• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You believe Noah?

Do you believe Noah?


  • Total voters
    70
So, essentially... you're a better person than people who are religious... because you don't need religion?

Arrogant attitude.

Your inability to come up with a reply is all that I need. It's not that I am better because I don't need religion. I am better because I don't need somebody to tell me what my purpose is. I create my purpose each and every day. That's not arrogant. It's self sufficient. You need religion because otherwise you are unable to find purpose on your own.

By the way, your reading comprehension is priceless. Continue with the weak strawman arguments.
 
Last edited:
And I will repeat it as that's what you've described. People who cannot handle reality, especially when they have to invent make-believe nonsense or buy into someone else's make-believe nonsense, are pathetic, stupid losers. If one cannot come up with a rational, intellectual purpose for their lives that doesn't involve bowing down to imaginary friends in the sky, or cannot be a decent human being without such beliefs, why shouldn't we see them that way?

No, they just chose to believe that nonsense. I happen to hold people rationally accountable for their decisions. It doesn't matter what meaning they find, it matter what mind-poison they accept into their heads. Someone might find meaning in the writing of J.K. Rowling, that doesn't mean they are justified in believing in magic and Hogwarts.

I'll agree that religion is a control mechanism, I just question whether it's a positive one. It's the ultimate bait and switch, demanding that you act a certain way for a reward that you only supposedly get after you're dead and can't come back and tell anyone if you were scammed. However, the same people who believe in the "good" that supposedly comes from religion also tend to follow the bad. Homophobia, racism, hatred, violence, etc. are all end-results that can come from religion. When you open your mind to things that you have no good, rational reason to believe, you also open your mind to all sorts of mind-poisons and other irrational things to come flooding in. The same people who embrace gods embrace superstitions at a much higher level. Rejecting critical thinking in one area of your life lessens the chance that you will use it overall. When emotional comfort becomes the standard for belief, then anything that brings emotional comfort, no matter how absurd it may be, becomes acceptable.

That's what I object to.

Are you saying that without religion mankind would not be able to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc? I find that hard to believe. As hollow as religious belief may be, it has both harmed very many people but helped just as many. The greatest minds of our time were religious. Newton, Einstein, Caesar, King, etc. These people not only rejected the negative trappings of religion and piety, they also made great contributions. If anything religion is preservation of culture. What I find negative about it is the hollowness of religious actions. I don't mind if somebody does a good act in order to go to heaven, what I do mind is that they somehow consider themselves better than those who do good for its own sake.
 
1) There is no "atheist point of view". Atheism is a single position on a single question: do you believe god(s) exist. You can't get from "I don't believe god exists" to "therefore a man could not live 900 years or ..."

2) I do NOT claim that it is impossible for:
A) a man to live 900 years
B) a man to build a boat big enough to house practically every land dwelling animal on the planet
C) a man to gather every land dwelling animal on the planet
D) a man to feed, house, and keep these animals from eating each other
E) a man to redistribute all those animals

What I DO claim is that there is ZERO reason to believe these things did occur. That there is ZERO reason to accept these tales as factual history. Do you understand the difference?

Yes I understand your post. Basically it is I am a atheist and religious people are stupid for believing their little Harry Potter book.

Because even if you believe in a god who is capable of making all those things happen, you still have no reason to believe they actually did except for hear-say, opinion, and holy-book tales.

If you are really a Christian or a Jew(not a Jew in name only) then you believe those Holy book tales as facts.

Even IF a god exists, it doesn't mean he actually did any of those things. Even IF a god exists, it doesn't mean that the tale of Noah is anything more than a myth or legend.

So your saying that even if you believe in a supreme being who created everything that somehow a man who built a boat big enough for a whole **** load of animals and live 900 hundred years is somehow far fetched?


No. If you are gullible and credulous then you will accept those things without analyzing them critically.

I do not think you are analyzing things critically. You are looking at this only from a perspective of a atheist and nothing more.

Being a Christian doesn't mean you have to turn your brain off. It doesn't mean you have to believe everything written in a 2000+ year old book is literal and factual history. God gave you a brain. USE IT!

You do not believe in God so why bring him up?
 
