Kantian Naturalist and I have been hopscotching from thread to thread, discussing the nature of religious language. The main point of contention is the assertoric/disclosive distinction: When is religious language assertoric — that is, when does it make claims about reality — and when is it merely disclosive, revealing attitude and affect without making actual claims?
I’ve created this thread as a permanent home for this otherwise nomadic discussion.
It may also be a good place for an ongoing discussion of another form of religious language — scripture. For believers who take scripture to be divinely inspired, the question is when it should be taken literally, when it should be taken figuratively or metaphorically, and whether there are consistent and justifiable criteria for drawing that distinction.
This was in reference to this paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that talked about mitochondrial Eve for humans, cattle and dogs.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534797012044
To which Gregory responds:
There’s no need to even comment on the absurd YECist protectionism (ROTFLMAO!) displayed now by Neil, Patrick or Alan. Follow the link yourselves: http://theskepticalzone.fr/guano/comment-page-27/#comment-99328
Yet nothing in the following post is against the rules: http://theskepticalzone.fr/guano/comment-page-27/#comment-99302
So why was it guano’d?
But hey, TAMSZ admins obviously feel safe with stcordova’s meaningless YECism, as they should!
Gregory,
Calling another participant names violates the rule about addressing the post rather than the poster. I wouldn’t think that would require an explanation.
That’s a tough position to formulate – both for oneself and to explain it to others. On the surface, “conceptual pluralism” concerning truth looks definitely closer to relativism than to the concept of single truth. And a middle way between the two looks to me like the middle way between being right/wrong and having no concept of right/wrong, i.e. a logical impossibility.
Actually, you are very close. Different interpretations of the same text are parallel possibilities and logically distinct enough so as to be autonomous, but there are true interpretations and false ones discernible from each other. So, everybody has a right to an opinion, but not every opinion is equally correct. There are criteria to determine who is (more) correct.
But how about learning which criteria people used before Gutenberg to evaluate genres? E.g. Church fathers or Midrash Rabbah? That’s what I do. I don’t believe I am the only one to whom this has occurred.
Mormon scriptures are flawed both on the literal and spiritual level. Both flaws are glaring. For example they affirm an infinite number of gods and at the same time they make no relevant distinction between man and God. “God became God by obedience to law.” Prior to that, God was man. Looks like evolutionary atomism. Their gods have bodies of flesh and bones (this is unique among world religions) and “spirit” denotes the replacement of blood in the veins of flesh-and-bones bodies of resurrected men on their way to becoming gods.
In turn, how would you distinguish a proper scripture/theology from false? I know: You wouldn’t. They are all false according to you.
The distinction between theory and a way of life is useful, but they should not be understood as necessarily divorced from each other. Religion is a way of life, but it’s also a cosmology, theology, soteriology, metaphysics – a complete system. Inasmuch as it’s just a philosophy, a list of tenets, and not a way of life, it’s non-committal, not individually applied as a workable solution to life’s problems. That would be religion as intellectual entertainment only. But most so-called believers belong to the church of their parents merely because their parents belong to it, as a way of life with lively tradition, but without any acquaintance with the background theology that, so that when questioned about it, they easily contradict themselves. That’s nominal religiosity.
Religiosity is proper when the way of life is informed by a consistent world view/background theology.
Erik,
You have made a claim that some other scriptures are not flawed on the literal level. Please answer the questions to clarify exactly what you mean by that claim or retract it.
You made a remark about “historically reliable” which became part of the context that set the criteria for evaluating what you wrote.
Yes. So? Doesn’t this part fit the other parts? Specifically, is “historically reliable” a strictly post-Gutenbergian concept?
Erik,
There’s no way to tell until you answer the questions posed to allow others to understand exactly what it is you are claiming occurred historically.
Answer the questions or retract your claim.
A question of literalism, was Joseph son of Jacob(Israel) son of Isaac son of Abraham real?
Here are some considerations given the tomb of Joseph may exist:
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/Gallery/joseph.htm
Now that we have the ability to read DNA, we might be able to see if we can build a Y-chromosomal Joseph profile and see if it matches the mummy in that tomb. We have a chance to test a hypothesis with some observations. Not absolute proof, but it’s compelling.
One thing that caught my eye:
So what is an Egyptian sword with and Egyptian mummy doing all the way in promised land a few hundred miles away?
