately ignorant, small minded fool? Even if I were a liar, which I am not, I could start telling the truth. You are clearly incapable of being anything other than an idiot.The nerve. Umliak, you would be well served to show more respect to your betters. Moron.Try stopping with this foolishness and do what I challenged you to do.

As was pointed out to you at the time, there was no support for your position on that webpage, which I read. This was pointed out to you by several people, yet you still maintain you posted support. You didn't.As to the insults I directed at you, you began it by calling me a liar. Not fun, is it?You failed the first time to support your assertion about speaking in tongues and have not withdrawn the claim or given further support. It leaves the reader no choice but to conclude that you either cannot or are unwilling to engage in real debate. Also, I am unfailingly polite until I am met with disrespect, at which time I consider the gloves to be off. That is why the admins seldom take me to task, I believe (although they have in the past warned me). The fact that you have been warned by them is due to your behavior, though you will doubtless attribute it to bias.But all this is superfluous. I am still waiting for a real defense of your position or a graceful withdrawal of it.

If I violated forum rules, I do apologize to the community at large and will restrain my behavior. I will not apologize to Umliak under any circumstances.

I did search for "tongues". It resulted in a short list (13 I believe I recall) of unsupported first person accounts. Unsupported first person accounts do not constitute support of a position in any forum.Again, I await actual support of your assertion that individuals in religious ecstasy have spoken in languages unknown to them or your withdrawal of the claim.

Umliak, you're still ducking. Evidence or withdrawal, take your pick. Running away from your attempted misinformation isn't going to work.

And what shows that those lyrics aren't gibberish? The Boy Scouts had an "International Scout Song" composed for world jamborees so everyone could sing it. It went:gin gang gooly gooly gooly watshat
gin gang gool gin gang gool
gin gang gooly gooly gooly watshat
gin gang gool gin gang gool
hay la hay la sha la
hay la shay la hay la oo
shallawatty shallawatty shallawatty
ompa (and repeat)No one is claiming that is an actual language. Why would you say that song is unless it really does have syntax, structure and meaning that I cannot find, not being a linguist.Quoting a song proves nothing.

If you mean that you spout gibberish when you are moved to, that I accept. If your claiming that you are speaking a language unknown to you, I would say that you are gravely mistaken and would have to see some proof before I would believe it.

Examining that link, I found only a brief description of research done, but what was there never stated or even implied that glossolalia is a real language. In fact it defeined the phenomena as "Glossolalia (i.e., speaking in tongues) is vocalization that sounds language like but is devoid of semantic meaning or syntax." In other words, gibberish.It went on to say that glossolalia was a learned behavior, not a special altered state of mind. The researchers never said that an actual language had been learned, just a behavior. One passage, using the word "fluent(?)" in reference to it, may have been deceptive but a reading of the entire text shows the writers actual intent. By the way, the question mark is from the original text.What they meant was that people subjected to recordings of glossolalia, 20% could reproduce it immediatley and 70% with little effort. This study does nothing to support the idea that this is a divinely inspired event, rather the opposite. Also, shaz misread the text. The 70% was of the total 60 subjects, not the 20% that could replicate the sounds immediatley.

That's fine for you, but if you want anyone else to believe it, you're going to have to give us more then your word.