The arrogance of nonreligious people about religion never stops amazing me.

Most are not religious so they can feel more "pious" than anyone else.
Most people are not religious because they can't face reality or need a wheelchair to get through life.
Christianity is not a control mechanism. It can be used as such by evil people, but the teachings of Christ and the Bible are not a governmental system, they are for spiritual guidance.

I cannot speak for all Christians or religions, I can however speak for myself. If somehow it was proved tomorrow that God did not exist, my life would not change one bit. To assume otherwise just makes people who believe such nonsense about religious people amazingly judgmental and uninformed.

The only difference between my reality and a non religious persons reality is mine has God in it. So what???
 
People who cannot handle reality, especially when they have to invent make-believe nonsense or buy into someone else's make-believe nonsense, are pathetic, stupid losers.

I agree, but there hundreds of millions out there who have made religion the most important part of their lives, and their belief is as real to them as their arms and legs. Of course you and I and millions of others don't believe in it, but that doesn't mean belief has no positive values.

AA needs to evoke God to kick the habit, same with drug addicts, including my two daughters, countless others get peace of mind, and still others are mysteriously healed through prayer...

ricksfolly
 
I agree, but there hundreds of millions out there who have made religion the most important part of their lives, and their belief is as real to them as their arms and legs. Of course you and I and millions of others don't believe in it, but that doesn't mean belief has no positive values.

AA needs to evoke God to kick the habit, same with drug addicts, including my two daughters, countless others get peace of mind, and still others are mysteriously healed through prayer...

No, AA *CHOOSES* to evoke God. There are just as many non-religious programs out there that have the same recovery rate as AA without having to resort to imaginary thinking. Further, there isn't any demonstrable instance of someone getting healed through prayer, or at least being healed by whatever they happen to be praying to. Having a positive outlook on life and one's future is often enough to give the body the ability to heal itself. That doesn't prove God exists or that prayer directly made things better, only that someone is deluded into believing something for which there is no good evidence and that belief may have had a positive benefit. You can have the same benefit without the delusional belief.

There isn't anything demonstrably positive that religious belief can give you that cannot be equally or better achieved through purely secular means.
 
Hatuey said:
Are you saying that without religion mankind would not be able to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc? I find that hard to believe. As hollow as religious belief may be, it has both harmed very many people but helped just as many. The greatest minds of our time were religious. Newton, Einstein, Caesar, King, etc. These people not only rejected the negative trappings of religion and piety, they also made great contributions. If anything religion is preservation of culture. What I find negative about it is the hollowness of religious actions. I don't mind if somebody does a good act in order to go to heaven, what I do mind is that they somehow consider themselves better than those who do good for its own sake.

No, I am saying however that religion belief, in and of itself, often pushes the deluded into those avenues of hatred when they would have no reason to pursue it otherwise. It's not a matter of someone who is racist to begin with pursuing religion, it's someone who is brought up in a religion being taught that because an ignorant primitive bronze-age tribe believed a thing, therefore we ought to accept it today.

The fact is, it's irrelevant how many people are "helped" by religion. I would question in many cases if this is real help, or if it's just blind placebo. Many people sit around and wait for God to provide instead of getting up off their backsides and helping themselves. When other people come to their aid, instead of being thankful to human charity, they thank their imaginary friend in the sky. Is that helpful? I think not. Since any "help" that they could have achieved could equally be gotten through entirely secular means, how much of this help was worthwhile, especially considering the serious downsides that often come with religious adherence?

Isaac Newton lived in a time when openly denouncing religion entirely could get you into serious trouble. His beliefs at the time were heretical to orthodoxy Christianty, he believed that he was specially gifted to interpret what God really meant, a sure sign of basic mental instability. However, like many people, Newton could compartmentalize his religious beliefs from most of the rest of his life. He could be rational in most things he did while being entirely irrational when it came to his faith. The fact that he, like many, could do so is not evidence that his religious beliefs were worthwhile, but that he could do worthwhile things in spite of the insanity he otherwise held.

