Response To https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743106955695292416

Re: "The flood myth was written long before the buybull", to me, the comment "The myth Tale also suggested genocide was a good thing for humans" does not seem intended as an assessment of the account's historicity, but seems likely intended as a criticism of God's considering genocide a good thing for humans. My response seems to (a) attempt to place that criticism in its apparent context of Genesis 6:5, (b) compare that criticism to the apparent contradictory criticism of the extent to which God seems reasonably suggested to have left human evildoing and its resulting human suffering unchecked, and (c) pose the question of which criticism seems false. If the apparent response "The whole lot is false" is intended to suggest that both criticisms of God are false, I seem to agree, regardless of whether or not the flood account is historic.

Response To https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743088297975648256

https://twitter.com/Sarsinister/status/743088297975648256 I seem to attempt to phrase assertion conservatively to imply subjectivity to error as opposed to assumed irrefutable fact.

Re: "The myth Tale also suggested genocide was a good thing for humans", if this comment refers to Genesis 6's apparent flood account, I respectfully propose consideration of (a) the context apparently apparently described by Genesis 6:5, and (b) the apparent criticism of God's apparently-suggested "human experience management" for allowing "evildoing" and the suffering that results to go unchecked. Which of these apparent contradictory criticisms of God might you consider to be false?

Response To https://twitter.com/Tweeting_Reason/status/743073020042960896

To me, I seem to have stated my goal at the onset. To me, you seemed to have stated that the human experience has no intended purpose, and I seem to have responded that continuing along the proposed reasoning path might lead to a different conclusion (https://twitter.com/pbSIDP/status/742775991005794306). Since that point, my posts seem intended to review the apparently relevant factors to attempt to determine what, if any, conclusion they lead to. To me, so far, we seem to have progressed through several concepts to the issue of whether pain and pleasure have, from birth, the specific, primary, and humanly intrinsic role of incentivizing and dis-incentivizing specific behavior. To me, that seems the current state of the discussion.