How did Noah get Polar Bears and Kangaroos on and off the ark?

Dawkinsrocks said:
The bible is at the heart of all the flavours of christianity. Its messages are used by jihadists like the crusaders killing muslims, like Bush thinking god is on his side in the war on terror, like the IRA, the Spanish Inquisition, the Witchfinder general.
It is at the centre of the Roman Catholic church which seems very adept and at making priests out of paedophiles and turning a blind eye. Or what about the Pope who told the AIDS-ridden millions of Africa that condoms are bad.

I don't know about you but I could live without that stuff quite happily.
Click to expand...

All of the above are the results of decisions made by human beings, not by god.
 
Werbung:
Dawkinsrocks said:
What makes me laugh is this.

If you take a literal interpretation of the bible it is ridiculous. Apparently Noah built a wooden boat twice the size of the next biggest wooden boat ever built and then lost the plans.

He kept millions of species on board for 6 weeks and enough food to feed them and he managed to stop the lions eating the gazelles as soon as they got off.

The world was covered in water to a depth of mount Everest which if fresh water would have killed many sea creatures and if salt would have killed most river fish.

Blah blah.

If you take an interpreted view of the bible who is to say that your interpretation is the right one?

What gives you the right to say what god REALLY meant when he said he would flood the world?

This is a great example of the ridiculousness of the bible and whilst it sadly has had a big influence that does not stop it being fiction. Plenty of fiction is influential.
Click to expand...

I do not know if the story is meant to be taken literally or otherwise but what I find laughable is that you are so willing to find fault with a story that could never have taken place scientifically unless God helped. And since the story does claim that God helped then there could always be a miraculous explanation for any of your objections. Why bother to find fault with a story for being inconsistent with a naturalistic world view when it never claims to be consistent with a purely naturalistic world view?

But for sake of argument let's stipulate that the story is meant to be literal. Where does the story say that Noah lost the plans? Where does it say that millions of species were on board? Isn't it only your conjecture that the depth of the water was as high as Mt Everest? Maybe the problem lies more with your interpretation than with the story.

Some day you will face your maker and when that day comes will you want to say that you rejected Him and His salvation because you did not like one of the stories? Knowing every thought of yours He will know if this is genuine or just an excuse. Even if genuine then you will still have to answer for the times that you have hurt your fellow man.
 
BigRob said:
But no one really advocates to take it literally, not even many priests etc.
.
Click to expand...

I would advocate that one takes the parts that were clearly intended by the authors to be literal as literal and one takes the parts that were clearly intended to be taken figuratively as such.

If parts are clearly meant to be literal and there are unexplainable inconsistencies the there is a logical problem for the religion.

But so far there are no unexplainable inconsistencies in the clearly literal portions as best interpreted

The problems we do have is that it is hard to agree on what is meant to be literal or figurative and what interpretation is best. But that is true of every branch of human thinking.
 
If god exists he is a monster.

he made a world full of horror and he didn't have to make it at all.

God is evil.

He made a hideous world knowing how it would trun out and that at some point in eternity he would have to have a human child (???) and then murder him.

How screwed is that???

How did he manage for eternity without doing this and what happened at some point in eternity to make him do such a hideous thing??

Pure visciousness.

All the evidence suggests that if god did exist then his the god of hate.
 
Dawkinsrocks said:
god made humans.

He knew what they would do.

It is gods fault
Click to expand...

That is not a logical sylogism.

But let us pretend that God bears some culpibility. Perhaps then that would be a possible explanation for why God was the one who created the plan of salvation as the solution for man's state.

Do you reject salvation?
 
Dawkinsrocks said:
If god exists he is a monster.

he made a world full of horror and he didn't have to make it at all.

God is evil.

He made a hideous world knowing how it would trun out and that at some point in eternity he would have to have a human child (???) and then murder him.

How screwed is that???

How did he manage for eternity without doing this and what happened at some point in eternity to make him do such a hideous thing??

Pure visciousness.

All the evidence suggests that if god did exist then his the god of hate.
Click to expand...

Is that how you see the world? I feel sorry for someone who lives with such a warped and twisted view of things.

I think the world is a great place. I think it was made perfect but since has been corrupted - yet is still great.

I think that God has a plan for it and us to be perfect again and that plan is in motion.

You only need to accept that plan or reject it.
 
Come on folks I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade here and I totally respect everyones free choice to believe whatever they want.

But it's not at all hard to trace back the fact that ALL religion was simply different tribes trying to explain the many things they did not understand and to put their cause or their group above all others.