Einstein would be best termed a deist, if that. Like many scientists, he considered the grandeur of the universe to be "god". He wasn't a monotheist, he considered the idea absurd. In a letter to M. Berkowitz in 1950, he wrote "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Just because one uses the word "god" doesn't make one a theist.

Caesar? You mean Julius? Again, he lived at a time when religion was rampant because of human ignorance, but let's be honest, he thought, at least publically, that he was the living embodiment of the divine. Assuming that's something he really accepted, is that a theist or someone out of their gourd?

Martin Luther King probably did have strong religious beliefs, what does that have to do with anything? He acted, rightfully, out of enlightened self interest and a strong sense of justice and equality. Those are good things that rarely have anything to do with religious thought. One could easily justify the actions he took in an entirely secular light. You don't need to believe in a sky daddy to want to be equal and free.

The fact is, what really matters isn't that someone believes a thing, but whether or not that thing is rationally valid. Is it factually true? Is it critically evaluated? Is it supported by objective evidence? The fact that someone gets something out of it is meaningless. There are people who think the planet is being run by reptilian aliens, I'm sure they get something out of their belief too. That said though, their belief is irrational. For those people who want to believe as many true things as possible and reject as many false things as possible, just getting an emotional fuzzy feeling is insufficient reason to believe a proposition, no matter how good it might make you feel.
 
Yes I understand your post. Basically it is I am a atheist and religious people are stupid for believing their little Harry Potter book.
Not quite. For some that may be true.

There are theists whose opinions and beliefs I respect but they are NOT fundamentalist/literalist/inerrantists who believe such absurdities as the literal truth of the bible and make claims of absolute knowledge. The ones I respect tend to have higher educations in the areas of philosophy and theology. They tend to believe for the aesthetic, hope, and meaning that it provides. They do NOT claim to KNOW that jesus rose from the dead or that heaven and hell exists, or that their god exists. Sadly, these people are a minority and are often locked away in their ivory towers.


If you are really a Christian or a Jew(not a Jew in name only) then you believe those Holy book tales as facts.
absolutely false. This is a prime indication of how skin-deep your knowledge on religion and belief is.

Have I peaked your curiosity? Are you curious to find out how someone can have faith and be deeply religious/spiritual, be a christian or Jew yet NOT believe the Holy book tales are undeniable historical facts?


So your saying that even if you believe in a supreme being who created everything that somehow a man who built a boat big enough for a whole **** load of animals and live 900 hundred years is somehow far fetched?
almost.

I'm saying that even if god exists, it doesn't mean the events as described in the OT about Noah are factual history. Nor do they need to be to maintain a rational, consistent, and coherent belief in your god.


I do not think you are analyzing things critically. You are looking at this only from a perspective of a atheist and nothing more.
Atheism has nothing to do with it. atheists can have extremely silly belief. E.G., scientologists, raelienists, etc.

I am analyzing claims without PRESUMING they are true. I am questioning how one KNOWS such things are true. What I am describing is an approach known as critical thinking and skepticism.

You do not believe in God so why bring him up?
Because I know and understand many different religious perspectives despite being a non-believer. Some of these perspectives are far more reasonable than the dogmatic/literalist/fundamentalist/inerrantist perspective you espouse.
 
The arrogance of nonreligious people about religion never stops amazing me.

Most are not religious so they can feel more "pious" than anyone else.

To be religious is to be pious. And nobody can has claimed otherwise. Nor as anyone claimed what you're stating above.

Most people are not religious because they can't face reality or need a wheelchair to get through life.

Of course they do. That's the entire point of religion. To make you believe there is some ultimate goal to your actions.

Christianity is not a control mechanism. It can be used as such by evil people, but the teachings of Christ and the Bible are not a governmental system, they are for spiritual guidance.

The 10 commandments say differently.

I cannot speak for all Christians or religions, I can however speak for myself. If somehow it was proved tomorrow that God did not exist, my life would not change one bit. To assume otherwise just makes people who believe such nonsense about religious people amazingly judgmental and uninformed.

I doubt this is true. Mostly because you are asking for negative proof.

The only difference between my reality and a non religious persons reality is mine has God in it. So what???

