27 replies to this topic

[N.T.M.]

Please do not construe this as anything malicious directed towards a religion I once partook in and continue to scrutinize. It has occurred to me that a simple and, most importantly, succinct proof of inaccuracy would be invaluable for freeing those who squander their time trying to sort out this mess which is the bible.

I’ll make this short:

Should the story of Noah’s ark have been accurate, obviously all of earth’s animals, apart from those which swim (etc.), must have propagated from a single point post-flood. They then would have had to make the massive pilgrimage to their current habitats all across the world. So how is it that not a single animal has been found out of its respective climate? An animal can traverse the world to become isolated to a particular region, but leave no evidence of such a journey?

What about fossil sequences? Not a single fossil has ever been discovered out of sequence relative to whatever stratum (denoting segments of time). NOT ONE. Clearly if you suppose that they were all created over the span of a week and coexisted that’d elicit a major question: what is the statistical improbability that, of the millions of animals, not one would become fossilized out of sequence?

And genome mapping?

Genomes arranged into a “family tree” segue seamlessly from simplicity into complexity as if deliberately built to deceive us.

And let us not forget about speciation: Why are animals on oceanic islands most similar to those which inhabit the nearest land mass? Why are these islands only populated by those animals which could plausibly arrive there? An example would be the impossibility presented for frogs: their eggs die immediately once exposed to saltwater. And, despite ideal environments waiting for them, god never planted them in these perfect-but-inaccessible oases.

And now to tie it off…

If a god like that which is portrayed in the bible exists, then how can he retain his infallible and loving judgment by condemning those who don’t share a faith to hell? Everything in the world seems to point away from god. If they clearly have no reason to believe other than a fabricated paucity of ambiguous events, how can a righteous judge condemn them?


Well he couldn’t could he?

[modelcadet]

Astute point, but your efforts are best spent elsewhere. It's a waste of time to debate with those whom avoid so much cognitive dissonance.

If you are to interface with thumpers, try to find common ground.

[aLurker]

Uh, why disprove anything? The burden of proof is obviously on those making silly claims such as that unicorns exist or anything religious. Anyone can write a book and claim that it is the word of god and plenty of people have done just this. Perhaps I should write my own, I mean people even believed L.Ron Hubbard (bad sci-fi author) and Joseph Smith (convicted for fraud).

[Blue]

Some possible answers

1. Physical evidence against the Bible. Remeber that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Obviously it would be simple for such a being to after the flood have eradicated the evidence of the flood's existance. Similarly with any other physical evidence against the Bible. Why? Well, maybe he prefer people to worship him due to faith, not from evidence.

2. Logical inconsistencies in the Bible. With a lot of good will you can probably resolve all of these. Or accept that some errors have occured during the copying by scribes. Note that Christians generally consider the Old Testament to have been superseded by the New Testament regarding laws and such.

3. Problem of evil. Two old answers are that we cannot understand God anymore than an ant can understand humans or that evil is necessary for a greater god such as free will.

Edited by Blue, 28 June 2010 - 04:33 PM.

[chris w]

2. Logical inconsistencies in the Bible. With a lot of good will you can probably resolve all of these. Or accept that some errors have occured during the copying by scribes. Note that Christians generally consider the Old Testament to have been superseded by the New Testament regarding laws and such.

Personally I always had a hard time ( when I was still a believer ) with wraping my head around the simple fact that Jesus in each Gospel says some different words on the cross, or doesn't say anything at all, just faints in one of them, I don't remember which right now. I mean, I can understand some minor inconsistencies in for example geographical names or in the plot itself, but the crusifiction is the one freakin crucial moment in THE WHOLE CHRISTIAN FAITH, and yet they couldn't note his last words accurately ? Smells fishy to say the least. Of course theologians devised a lot of pumped up heuristic strategies here, to somehow work around this troubling issue, but by doing so they fall in their own trap - if some parts of the Gospels are only metaphorical or relative, then why wouldn't the whole of it be just a parabole ?
It's a bit humorous when you watch one of the canonical movie adaptations of the story of Jesus Christ, and the makers often will tackle this in the least gracefull fashion - just wake Jesus up for a moment to say one of the great sentences, let him faint, and so on.

3. Problem of evil. Two old answers are that we cannot understand God anymore than an ant can understand humans or that evil is necessary for a greater god such as free will.