That's what created GOD, Mohammad, Budda, Jewish God without Jesus being the son of God, Hindu Gods, Multiple Greek Gods, Multiple Native American Gods, Multiple South American Gods, Voodoo Spirit Gods, Scientology space alien Gods... I could go on.

Hey, I say if any religious group affiliation and a personal connection with any of the above Gods makes you feel better then definitely go for it with gusto!

But at the end of the day if you look back at an old map of the world and how and where these wide ranging religions & their Gods sprang up and you do that with unattached loyalty to any particular group... you see pretty clearly it was man coming up with religions to explain things and set rules to help keep their ancient groups together.

Religion and the God or Gods idea was nothing more than an early form of government when you look at it unbiasedly, historically and scientifically.
 
It would be fine to say go for it if it makes you feel better if religion did not seek to stifle science and to dominate and thieve from the vulnerable.

Like it has doen all through history.

If these believers went round saying the object of their belief systems is father xmas (same evidence for) we would rightly think them mad not elevate them to some status where they can lobby politicians.
 
Dawkinsrocks said:
It would be fine to say go for it if it makes you feel better if religion did not seek to stifle science and to dominate and thieve from the vulnerable.

Like it has doen all through history.

If these believers went round saying the object of their belief systems is father xmas (same evidence for) we would rightly think them mad not elevate them to some status where they can lobby politicians.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree with your analogy.

I still however think that religion is very important to a lot of folks. It will take more time and more scientific discovery for many to move away from a myth that has been passed down for generations and has tremendous financial support to perpetuate that myth.

In America people have the absolute right to any religion or no religion if they choose. The best that can be done is do all we can to strengthen that wall of separation between government and religion.

And it does bother me GREATLY that churches have been able to get around their tax exempt status and find ways to campaign for candidates. That's the first thing I'd address. Pull a couple Tax Exemptions and see how quickly churches become neutral.

Article VI of the U. S. Constitution clearly states... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The final demise of America would be if crazy evangelists ever got their way and were able to create a Christian Taliban style state... which is what they really want!::eek:
 
Religion is only important to some people because they have been brainswashed throughout their life that it is important.

It is only a comfort because they have been brough up to believe in the ridiculous notion of heaven and hell and an afterlife.

If they were brought up with the truth maybe they could spend more time making their one life better and not keep giving and bending to that thieveing industry called the church.

And why is it that you always have to give money to god's agents???

What a racket.

As for the poster who came up with that ridiculous point about salvation.

It would only be necessary because of the rules by wich god made the universe in the first place. So god making a worlkd that needs salvation smacks of crap planning to me.

But a he knew how it would go...he could have just not made it at all and carried on in eternity without a world.

After all he had managed for eternity before without one.

Did he suddenly get all insecure and need weedy humans to bow and scrape and worship him and live a **** life???

What a joke.
 
All of the 'crusades'

Attacks by various countries on England when it broke with the Roman Catholic Church including Scotland, Spain, Portugal and France.

The Mujahadin in Afganistan taking over the country (using US arms)

On top of that most nations claim to have god on their side when they fight a war. This would include the current rape of Iraq, Afghanistan and also Vietnam etc etc
 
top gun said:


But it's not at all hard to trace back the fact that ALL religion was simply different tribes trying to explain the many things they did not understand and to put their cause or their group above all others.
Click to expand...

That statement makes you either the greatest data cruncher of all time or just a follower of a different faith.

Do you not see how utterly impossible it is to state such a thing with a straight face as you simply cannot have evaluated ALL the religions of the world.

Now if you want to state that some particular religion is a myth then by all means present your case.
 
Werbung:
Dawkinsrocks said:
It would be fine to say go for it if it makes you feel better if religion did not seek to stifle science and to dominate and thieve from the vulnerable.

Like it has doen all through history.

If these believers went round saying the object of their belief systems is father xmas (same evidence for) we would rightly think them mad not elevate them to some status where they can lobby politicians.
Click to expand...

More great generalizations from the anti-religious crowd.

While there certainly have been times when proponents of a religion have stifled science there have been many other times too where the proponents of religion have promoted science.

In the west, most of the fathers of science have been Christians and they have even stated that they have created the scientific method because of their Christian beliefs.

Christianity itself (in contrast to individual Christians) is not opposed to science, is not in contradiction to science, advocates healthy questioning, and has been one of the greatest forces for good and inquiry in the world.
 
Back
Top