God does not exist anymore than my daughter's imaginary friend does. When she grows up, that imaginary friend will disappear. You are fully grown up and still need that friend. The difference is not between you and the non-religious. The difference is between you and adults.
 
I have no objection to people who believe the Bible is metaphorical or mythology. There is plenty of evidence that shows such a thing occurred in many different cultures. Its the literalists and the picking-and-choosing types that I find fault with.

Ya, I agree... you can only have so much bible talk... when you start making points by quoting verses it starts pushing things a little far.

Yes. Floods happen. No one denies that.

Yes, but this was a massive flooding...

What is denied is that
1) a man built a wooden boat bigger than is possible by engineers today.

How have people proven the size of a 'cubit'? I mean, that could be a meter, it could be 7.5 inches, I'd really have to see how the measurement was produced.

Further, the stories of the bible, were stories that were told for unknown generations PRIOR to them being put into actual writing.

Then it also matters if "God" in this story is a carnal being,

2) all the animals of the world lived on it

Well... 2 of every kind of animal. But like you said, the scale of 'the whole world' had to have been much different then today. So, I figure 2 of every animal...

3) the entire world was flooded to the tops of mountains

That depends on the region of the world, because in my hometown the 24 km around the highest mountain is lower then the tallest building... so it wouldn't take nearly as much for my 'world' to disappear.

4) the world and its animals was repopulated by the survivors

What if "Noah" isn't a singular person... but a 'tribe' of people, or a 'nation' of people?? And that 'tribe' or 'nation' survived 600 years... that at least gets past the incest factor... UNLESS of course there were survivors that simply weren't accounted for... not like that would get mentioned by that point.

5) Noah lived to be 900

Oh... 900... I thought it was Adam that lived to be 900... If we're talking about a plurality of people taking on a name, then it becomes entirely possible for a group of individuals to survive that long. The apocryphal book of Adam and Eve shouldn't count because it was written back in like Roman empire times.

Have you considered the possibility that maybe 'god' is actually an extra-terrestrial life form?? That he tried to teach man about the universe, but that humans weren't able to grasp that much yet?

Now, if that is the case, and there really was this massive global scaled flood, it's a pretty safe bet that any technology would be destroyed, and if you think about it, if you went back in time with a few technological 'toys' you could convince cavemen that you are the god of fire with a friggin bic lighter.

At that point, why not accept that "God" is symbolic for natural forces that acted over billions of years?

I believe the TRUE God is the 'symbol' for the natural forces... BUT, while I know the bible texts (for the most part, the bible is an overall interesting read, but so difficult), I believe that the 'truths' in the bible have been distorted beyond recognition over those thousands or tens of thousands of years.

Just pretending that there's this father figure in the sky that's inordinately interested in your sex life is absurd.

Now, consider that it's not that 'god is concerned' because he wants chastity... God doesn't care if you sleep with 1 woman or a thousand women. What this is is a WARNING that wrongful sex HAS CONSEQUENCES, call it karma, or whatever, the effect is the same... that when you have sex with someone for the wrong reasons then you are inviting the problems associated with it... STD's, pregnancies with the wrong woman, which also hurts THEIR lives, it ruins families, gets people killed if one person is cheating and caught...

There are not many things in the bible, or any other religious text that I've taken any interest in, that don't share roughly the same ideologies at the core, but have REAL carnal consequences, in some form, psychological consequences, physical consequences... but none the less they are there.

Just like sometimes people are spared because of their spiritual purity...
atom+bomb.jpg

(the church at the bottom all survived while praying...)

There is no REAL explanation for these things... whether it's a person, or natural forces or energy... or infinite intelligence, maybe all of the above.
 
Simply because all mythologies have a flood myth does not mean there was a flood. We need to consider that the ancient view of things was extremely narrow; they had no way of knowing what was really going on around them and a massive local flood could have seemed like the entire world had flooded.

Ok, but these floods have a few things that are eerily similar :
- Massive casualties of most everyone
- The sudden onset
- Weeks of rain (occasionally mixed with fire) coming down
- THE WARNINGS FROM GOD TO SELECTED FEW
- Only the high lands survived (the bible is closer to exception for this one)

So, the fact is that with this level of similarities in virtually ALL civilizations WORLD WIDE suggests that EITHER 'Noah' reflected multitudes of people and was the source for the renewal of humanity, this was when humans were much more localized and DID literally mean 'the whole world flooded' as you suggest, OR by chance there are so many stories with the same characteristics.