The Jews think the tomb is authentic, and apparently so do the haters of Jews:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Chief-Rabbi-visits-desecrated-Josephs-Tomb-427390
I suppose we can carbon date the mummy too.
Patrick,
Which name(s) are you suggesting I called a poster in that post? I spoke of YECists. http://theskepticalzone.fr/guano/comment-page-27/#comment-99302
Obviously it was you who guano’d it, Patrick. So now please explain yourself or put it back in place.
Common mistake. People giving me more credit than they ought. No problem.
Gregory,
I did explain myself. You violated the rule about addressing the post rather than the poster. If you disagree, bring it up in Moderation Issues.
I think it was the reference to “admin bully” that did it, lol.
Quoted for Mung.
Regarding Islam and Hinduism, I have about the same thing to say about them as I did of Mormonism. The issue of literalism is rather moot if this is all a fabrication of the human mind or worse the fabrication of a demon possessed mind.
As far as Islam, the religion relies on the testimony of one man who worked no miracles. The word GULLIBLE comes to mind if one just accepts the testimony of one man who showed no ability to do divine things.
Now in contrast, the Bible at least claims some miracles. Whether they happened or are just a fabrication is a fair game debate. What does set the Bible apart from any other religious text, as the Physicist John Polkinhorne noted, is it does make bold claims about history. Some of the bold claims have had confirmation (like the existence of Hittites, or a eunuch name Nebo-sarsakim, etc.). At least some of the Bible when taken literally has literal credibility.
The same Luke who wrote of Jesus resurrection also at least had these thing to credit:
At least some of this religious text can be taken literally and also with a good degree reliability. It lends credence to accounts of Jesus and why so many in the Roman Empire decided to worship a the son of poor Jewish Carpenter.
In contrast, here is the archaeological evaluation of the Koran:
http://isaalmasih.net/archaeology-isa/quran-archaeology.html
stcordova,
Trust me, stcordova, I’m anything but your ‘sweetie pie’. Because you know that you can’t game me, obviously it bothers you such that you now stoop to ‘baby-talk’ in your insecurity.
No, there’s not. Your exegesis is that of a child. It may even be worse than some of the atheists here who don’t even believe in Scripture! It astonishes me that infantile YECists and now IDists find themselves more comfortable congregating with fellow undereducated Christians than in learning about the world God created.
This is exactly why you won’t participate at BioLogos (and wouldn’t even answer like a man to my simple question – why don’t you participate at BioLogos?), isn’t it? You are afraid to face intelligent Christians who might carefully and considerately disabuse you of the YECism in which you’ve trivially sown your oats.
It’s just a silly unnecessary question. Yes, I believe there were a ‘real, historical’ Jacob, as well as Isaac, as well as Abraham. That’s more important that your polemical question. Your preferred ‘figurative/literal’ dichotomy is just the product of a YECist/IDist program, Sal, so please try to get over it, or at least to understand exegesis from a more mature perspective.
If you wanted to be productive, instead of just trying to score ‘cool-guy’ points with the majority atheists here – who clearly don’t really respect you anyway (because, duh, you’re a YECist/IDist, no matter how ‘regretful’ or anti-UD you have become in recent months), you could ask the anti-theists here a simple question (instead of all your duplicitous YECist tap-dancing): do they believe in a ‘real, historical’ Jacob, Isaac and Abraham or not?
All of this other garbage you’ve been pushing and laying in for years re: YECism and more recently IDism is simply foolish window-dressing unbefitting for a thinking theist.
I would have hoped that a sincere Christian, if that’s what you claim to be, i.e. one interested in the tradition, the teachings and the Fathers, as well as the protestant sons and daughters that they emotionally meet in everyday life, could eventually find a way out of YECism/IDism without rejecting the core of Catholic & Orthodox Christian teachings. Alas, it appears stcordova wants to flip coins and insult the intelligence of the vast majority of non-YECist/non-IDist theists instead.
So the only response is that my bullshis it true and the other guy’s is full of glaring and obvious errors. I dare you to go to Saudi Arabia and publish this claim.
I double dare you to go. 🙂
Sal, I spent ten years in a church choir without insulting anyone. It is only in discussions like this that I appear hostile. But it is just tit for tat.
I do not start discussions of religion,but when I defend evolution, I am called all sorts of names. Fair enough. Gregory has a red hot flaming hatred of atheists. I do not hate anyone unless they try to impose their bullshit on other people by force. The same is pretty much true of most of the militant atheists. They demand the same right to speak and write as has been enjoyed by theists.