There is another old answer that for ex Philip K.Dick liked to play with in his fiction, the gnostic one - the malicious/screw up god the creator of this realm ( Old Testament's Jehova ) and the benevolent high saviour god who sends Jesus as a rescue team. This isn't more fantastic than the story that caught up in our civilization, mostly thanks to sword and fire and not thanks to its genuine allure and merits.

[Luna]

Disproving the bible is easy, disproving/breaking belief is not.

Remember people might not believe that it happened just the way it is written, but they believe in the general idea in a way, therefore it won't matter how much evidence, they've adapted to avoid the logic by having their own counter-logic, even though is already beyond consistency and enough to be skeptic you must remember it (usually) won't help pointing it out because it was only made to keep believing, not really to analyze or explain,

Edited by Luna, 28 June 2010 - 06:00 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Please do not construe this as anything malicious directed towards a religion I once partook in and continue to scrutinize. It has occurred to me that a simple and, most importantly, succinct proof of inaccuracy would be invaluable for freeing those who squander their time trying to sort out this mess which is the bible.

I'll make this short:

Should the story of Noah's ark have been accurate, obviously all of earth's animals, apart from those which swim (etc.), must have propagated from a single point post-flood. They then would have had to make the massive pilgrimage to their current habitats all across the world. So how is it that not a single animal has been found out of its respective climate? An animal can traverse the world to become isolated to a particular region, but leave no evidence of such a journey?

What about fossil sequences? Not a single fossil has ever been discovered out of sequence relative to whatever stratum (denoting segments of time). NOT ONE. Clearly if you suppose that they were all created over the span of a week and coexisted that'd elicit a major question: what is the statistical improbability that, of the millions of animals, not one would become fossilized out of sequence?

And genome mapping?

Genomes arranged into a "family tree" segue seamlessly from simplicity into complexity as if deliberately built to deceive us.

And let us not forget about speciation: Why are animals on oceanic islands most similar to those which inhabit the nearest land mass? Why are these islands only populated by those animals which could plausibly arrive there? An example would be the impossibility presented for frogs: their eggs die immediately once exposed to saltwater. And, despite ideal environments waiting for them, god never planted them in these perfect-but-inaccessible oases.

And now to tie it off…

If a god like that which is portrayed in the bible exists, then how can he retain his infallible and loving judgment by condemning those who don't share a faith to hell? Everything in the world seems to point away from god. If they clearly have no reason to believe other than a fabricated paucity of ambiguous events, how can a righteous judge condemn them?


Well he couldn't could he?

NATURE OF FLOOD
This argument is the problem of Noah's Ark. I would simply just dismiss this by saying: First, it doesn't disprove the existence of God. Secondly, I and many others take Noah's flood to be a local flood, not a universal flood, in any case. The Hebrew word “erets” may be translated either land or earth. This is a long discussion between Theists crossing the centuries. See the following:

http://www.godandsci...floodtrans.html

http://www.reasons.o...-flood-chapters

http://www.godandsci...localflood.html

http://www.asa3.org/...igins/flood.htm

http://en.wikipedia....e_Genesis_Flood

What about fossil sequences

This local flood view would effect how we interpret the fossil record. I highly recommend “Darwin’s Dilemma.”
How else would you explain the sudden appearance of almost all life forms in the Cambrian strata? This is a major problem for any who asks about the fossil sequences. Yes, what about them? Think they disprove Theism?
http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/B002MZTSRM
http://www.amazon.co...ntt_aut_sim_1_1

And now to tie it off…

Theism teaches that the choice of faith is ours not Gods. We decide what kind of relationship we want. Don’t want to have anything to do with God? He won’t force you to believe. Don’t worry, you won’t be forced to believe in anything but your own freedom. You don’t have to even accept that.

God whom you don't believe in, made you do it?

I think everything points to God, in one way or the other. The question is not whether we are going to hell but whether we can keep from going there. The earth is going to be consumed by the sun followed by total dankness. At least that seems to be the current view of many scientists. I don’t think Hell and darkness require much faith.

Check this out.
http://apologetics31...-directory.html

[N.T.M.]

Some possible answers

1. Physical evidence against the Bible. Remeber that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Obviously it would be simple for such a being to after the flood have eradicated the evidence of the flood's existance. Similarly with any other physical evidence against the Bible. Why? Well, maybe he prefer people to worship him due to faith, not from evidence.