That said, I do agree that the 'everyone' would just as well to be said 'virtually everyone'

I mean take a look at any flood in the US. Even with modern understanding, if I was there and seeing the main street through town under 20-30 feet of water I'd probably feel like the entire world had flooded.

The problem with a GLOBAL flood is there is simply no evidence to show that it happened and there is PHYSICALLY not enough water on Earth to achieve one.

Granted... and I know your about to raise a counterpoint to this... and I'm not in disagreement, but this topic requires a level of speculation regardless of interpretation.

To say that the oceans were at the same level today as there were at the time of the flood... the waters DID recede to allow land to return... so, IF God of the bible is a carnal being, then we would be stuck on the 'technological capacity' of god... if God is a 'force of nature that is essentially sentient' then we have to wonder if perhaps the water came from a natural force, like say a singular event that DID impact the world in a way that wasn't necessarily apparent the world over that CAUSED there to be a HUGE decrease in oceans that lead to a flood...

That could also be "Noah's" warning, because say, he noticed that the oceans water had receded and that it was only a matter of time before this water came back down...

The laws of physics state otherwise, a global flood would not result from any amount of water in space striking the Earth. Such an event would wipe out ALL life on Earth, Noah and the ark included. Additionally, if this did indeed happen, you would disrupt something called the triple point of water on Earth which, again, would wipe out ALL life on Earth.

Furthermore, if we suspended enough laws of physics for this to be possible, the land would still all be flooded. The water wouldn't go anywhere and would still be here.

That depends on where the oceans sat at the time of the flood, the nature and powers of 'god', the 'pre-flood' technology of man, etc, etc.

Or, there's always the outside chance that 'god' was only able to drown out sections of the world at a time and so the different stories are ALL actually independent and potentially true as well...

I'm comforted by the fact that consciousness is effectively energy resulting from neuro-chemical reactions in the brain... and that energy can never be lost or created, only transformed, therefore consciousness is infinite as the energy that creates it... so whatever the after-life is, it must exist in some sense.
 
To be religious is to be pious. And nobody can has claimed otherwise. Nor as anyone claimed what you're stating above.

I did not say being pius was not. I said to be more pius than someone else. And someone did say just that in this thread.

Of course they do. That's the entire point of religion. To make you believe there is some ultimate goal to your actions.

Religion at it's base is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe.

Has nothing to do with needing a crutch. My statement also had nothing to do with any ultimate goal.

10 commandments say differently.

That is the Old Testament law for God's chosen people. For them it was a governmental system.

Now please point out where we as Christians are called by the New Testament to set up a theocracy?

Until you can show this, my statement stands as true.

I doubt this is true. Mostly because you are asking for negative proof.

Please point out what in my life would need to change??? It's not like you know, but I can tell you I do.

Now negative proof or not does not change the fact of my statement.

God does not exist anymore than my daughter's imaginary friend does. When she grows up, that imaginary friend will disappear.

You are welcome to your opinion. It does not make it right, but you are welcome to it. :mrgreen:

You are fully grown up and still need that friend. The difference is not between you and the non-religious. The difference is between you and adults.

Again, it is your opinion and little more.

The difference between you and I is I don't have to insult your intelligence to state my case.
 
Last edited:
Would Jesus give a tax gift to the ultra wealthy? Or would he spare the unemployed and help THEM? :giggle::fueltofir
 
Would Jesus give a tax gift to the ultra wealthy? Or would he spare the unemployed and help THEM? :giggle::fueltofir

You should ask Ceasar. "It is not these well-fed long-haired men that I fear, but the pale and the hungry-looking.” J. Ceasar.:)

or more directly mark 12:17 Jessus said, "“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
 
Last edited:
I did not say being pius was not. I said to be more pius than someone else. And someone did say just that in this thread.