I continue to treat your concern as genuine, KN, while the thread appears to be getting high-jacked by a YECist. There’s no need for a divorce if one is thinking holistically, which of course differs from woolly thinking.
It seems you’ve concentrated your academic reading on people who champion ‘Science’ as *against* other realms, fields or spheres of life. If so, it is understandable that you would somehow ‘privilege’ science, when in fact other realms are equally important for human existence.
To suggest that ‘scientific theories’ can be ‘true or false’ while ‘religion’ can’t is really to miss the key point. Einstein’s blind/lame quotation is a cardinal example, though not just secular Jews, but actually real Christians, Muslims and (religious = real) Jews have said similar things.
To take Kierkegaard & Dostoevsky only as a source of critique is likewise missing 1/2 of the plot. They both, even in their personal misadventure and depravity, embraced the other 1/2 too. That is the part that you seem to have missed or that you wish not to allow yourself to explore on the topic of Varieties of Religious Language. Leave aside the assertoric/disclosive; that’s my suggestion. Get to the heart of the matter instead of drumming up ‘academic’ skepticism on the emotional outer limits.
Since this discussion of language, it might be notable that someone who is versant in language arts like Rosaria Butterfield became a Christian. She was an English professor, a lesbian, a gay rights activist and director of women’s studies at Syracuse.
As part of her research into opposing the religious right, she undertook the study of the Bible, but this led to her conversion.
She was familiar with many literary forms and recognized many of the forms in the Bible. For example the Song of Solomon is clearly very poetic. Contrast this to the writing of the book of Ezra where there are chapters that look like a copy of a census!
To get a feel for it:
At first the passage did nothing for me, but then I realized, it reads like list of plain boring FACTS! It doesn’t read like it was intended to convert or charm or captivate.
Archaeologists pay attention to when names are listed in the Bible like:
Only in the last decade did archaeologist confirm Nebo-Sarsakim existed. There is a clay tablet that bears his name in a financial transaction in Iraq.
The Bible had a ring of historical truth compared to the structure of fictional works.
A similar thing happened to Holly Ordway, and English professor who was very familiar with many literary genres. She was struck by the fact the New Testament didn’t read like a work of fiction, it read like personal accounts and diaries. She converted from atheism to Christianity.
Consider this from the book of Romans:
Were all these people fictions? The recipients of this letter were believers in the church of Rome just before Nero. If this letter was a fabrication, why should they accept it and then make it a legacy of the church?
One might argue the church of Rome didn’t exist in AD 61, but that would go against accepted history of Nero persecuting Christians in Rome in AD 61. So we can accept that the church of Rome existed in AD 61. If it existed, how then could Paul’s letter to the be accepted as authentic and passed down through the ages if the early church of AD 61 didn’t know him or have contact with the people listed? The most reasonable answer, unless one is Richard Carrier, is that Paul was a real person and so were the people so named in this letter.
I take that passage in Romans as a literal reading. And as Ordway points out, this isn’t the sort of writing that is the stuff of a fictional genre in days of the New Testament. It reads like a real letter to real people by a real person, and there is outside evidence corroborating it, namely the persecutions of Nero in AD 61.
Here is Butterfield’s website:
http://rosariabutterfield.com/
Here is Ordway’s book:
http://www.ignatius.com/Products/NGT-H/not-gods-type.aspx
I hate to be the one to tell you, but if these were real people — and I have no reason to disagree with that idea — that says nothing about the reality of the “Lord” whom they apparently believed in fanatically, whom they are said to have “worked hard” for.
Plenty of religious fanatics of all stripes have “worked hard” for what they perceive to be their “Lord”, throughout history, including every christian terrorist ever. And we even have the DNA of some of the more recent ones; we know them not just from names in old books. They’re real people, and they really do kill other real people over religious ideas — but none of that human reality in any way has logical relation to whether the Lord in whose name they kill really exists.
No more than a census of ordinary peaceful citizens in Salt Lake City has any logical relation to whether the particular “Lord” they believe in is going to give them each their own planet after they die.
You don’t believe the Mormons, even though you can meet them and they can speak to you of their beliefs in person. Why should you? They’re clearly nuts and sadly deluded by a known con-man, old Joe.
I don’t believe the christians from Romans. I can’t meet them and they can’t speak to me of their beliefs personally, but I have no reason to guess that I would find them more convincing than you find the modern Mormons. Why should I? They were clearly nuts and sadly deluded by Paul or other sponging disciples.