That is exactly why he cannot be a loving god. Thus the argument is circular, and, if anything at all, points only towards deism. And since you cannot derive much comfort from the thought of a deistic god, people default to the false god of the bible.

Your comment also reminds me of a facebook post I did a while back regarding another implication.

I'm gonna try to find it now...

(in response to an ill-equipped dissenter)

Well actually, yes, you must by obligation. You see I've done my research regarding the putative inerrancy of the bible. And, much to my disappointment, I've found that it's exactly that: putative. Now I realize that it's incontrovertibly flawed. Thus it cannot be invoked as support for a faith. The only argument then that can be applied is simply faith. Now here's where the universalism comes in: since all religions are predicated on faith, whoever partakes in one faith must also concede the possibility of other faith's accuracy. Of course this, more or less, constitutes universalism.

*edit*

NATURE OF FLOOD
This argument is the problem of Noah's Ark. I would simply just dismiss this by saying: First, it doesn't disprove the existence of God. Secondly, I and many others take Noah's flood to be a local flood, not a universal flood, in any case. The Hebrew word “erets” may be translated either land or earth. This is a long discussion between Theists crossing the centuries. See the following:

http://www.godandsci...floodtrans.html

http://www.reasons.o...-flood-chapters

http://www.godandsci...localflood.html

http://www.asa3.org/...igins/flood.htm

http://en.wikipedia....e_Genesis_Flood

Noah's Ark was just icing on the cake. It didn't have to be interjected. Plus, you neglected to answer some of my most prominent questions.

I never said I can disprove god's existence. Only the bible's accuracy and consequently the Christian's god's existence.

Plus I'm pretty familiar with all you're referencing. I once deployed the same specious arguments.

*edit again* I feel as though I need to submit this again:

What about fossil sequences? Not a single fossil has ever been discovered out of sequence relative to whatever stratum (denoting segments of time). NOT ONE. Clearly if you suppose that they were all created over the span of a week and coexisted that’d elicit a major question: what is the statistical improbability that, of the millions of animals, not one would become fossilized out of sequence?

I'm sure a crude formula could illustrate the supreme improbability of this being nothing more than a fluke.

*last edit*

I started to go through the books you mentioned and I immediately noticed (among other things) one laughable problem: They apply the anthropic principle in support of god!!! I actually loled. That in itself besmirches the entire argument. And of course, in conjunction with that, they allude to evolution invoking chance, which means they’re ignoring the most core principles while attacking their own version of the theory.

Edited by N.T.M., 29 June 2010 - 08:07 AM.

[Cameron]

Here's a funny link showing other bible inconsistencies[note that I've not checked whether all the inconsistencies are true or not.]:
bible interview

This argument is the problem of Noah's Ark. I would simply just dismiss this by saying: First, it doesn't disprove the existence of God.

The word "God" has many meanings, there is the abstract God of the deists which is all but unassailable, and then there's the God of various tribes and religions. A God that directly intervenes in human affairs is all but dis-proven at this point, this puts into questions the God of the Muslims, Christians, and Jews. This God that directly responds to their prayers, and is constantly intervening, is the one most believers hang onto, not some abstract ideal being.

Religious apologists do a very nice sleight of hand by constantly switching which "God" they refer to throughout their arguments, often invoking the deist God when asked for evidence, but then going back to their mythical God and putting attributes from this myth onto the Deist God. They often don't realize the logical fallacy they're committing, their assumption is that their God exists, ergo the Deist God = Their God, which is an unfounded assumption, that actually goes against what the evidence suggests.

I can speak of Obama, Clinton or Bush, believe legends and myths about them, and all sort of gossip. The President or Ex-president I believe in such cases, WOULD NOT EXIST, it would be but an imaginary distortion of the real thing. Gods in the image of men likewise, if we take the evidence face on, are nothing but distortions of whatever may exist.

With regards to Faith it is just one more thing that introduces inconsistency into the story. It does beg the question, and not the often answered "why does God not provide direct evidence to individuals? " but the much harder "Why does God provide direct evidence to some, and not to others?"

Faith, while there are many definitions, can usually be considered as belief without evidence, proof. It is often considered a virtue in many religions. Usually an individual has faith in close friends, and family, people who're trustworthy. Members of many religions seek to gain the faith of individuals, despite the fact that they're complete strangers, which in general one should not give unconditional faith to.