Who did? By default if you're religious then by default you are more pious than somebody who is not religious. If you want to be religious, then you want to be more pious than somebody who is not. Seems like a redundant circular reasoning on your part really.

Religion at it's base is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe.

No. It's not. It's set on giving answers to questions. The bible doesn't say 'we believe that God made XYZ' it says 'God made XYZ'. It is a book making claims without the ability to prove them. To deny this is dishonest.

Has nothing to do with needing a crutch. My statement also had nothing to do with any ultimate goal.

That is the Old Testament law for God's chosen people. For them it was a governmental system.

Of course it does. You're simply pretending it doesn't. Religion is about providing what some people feel is missing in their lives. Thus, the crutch.


Now please point out where we as Christians are called by the New Testament to set up a theocracy?

Until you can show this, my statement stands as true.

This is called a straw man. You stated:

Christianity is not a control mechanism.

And I explained that the 10 commandments say differently. Every religion has rules and boundaries that an individual must abide by if he wishes to get to X place. Thus the control mechanism. The control mechanism in Christianity is the commandments, traditions etc. Christians follow them in order to get to X location.

Please point out what in my life would need to change??? It's not like you know, but I can tell you I do.

Now negative proof or not does not change the fact of my statement.

Your statement has no fact. You stated that your life would not change if god was proven to not exist. However, the fact that you claim the existence of a god and expect negative proof of his existence shows that you have no intention of ever really answering the question on God's existence because you're better off believing a god does exist. This suggests your life really would change if there was no god.

You are welcome to your opinion. It does not make it right, but you are welcome to it. :mrgreen:

Again, it is your opinion and little more.

The difference between you and I is I don't have to insult your intelligence to state my case.

What makes you think I am insulting your intelligence? The fact that you hold on to outdated beliefs and refuse to acknowledge the logical arguments being made against them? Well gee look at it this way. One day, my kid will grow up and she'll realize that there is no imaginary friend. That she was just pretending there was. If anything she'll be a person who has finally acknowledged a part of the reality she lives. Meanwhile, religious people like you will still be going to church and praying to a god that they can't see, smell, touch, feel, explain or prove. It's not because you're dumb or stupid. It's because you have not come to grips with the reality around you. You refuse to acknowledge that this is it. That you think about an afterlife because you can't understand your own suffering while alive. You'll continue to pretend that people have to prove the non-existence of a god in order for your claims to be untrue while at the same time saying that there is no god but the one you believe in.

Here is what I want you to do as an exercise. I want you to come up with a logical reason as to why your god exists and Vishnu, Zeus or my daughter's imaginary friend do not. I bet the most you can do is say A) because I say so and B) because the Bible says so, which amounts to..... nothing.
 
Last edited:
Hope you don't mind, but I have a question. The Epic of Gilgamesh from Syria, the indigenousness peoples of the Southwestern plains, the indigenous peoples of Mexico and South America, and many others, all speak of the flood. The question is, what makes the Hebrew version more credible than the others? I feel like ultra-Christians cannot think outside the box (by design, not their fault, different story) and want to argue about something that can easily be reconciled with other versions.

I really dig the energy thing too. And I am a Christian, for the record. I have pretty good Scriptural knowledge. Another one of those things I should avoid talking about but don't. Sigh...
 
Hope you don't mind, but I have a question. The Epic of Gilgamesh from Syria, the indigenousness peoples of the Southwestern plains, the indigenous peoples of Mexico and South America, and many others, all speak of the flood.
They speak of THE flood or of a flood or multiple floods?

Are you unaware that floods happen all over the world? Including major floods?

The question is, what makes the Hebrew version more credible than the others?
Absolutely nothing.
 
Ok, but these floods have a few things that are eerily similar :
- Massive casualties of most everyone
Tends to happen with floods.

- The sudden onset
Again, tends to happen with floods.

- Weeks of rain (occasionally mixed with fire) coming down
Not really unusual for a rainy season.

- THE WARNINGS FROM GOD TO SELECTED FEW
And what about the warnings to people that DONT come true, those tend to be quite a bit more numerous.

- Only the high lands survived (the bible is closer to exception for this one)
Again, not unusual for a flood.