I mean, it’s remotely interesting that the bible is so full of that census-y name-and-address stuff … but what’s the point? That everything which appears to be literal history in the bible must be true (including such phantasms as the genealogy of Noah from Adam), because some bible names/locations match real historical names/locations? Umm, that’s not a good bet.
That’s like betting that every swan is white because the photos you’ve seen so far have happened to be of white ones. Especially if you’re deliberately searching for white swans, and turning your eyes away from any reports of tan, or grey, or black …
By the way, Captain James Kirk skippers the all-too-real USS Zumwalt. Do you suppose that in a thousand years, believers will use his name as proof that Star Trek was real history?
🙂
I saw that.
Correspondence with a fact.
No, I don’t think so. But when indexicals are used, context obviously can affect truth-values.
True; he has spent his 60-year career in philosophy trying to explain, refine, and defend his position.
For anyone who is interested, I found the overviews of his journey in these two books to be very helpful. There is also a brief summary available online in Britannica which was written by the editor of the first book.
What is “the other half”?
I’ve read of those — and a whole lot of Putnam as well — though I noted with some disappointment that neither of those anthologies touched on Putnam’s religious writings at all. I wonder if that was his personal choice.
Kantian Naturalist,
You’re aware of the kataphatic vs. apophatic conversation in theology, yes? Both Kierkegaard & Dostoevsky qualify in the conversation, and imho as rather good ‘personal’ examples.
Yes, I’m aware of the conversation. I’m strongly attracted to the apophatic myself (as you might have guessed).
Dostoevsky I’ll confess I don’t know so well, but Kierkegaard seems like a bad fit for that conversation, since Kierkegaard is explicating faith as a passionate subjectivity oriented towards the infinite in its subjectivity. He’s quite willing to let objective knowledge be handled by empirical methods — but that it would be ridiculous to allow one’s ultimate fate be decided on the basis of revisable knowledge.
By the way, did you know that Tolstoy was a huge influence on Wittgenstein?
I’m a big fan of Putnam’s, but he hasn’t just “refined” his position, he’s gone 180 maybe three times. Like Russell.
They were both extremely religious, and considered religious “truths” to be both “outside of” and more important than the regular, grocery store stuff. Inexplicable and indescribable. Disclosive, I guess. I’m guessing that picture is very attractive to you.
FWIW, I personally prefer the distinction to be placed between two classes of assertions–psychological/moodish and (call them) regular, much as keiths described quite well in one of his recent posts.
ETA: As it happens, on a long recent train ride, I read Dostoyevski’s The Eternal Husband. Quite disturbing. But not quite so misogynist as Strindberg’s Confessions of a Fool, which I read on the way back. Never been able to get through K’s Either-Or
I suppose you can interpret his approach to scientific realism and realism in general that way. But the commentators I read see common threads which continue throughout his career:
– a continuing attempt to understand what is involved in judging practices of inquiry, like science, as being objectively correct.
– some general claims about reference: that terms in empirical public practice refer and can continue to do so over dramatic changes in theory; that there is a public environment in which applications of terms refer
– a commitment to a non-reductionist form of naturalism
– a rejection of skepticism and relativism
So that is why I thought “refinement” might be an appropriate term.
In any event, I am pretty sure he has never been a believer in a vanilla correspondence theory of truth !
BTW, good to see you take a break from the current TSZ meta-commenting craze.
Well, whether you consider them refinements or reversals, when he discusses them he doesn’t seem the least embarrassed, and he’s certainly one of the greatest philosophers of his generation.
Coincidentally, I just learned this week that Putnam either now lives or has lived in the same town in which I reside (it wasn’t clear from a local paper book review). Never knew that.
ETA: I just looked him up. He lives no more than a couple of miles from me. Can’t believe I’ve never stalked the guy.
Did ride a local bus with Chomsky once–he lives (or lived) one town over. I was too chicken to say anything to him. 🙁
It is one thing for Paul and the apostles to claim to be eyewitnesses, versus them saying, “I just believe.” It seems Paul was a real person. It doesn’t appear he preached the gospel for personal gain, but he believed what he said.
It’s formally possible he was delusional. But if his listeners witness miraculous healings, that is another story.