Despite the fact that one generally does not give unconditional faith to the word of strangers, especially unconditional faith to extraordinary claims without evidence, these religious individuals attempt to invoke a connection to 'God', so as to assume that their words come from 'God' not from them.

Yet when someone says a governor, president, king or in general any individual said something, we require evidence. How can one tell whether these individuals are really connected to the divine, or are just putting words in 'God's' mouth? The rational conclusion is evidence or proof, the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence required to back it up.

Now that that's out of the way, one has to consider the issue of justice, justice as regard to faith. Many a religion suggest that either the founder, prophets, and sometimes even random witnesses were directly exposed to the divine, providing seemingly solid proof to a select few that 'God' is. In fact some even suggest that people who doubted and would otherwise would have not believed in 'God' were provided direct evidence to convince them to joining the faith.

The question is, given the penalties of refusing many religions, and if one takes it to be nonsense even blaspheming against them(as one would easily do with any myth or fairytale), which in some religions is an unforgivable sin. What then can we take of this? That some are given privileged information ensuring their belief based on reason and others not, having to really solely on faith without rational basis? Is it really just to convince an unbeliever that requires miracles with them, and let another that also requires miracles to remain an unbeliever?

It seems that deep within the core of many a religion, what lies is nothing more than injustice. Some have attempted to say that God does not provide evidence as that would interfere with free will and faith, but that is clearly a FALLACY, as evidence supposedly was provided to some privileged individuals. Most don't consider those individuals to be cursed for witnessing the divine, they consider them blessed, and objectively how can one say they're not better of, especially if we assume the 'faith' to be 'true'? Is it really fair to condemn some by inaction, yet save others arbitrarily, by providing evidence past the threshold required to elicit belief in some and not others(as this threshold, cannot really be too low or the person would be too gullible and subject to belief all sorts of nonsense.)?

Yet any religion that explicitly indicates a FAIR and JUST God but implicitly in its arguments indicates an UNJUST and UNFAIR God, has at its core a logical contradiction, and thus any rational being must assume it to be nothing but FALSE.

[Lufega]

Everyone knows Jesus was a caveman.

[Soma]

I and many others take Noah's flood to be a local flood, not a universal flood

Or maybe it didn't literally occur at all. Fable, myth, folklore, allegory, metaphor- you name it.

I don't spend my time trying to prove or disprove the historicity of anything that Aesop wrote. I wonder why so many people try to do this with the bible and it's fables and parables.

To all the christians out there: Yes, believe it or not, you can have a story without it having literally happened. A story can have an essence, a point, or even a "moral" without the story being historically true.

I use the term "moral" here loosely, in respect to the Old Testament, which is unequivocally one of the most immoral books ever committed to print.

Edited by Soma, 10 September 2010 - 09:58 PM.

[Soma]

Everyone knows Jesus was a caveman.

[shadowhawk]

There are many things like the Biblical flood that while true may not explain every question that might be asked. There is nothing new about this, no one answers every question that can be asked and just going through the posts in this topic, many questions can be asked of every post. That a question can be asked which does not have an obvious answer does not mean something is wrong. For example, the biblical writer was not interested in describing where the flood took place but was telling about Noah and the issues in the culture he was facing. It is a story about faith, Noah’s and those about him..

I once taught a class on the Synoptic Gospels at California State Fullerton. There was about 150 students and we were all setting on the lawn, under a tree. (Notice there are many things I have left out of this story. Not my purpose to describe everything) I asked the students to take out a piece of paper and write a description of the tree. After a few minutes we collected the papers and I begun reading them. They were all different yet all of them true. The author and there purpose and insight all left a mark. Even the writing instruments left there mark on the description..

Here are a few good books on Biblical difficulties for those who don’t want to remain ignorant and are seriously and rationally looking for answers.
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sbs_02_02
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sim_01_01
http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_1


Here are a few good web sites where you can ask hard questions about the Bible. There are many more.
http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/
http://www.4truth.net/
http://www.biblestudytools.com/

[N.T.M.]