So, the fact is that with this level of similarities in virtually ALL civilizations WORLD WIDE suggests that EITHER 'Noah' reflected multitudes of people and was the source for the renewal of humanity, this was when humans were much more localized and DID literally mean 'the whole world flooded' as you suggest, OR by chance there are so many stories with the same characteristics.
What you describe happens regardless of where a flood happens so I'd say the bolded is much more likely.

To say that the oceans were at the same level today as there were at the time of the flood... the waters DID recede to allow land to return... so, IF God of the bible is a carnal being, then we would be stuck on the 'technological capacity' of god... if God is a 'force of nature that is essentially sentient' then we have to wonder if perhaps the water came from a natural force, like say a singular event that DID impact the world in a way that wasn't necessarily apparent the world over that CAUSED there to be a HUGE decrease in oceans that lead to a flood...
Ok, but where did the water GO after the flood? Did it magically disappear?

One thing you have to consider is that if you did add that much water to earth through some outside means, you'd essentially destroy Earth about fifty different ways. And I dont mean like "Oops, I killed a few plants." I mean like dead dead, all life wiped out, not even bacteria left.

That depends on where the oceans sat at the time of the flood, the nature and powers of 'god', the 'pre-flood' technology of man, etc, etc.
We know where the oceans sat and we know the technology level of when the flood is reputed to have happened.

Or, there's always the outside chance that 'god' was only able to drown out sections of the world at a time and so the different stories are ALL actually independent and potentially true as well...
If that's true, I'm going to want to see some evidence of it.

I'm comforted by the fact that consciousness is effectively energy resulting from neuro-chemical reactions in the brain... and that energy can never be lost or created, only transformed, therefore consciousness is infinite as the energy that creates it... so whatever the after-life is, it must exist in some sense.
That's comforting? What makes you think your energy will remain intact when you die and wont dissipate to thousands of other things?
 
I've often wondered myself if they were referencing the same flood. The common denominator seems to be their rescue by a god or Gods. "Mole People" took Hopi ancestors underground, Mexican ancestors were taken to a mountaintop, etc. The majority involve "righteous" men and their immediate families. They all are charged afterward with "replenishing" the Earth.

I just find it fascinating. And yes, I am aware that floods happen all over the world. This particular flood, however, seems to have burned itself in to our DNA for some reason. I like to know what others think, that's all.
 
This particular flood myth has had rather a lot of publicity over the three millenia or so since the story originated.
 
I just find it fascinating. And yes, I am aware that floods happen all over the world. This particular flood, however, seems to have burned itself in to our DNA for some reason. I like to know what others think, that's all.

But it isn't an actual flood, it's experience with flooding in general, plus contact with other cultures which had similar flood traditions, combined with the particularly insideous nature of Christianity, which has made this particular flood myth commonplace. Within the Noachian narrative are elements of the Gilgamesh epic and Hindu mythology. In fact, the whole story of Noah's sons finding him naked is taken directly from a Hindu story which predated it by centuries. People assume that these stories came from real events. They did not.
 
The universal flood, like many of the Bible stories, is intended as allegory. Noah listened to the prophets and was prepared for a calamity. The lesson: Listen to the prophets and be prepared. The people of New Orleans would have been well advised to have listened to the story of Noah, with the the weather service serving as the prophets. It was never meant to have been an account of a real, historical event. Trying to make it out to be an actual occurrence, particularly now that we know that such a flood and rescue is scientifically impossible, is just silly.

It is possible that there was a big flood in that flood prone area, and that someone built a barge and saved some farm animals. It is more likely that the Noah story was written as a story with a message.

All that doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong, just that parts of it aren't to be taken literally.
 
Yes, people treat the Bible like a science book, but it's a work of literature. Expect literary devices to be present throughout. Just because something scientifically doesn't make sense does not mean that the book is wrong.
 
Yes, people treat the Bible like a science book, but it's a work of literature. Expect literary devices to be present throughout. Just because something scientifically doesn't make sense does not mean that the book is wrong.

The only part which is even remotely plausible in that story is that a flood happened. Big, f'n, woop.
 
Back
Top Bottom