On a personal level, I met Astronaut Charles Duke when he spoke at my school. He became a Christian late in life after he returned from walking on the moon. His book give an account of one his prayers being answered a few minutes after he prayed for a blind girl and she had her sight restored. Duke has fame and fortune and prestige. There is no reason in my mind he would find it necessary to fabricate a story.
Though such miracles are exceedingly rare, I think they are real. I believe Jesus occasionally and rarely answers such prayers today, and that is evidence for me at a personal level. I’m more willing to believe in miracles because I think life itself is a miracle.
But who says “his listeners witness miraculous healings”?? Only known-to-be-biased presenters who have ulterior motives to advance a christian sect.
Evangelical christians always have an incentive to lie or make-believe about the results of their prayers.
I want to know: who is this girl who was supposedly healed? What was her medical record and diagnosis before, when she was supposedly blind? According to the book, her father says “She has this disease … all she can make out are shadows and shades of light”. What disease? If she spontaneously recovers from the disease, does that mean her sight will also fully recover as a result, or is her impaired sight actually a separate problem? Did she actually recover, or did she just say she did while being hyped up in the emotion of being prayed for? What medical tests were done aferwards to verify her supposed cure? Who knows?
Google certainly doesn’t know.
It’s as if the whole thing never happened. Maybe that’s because the girl wasn’t really healed. IF she was, why doesn’t she ever share her testimony in public, to thank Jesus or at least to thank the man who supposedly healed her by praying for her?
All I know is that if Duke plus prayer are sufficient to heal some girl’s damaged eyesight, then he is the biggest asshole on the planet for not spending every waking hour of the rest of his life in praying over the millions of innocent victims of disease and blindness.
If he came to my town and told that story, smug, self-satisfied and stupidly congratulating his lord Jesus on that unprovable “miracle”, I’d spit in Duke’s food. Asshole.
_hotshoe,
Maybe no one on the planet has as many facts as they would like to have.
I believe Charlie Duke. I have his book. I just don’t believe that someone who walked on the moon, was an American hero, became filthy rich after doing so — then somewhere in the depths of dissatisfaction became a Christian through his wife’s testimony — I just don’t believe that’s the sort of personality that will lie about something like that.
I have no great reason to believe he lied. Why? I believe life is a miracle. It is believable for me that miracles are true. Maybe also because I suspect, I believe, I’ve seen a few prayers answered myself, even though they are rare.
If that doesn’t work for you, I respect that.
He’s offered prayers that weren’t answered, especially for the man he had great love for, his Dad. His dad was not healed. The fact Jesus doesn’t heal when every prayer is offered is difficult to accept, but I still believe the account of the young girl. What does Duke have to gain by lying? It’s not like he’s some televangelist raking in the money. Flying to the moon after seeing your buddies die on the launch pad in Apollo 1 (Apollo Test), takes some courage and sincerity of purpose. I think Duke is they guy he claims he is.
Any way, if it doesn’t work for you, I respect that. I was merely articulating what is believable to me. It’s a separate issue why Jesus inflicts so much cruelty on the world.
hotshoe:
Note to self: Always assess hotshoe’s mood before inviting her to dinner.
Sal,
Like you, he very much wants to believe.
Skepticism is a virtue, gullibility is not. That is why I like skepticalzone. I accept that I can be wrong in my beliefs.
But there are some religious beliefs like Mormonism that are demonstrably false, I wonder why people persist? There are problems and questions with orthodox Christian faith, but nothing of the magnitude associated with Mormonism and Scientology. Hence the varieties of religious languages seem moot if the sacred writings simply aren’t believable.
I think it is GULLIBLE to accept Mohamed as a prophet of God. He didn’t work any miracles. Nothing separates him from anyone else who is merely delusional or lying or both. On top of that, even the Koran indicates the guy was demon possessed!
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/the-quran-refers-to-the-prophet-of-islam-as-demon-possessed/
Either the guy is delusional, demon possessed or both. It’s formally possible, I could be wrong, but I wouldn’t put credence in his writings any more than the babblings of someone in an asylum.
I believe in God, I believe in miracles, but the word of one man who seems to have no divine power than anyone else? Believing that is GULLIBLE, imho.
KN,
What do you think of this way of expressing yourself?
If you find yourself resisting this sort of language, consider the possibility that you really do want to make religious assertions after all — you just don’t want to be held accountable for them.
Sal,
Like you and Charles Duke, they want (or even need) to believe.
YEC is demonstrably false, yet you persist in believing it. Why are you surprised that Mormons or Scientologists also persist in their goofy beliefs?