There are many things like the Biblical flood that while true may not explain every question that might be asked. There is nothing new about this, no one answers every question that can be asked and just going through the posts in this topic, many questions can be asked of every post. That a question can be asked which does not have an obvious answer does not mean something is wrong. For example, the biblical writer was not interested in describing where the flood took place but was telling about Noah and the issues in the culture he was facing. It is a story about faith, Noah’s and those about him..

I once taught a class on the Synoptic Gospels at California State Fullerton. There was about 150 students and we were all setting on the lawn, under a tree. (Notice there are many things I have left out of this story. Not my purpose to describe everything) I asked the students to take out a piece of paper and write a description of the tree. After a few minutes we collected the papers and I begun reading them. They were all different yet all of them true. The author and there purpose and insight all left a mark. Even the writing instruments left there mark on the description..

Here are a few good books on Biblical difficulties for those who don’t want to remain ignorant and are seriously and rationally looking for answers.
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sbs_02_02
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sim_01_01
http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_1


Here are a few good web sites where you can ask hard questions about the Bible. There are many more.
http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/
http://www.4truth.net/
http://www.biblestudytools.com/

You seem to be missing the point. An omnibenevolent cannot stipulate faith and impose eternal damnation as a result of disbelief. Therefore he cannot be omnibenevolent, and thus a central biblical theme is eviscerated. The obvious following step is to question the veracity of the bible’s remaining content as its credibility is clearly now less than perfect.

In the case of the flood you have major issues which ensue after asserting either a global or local flood. Both can be disproven by simple reasoning, and I’d be happy to demonstrate it if you’d like.

I use the term "moral" here loosely, in respect to the Old Testament, which is unequivocally one of the most immoral books ever committed to print.

lol yes

Edited by N.T.M., 11 September 2010 - 12:10 AM.

[Lufega]

Watch "The man from earth" and you'll now what I mean

[N.T.M.]

"An omnibenevolent god cannot stipulate faith and impose eternal damnation as a result of disbelief."

Apparently I omitted the word God. I wonder why I can't edit. =/

[Ben]

Agh. Come on morons. How many times will I need to state this? Logic like this does not apply when you are considering an infinite being.

So much time wasting. Go out, have fun, enjoy yourself. Take your hand from under the desk and grab a drink with some friends.

[N.T.M.]

Agh. Come on morons. How many times will I need to state this? Logic like this does not apply when you are considering an infinite being.

So much time wasting. Go out, have fun, enjoy yourself. Take your hand from under the desk and grab a drink with some friends.

We're considering the Bible. What are you going on about?

[shadowhawk]

There are many things like the Biblical flood that while true may not explain every question that might be asked. There is nothing new about this, no one answers every question that can be asked and just going through the posts in this topic, many questions can be asked of every post. That a question can be asked which does not have an obvious answer does not mean something is wrong. For example, the biblical writer was not interested in describing where the flood took place but was telling about Noah and the issues in the culture he was facing. It is a story about faith, Noah's and those about him..

I once taught a class on the Synoptic Gospels at California State Fullerton. There was about 150 students and we were all setting on the lawn, under a tree. (Notice there are many things I have left out of this story. Not my purpose to describe everything) I asked the students to take out a piece of paper and write a description of the tree. After a few minutes we collected the papers and I begun reading them. They were all different yet all of them true. The author and there purpose and insight all left a mark. Even the writing instruments left there mark on the description..

Here are a few good books on Biblical difficulties for those who don't want to remain ignorant and are seriously and rationally looking for answers.
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sbs_02_02
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sim_01_01
http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_1


Here are a few good web sites where you can ask hard questions about the Bible. There are many more.
http://instituteofbiblicaldefense.com/
http://www.4truth.net/
http://www.biblestudytools.com/

N.T.M.
You seem to be missing the point. An omnibenevolent cannot stipulate faith and impose eternal damnation as a result of disbelief. Therefore he cannot be omnibenevolent, and thus a central biblical theme is eviscerated. The obvious following step is to question the veracity of the bible's remaining content as its credibility is clearly now less than perfect.

If by omnibenevolent you mean How could a good God inspire belief in a world that has evil in it this is a question long discussed by believers and unbelievers. I suppose, though you haven't said it, this is a lead in to the "Problem of Evil," and will start a discussion on why this invalidates belief. omnibenevolent is not a word used to describe God except in very loose terms in history. It is not found in the bible so I don't think you have a clue. As for evil...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPqSrnR6VtI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-upGMJr161o&feature=related

In the case of the flood you have major issues which ensue after asserting either a global or local flood. Both can be disproven by simple reasoning, and I'd be happy to demonstrate it if you'd like.