What account of the young girl? As far as google knows, she (and/or her family) have never told her side of the story.
It’s as if it never happened.
There’s no evidence. The lack of evidence is very suspicious, because this is the kind of story which — if it ever really happened — would resonate around the web for years.
I wouldn’t try to convict Duke in court of fraud or anything based on him repeating this story.
But I’m certainly not gullible enough to believe in a “miracle” on some dude’s say-so without any other evidence. No matter if he’s an important rich dude, famous astronaut, or whatever.
Why he would lie? Who knows. People tell lies all the time about things that won’t help them – at least not as much as they know they’ll be hurt if the lie is revealed – and that looks pretty motive-less when we see it from the outside.
But Duke certainly does have motivation to pump up his faithful-servant-cred as a christian talk-circuit star. Even if he doesn’t actually need the money nor the fame, there’s no limit to how much more he wants. Why would anyone assume that he’s too honest to ever stretch the truth to make himself just a little more “important” to his christian audience? Balance of probability, based on every other person I’ve met (including all christians) is exactly the opposite: most likely he’s dishonest enough to bend the truth when he thinks he needs to, especially if he convinces himself it’s in the service of his lord.
Or in the service of impressing his christian wife. Who knows.
I once met a former graduate student of Putnam’s (he had gone on to become a composer, and it was a musical event). I spoke with him at length about Putnam, whom I greatly admire.
He affectionately recalled that there was a unit of time recognized at Harvard called a “Putnam,” defined as the time it takes Hilary Putnam to reverse himself on a given position.
He also remarked that however one felt about Putnam’s views, whatever you could serve, he could hit back.
I’m curious who this is. I actually moved in the other direction. I studied composition with Karel Husa at Ithaca College before switching to philosophy. One of the reasons was that all the Humanities students were playing frisbee on the main quad, stoned out of their minds, while all the music students, mostly getting but one credit per course, were stuck in practice rooms day and night.)
Was it in this thread or some other thread? Can you link to the comment?
Actually, it isn’t moot. If it’s a fabrication, then it will come to light in some way, such as when interpreted literally, if appropriate. Regarding Mormonism, literal reading is most relevant, because since the very beginning they only acknowledged literal reading and they are only now playing catch-up on what scripture is and means in actual religions.
By the way, I found an interesting presentation where it’s stated that The First Book of Napoleon, an anti-Napoleonic doomsday diatribe, complete with Bible-like division to verses, serves as a major inspiration for the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith has clearly plagiarised complete sentences from there into Book of Mormon. In the presentation, the authorship of The First Book of Napoleon is misattributed. The lecturer is ex-Mormon and the presentation suffers from a common Mormon flaw – extremely superficial treatment of sources, so that parallels emerge way too easily. The First Book of Napoleon was published in 1809 in English, by pen-name Eliakim the Scribe. The presentation is here, the relevant part begins at 48th minute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAGasQ7j_ZI
Erik,
Is that why you’re so reluctant to clarify your claim about a supposedly historical event?
Regardless of the dangers of putting your claim at risk of disconfirmation, answering the questions posed is the right thing to do, both according to the goals of this site and your own stated morality. Answer them or retract your claim.
The question is why are you so reluctant to accept the clarification that has been given. You are not even acknowledging that your questions have been answered. That’s why we have no meaningful interaction. The way to get around it is to acknowledge the answers that are there.
Erik,
You have never provided a clarification. In fact, you explicitly refused to do so:
Your repeated statements that you have answered the questions posed are directly contradicted by the facts available for anyone to review in this thread. This has been pointed out so often by so many people that it seems highly unlikely that you do not know this.
Since you don’t seem to know what an answer looks like, here are the examples I’ve provided previously:
1) When did the flood you claim happened occur?
– 2000 BCE
– Sometime in the last 10,000 years
– It never occurred in reality
2) Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
– Yes
– No, it covered _____ area(s)
– The biblical flood was not an historical event
3) Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
– Yes
– No
– The biblical flood was not an historical event
Those options are what direct responses look like. Feel free to pick one of each or come up with your own equally direct response to each question. Or retract your claim. Either choice is aligned with the goals of this site. Refusing to answer is not.
The post where you quoted me from provides the answers to your questions point by point. The quote itself is about something else – about the actual topic which is impossible to discuss with you due to your thorough self-admitted ignorance and unwillingness to acknowledge the answers given.