I hold a local flood view so show me how simple it is to disprove a local flood. I have discussed this before elsewhere on Imminist.

Show me simply that floods, even massive cannot happen, or that there may have very well been such a flood during the time of Noah.

http://www.godandsci...floodtrans.html
http://www.godandsci...localflood.html

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 September 2010 - 11:43 PM.

[Cameron]

Agh. Come on morons. How many times will I need to state this? Logic like this does not apply when you are considering an infinite being.

So much time wasting. Go out, have fun, enjoy yourself. Take your hand from under the desk and grab a drink with some friends.

If human logic does not apply to the God of the bible, if it is not bound by it. Then there is no reason to be certain humanly logical things like keeping promises or doing good to remain good, as it is described as good, will apply to it. It could be perfectly good and somehow through bizarro logic do evil and break promises while remaining perfectly good. The only reason believers have for being certain that their God is as described and will bestow what it has promised, is their faith that their God is bound by some sort of logical consistency. If it is logically inconsistent, as regards to human logic, then anything goes.

[chris w]

I once taught a class on the Synoptic Gospels at California State Fullerton. There was about 150 students and we were all setting on the lawn, under a tree. (Notice there are many things I have left out of this story. Not my purpose to describe everything) I asked the students to take out a piece of paper and write a description of the tree. After a few minutes we collected the papers and I begun reading them. They were all different yet all of them true. The author and there purpose and insight all left a mark. Even the writing instruments left there mark on the description..

Then why do Christians insist on a realistic ( as opposing to "methaporical") interpretation of Jesus's ressurection, the absolute centerpiece of Christianity ? You never hear them say "you know, the crucifiction and raising from the dead are just a kind of narration, it didn't really have to happen exactly this way or another".
You cannot arbitrarily choose one part of a two thousend year old story that otherwise smells kooky, and say that this particular part is totally reliable, even though others are more or less incosistent ; everything is as strong as its weakest link.
I would argue that Gospel inconsistencies concerning the life of Jesus ( like his genealogy in Mark and Mathew, time span of his teaching, last words etc ) are such, that it would be like different students were judging the color of the tree to be green and others to be yellow and even others purple. Suppose in Berkeley that could happen...

Edited by chris w, 18 September 2010 - 02:01 PM.

[Soma]

I'll add something else to this point:

I once taught a class on the Synoptic Gospels at California State Fullerton. There was about 150 students and we were all setting on the lawn, under a tree. (Notice there are many things I have left out of this story. Not my purpose to describe everything) I asked the students to take out a piece of paper and write a description of the tree. After a few minutes we collected the papers and I begun reading them. They were all different yet all of them true.

First of all, you are making the presupposition that the biblical flood literally occurred and you are using that as your starting by describing how accounts of that event may have become varied. The argument is flawed from the outset.

Certainly you will different descriptions of the tree by different observers.

But what happens when you get into "magical" descriptions of the tree, are they equally as correct?

What if I had an agenda to add to my "account" and I said, "And The Lord took over the spirit of the tree, and it spoke words and it said unto us to go and ...."

Wow, a talking tree! That's not very believable is it? Or is it?

That kind of magical story is reminiscent of the story of a taking bush, or a talking donkey, or a talking and flying snake, or a woman that turns into salt, a man living in a whale for 3 days, a sea that is parted, a baby born of a virgin, or... a man spending 120 years building a boat in preparation for a worldwide flood where it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and 2 of every species on the entire planet gathered and walked on board that boat.

From my experience, It has always amazed me how reasonably intelligent people can read a story that is clearly mythological and believe that it literally happened. This only occurs if they have been sufficiently indoctrinated by religion.

I don't see many people these days arguing over Atlas, or Zeus, or prophecies from the oracle at Delphi. Nobody takes of those stories literally because we all realize that this is mythology. When we read of Cronos swallowing the baby Zeus, we don't go through all kinds of mental gymnastics to support the literality of the story. But the story of Jonah living three days in the whale- no, that really happened.

"The Book of Jonah says that God prompted the great fish to vomit Jonah on dry land. Therefore, the sea creature that swallowed Jonah must have a large mouth (and esophagus in cases where the esophagus would be used) in order to accomplish this feat. I believe the best suspects for sea creatures are the sperm whale and the great white shark based on my investiagation (I discuss why the other suspects scholars cite are not as good: grouper fish, other whales and sharks, unknown or extinct species)."

That an actual excerpt from a post entitled "Jonah And Whale - Science Info - Pro Bible" from christian-form.net

When we read of the greek god Attis or Dionysus being born of a virgin, we don't actually consider that as historical fact, because c'mon...that's mythology. But when we read of Jesus being born of a virgin- no, that really happened.

It's time for people to wake up and see religion for what it is- mythology that has lingered into the modern age.

The flood- no, that really happened.

[Ben]

Agh. Come on morons. How many times will I need to state this? Logic like this does not apply when you are considering an infinite being.

So much time wasting. Go out, have fun, enjoy yourself. Take your hand from under the desk and grab a drink with some friends.

(blah blah, more poor, uneducated and shallow reasoning) The only reason believers have for being certain that their G-d is as described and will bestow what it has promised, is their faith that their G-d is bound by some sort of logical consistency (blah blah.)

Agh. Come on morons. How many times will I need to state this? Logic like this does not apply when you are considering an infinite being.

So much time wasting. Go out, have fun, enjoy yourself. Take your hand from under the desk and grab a drink with some friends.

[Soma]

Logic like this does not apply when you are considering an infinite being.

Which is why the entire concept of an "infinite being" is complete and utter nonsense.

If logic does not apply to the consideration of an "infinite being" then considering an "infinite being" is, by definition, illogical and irrational.

The concept of an "infinite being" is then in the same category of all other things that are illogical and irrational such as flying pink unicorns, magical forest elves, and shapeshifting alien lizard gods.

Logic like this does not apply when you are considering flying pink unicorns, magical forest elves, and shapeshifting alien lizard gods. Come on, everyone knows that!

Yes, believing in an "infinite being" is just as ridiculous and moronic.

I have an inkling of what your response might be:

Agh. Come on morons. How many times will I need to state this? Logic like this does not apply when you are considering an infinite being.

So much time wasting. Go out, have fun, enjoy yourself. Take your hand from under the desk and grab a drink with some friends.

[Cameron]

Agh. Come on morons. How many times will I need to state this? Logic like this does not apply when you are considering an infinite being.

So much time wasting. Go out, have fun, enjoy yourself. Take your hand from under the desk and grab a drink with some friends.

(blah blah, more poor, uneducated and shallow reasoning) The only reason believers have for being certain that their G-d is as described and will bestow what it has promised, is their faith that their G-d is bound by some sort of logical consistency (blah blah.)

Agh. Come on morons. How many times will I need to state this? Logic like this does not apply when you are considering an infinite being.

So much time wasting. Go out, have fun, enjoy yourself. Take your hand from under the desk and grab a drink with some friends.

Hmmm, I virtually restated your claim and its implications. That is repeating that 'logic like this' does not apply to an infinite being, has nothing to say against what I just said. As what was said was with regards to believers and what they can claim of their God, the foundation of their faith, and logic like that most definitely applies to them. As for God, If we take it that truly 'logic like this' does not apply, then we can easily state that believers should have no basis to make affirmative statements about their God and what he can, cannot, will or will not do. As there would be no logical foundation on which those claims could stand, thus from their point of view anything goes.

[N.T.M.]

If by omnibenevolent you mean How could a good God inspire belief in a world that has evil in it this is a question long discussed by believers and unbelievers. I suppose, though you haven't said it, this is a lead in to the "Problem of Evil," and will start a discussion on why this invalidates belief. omnibenevolent is not a word used to describe God except in very loose terms in history. It is not found in the bible so I don't think you have a clue. As for evil...

Only the man with no argument invokes pedantry. Sure, using a contemporary adjective obviously invalidates my argument. And no, I'm not ranting about theodicy (they're all obviously fallacious arguments). Instead I’m only underlining a massive contradiction in the bible: a loving god cannot stipulate faith to avoid hell. What a cruel god you worship, where people must make blind leaps for their salvation.

*edit*

I hold a local flood view so show me how simple it is to disprove a local flood. I have discussed this before elsewhere on Imminist.

Show me simply that floods, even massive cannot happen, or that there may have very well been such a flood during the time of Noah.

You’re bending over backwards in effort to selectively gather enough biblical support for a local flood, so it’s safe to say that you’re aware how moronic a global one sounds. I’m not gonna waste my time dismissing it (although I will if you really want me to). Now a local flood creates a few issues. First off, since it’s local you cannot deploy an argument of catastrophism which, even by itself, undermines your stance of young-earth creationism (Or are you gonna ask what a day to god really is? You’d have to bend over even further for that one.). How then did pangea break apart? You’re aware that along the borders of the once-adjacent continents lies perfect fossil record continuity. Plate tectonics data also coincides perfectly with their positions and denoted history. Without catastrophism there just simply wouldn’t be enough time.

Are we allowed to use reason and science in this debate? I want to be sure I'm following all the rules.

*edit again* I watched the first video and found too many flaws to warrant watching the second.

Edited by N.T.M., 21 September 2010 - 08:28 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I once taught a class on the Synoptic Gospels at California State Fullerton. There was about 150 students and we were all setting on the lawn, under a tree. (Notice there are many things I have left out of this story. Not my purpose to describe everything) I asked the students to take out a piece of paper and write a description of the tree. After a few minutes we collected the papers and I begun reading them. They were all different yet all of them true. The author and there purpose and insight all left a mark. Even the writing instruments left there mark on the description..

Then why do Christians insist on a realistic ( as opposing to "methaporical") interpretation of Jesus's ressurection, the absolute centerpiece of Christianity ? You never hear them say "you know, the crucifiction and raising from the dead are just a kind of narration, it didn't really have to happen exactly this way or another".
You cannot arbitrarily choose one part of a two thousend year old story that otherwise smells kooky, and say that this particular part is totally reliable, even though others are more or less incosistent ; everything is as strong as its weakest link.
I would argue that Gospel inconsistencies concerning the life of Jesus ( like his genealogy in Mark and Mathew, time span of his teaching, last words etc ) are such, that it would be like different students were judging the color of the tree to be green and others to be yellow and even others purple. Suppose in Berkeley that could happen...

If something is metaphorical then you are right, it should be interpreted that way. I also agree the resurrection is the centerpiece of Christianity. The Bible is like any other literature and has all the literary devices as any other writing. That is why hermeneutics is a great discipline in interpreting anything. Some things are much more difficult to interpret than others and this goes for all literature.

“Smelling Kooky,” is not a hermeneutical method. In fact the students in my illustration did just that, no two descriptions of the tree were the same and if you were not standing there looking at the tree some would say they were in contradiction. All descriptions were true. Each student was impressed by a different aspect of the truth and this is true of anything historical. Even your own parents would describe you differently and I would likely believe both of them. Think of what a kook you would have to be to deny this.

So the flood was thousands of years ago and the purpose of the writer was not to answer all the questions someone thousands of years later might ask. We can either give the writer the benefit of knowing what he was talking about or not, but in either case we don’t know what we are talking about, if we have to answer every question one could ask. Both Believer and Unbeliever will have to admit there are many things we do not know and must assume. All history is this way.

[Cameron]

a loving god cannot stipulate faith to avoid hell. What a cruel god you worship, where people must make blind leaps for their salvation.

Indeed. I do not see why a supreme being would require some individuals to have blind faith, not in an abstract god, but in the myths of a few primitive men with no solid evidence to back up their claims. Note be that many ask for faith not only towards god, but towards countless rules, rituals, and other associated events(virgin births, miraculous cures, supernatural events, the divinity of certain individuals, the sacredness of certain rituals, as well as many details describing god and what he would or would not do, what he allows and does not allow, etc.).

So the flood was thousands of years ago and the purpose of the writer was not to answer all the questions someone thousands of years later might ask. We can either give the writer the benefit of knowing what he was talking about or not, but in either case we don't know what we are talking about, if we have to answer every question one could ask. Both Believer and Unbeliever will have to admit there are many things we do not know and must assume. All history is this way.

The whole idea of the global flood, was to provide a supernatural divine event connected to the text, thus providing a link between divine and earthly to the origins of this text. If that line towards the divine is severed, and it is merely a random small local flood... then what is its importance? Why is this flood any more worthy of our attention than any other flood?
Further if one of the links towards a divine supernatural event is put in doubt, might the others not as well be cast in doubt by association?