Atheists what is your proof?

[SolusCado]

So let me get this straight.. The 'flood' only covers the land which leaves us plenty of sea and sky that wasn't flooded? Frankly I am unsure of your attempted point. Needless to say, the notion of a global flood isn't an invention of atheists but instead a taught understanding of christian theology.

"The Land" is indeterminate. That is the point. It could mean something as simple as "the land you own". The notion of a global flood is a relatively archaic one that - like so much misinterpretation - originated in the Catholic Church. That it has stuck is a reflection of a weakness in modern Christianity. That it is the only position atheists will discuss is a weakness in their argument.

Yes, 'yom' can be used to denote a day in the far flung future, (e.g "in that day..") but this does not apply to the usage found in Genesis which explicitly refers to a standard day. If nothing else, the arrival of morning and evening, (day 2 etc), establishes that fact.

The link I posted earlier provides additional examples of the use of yom, as well as the morning and evening, that does indeed support the currently discussed theory. If you are going to argue against that, please provide a reference.

 

[dhcracker]

You are just trying to rationalize your belief in the literal truth of ancient mythology, no matter how ridiculous it is. If a day can mean anything you want it to mean, then the creation wasn't that miraculous, was it? You are giving it enough time for presently understood natural processes to work, thus eliminating the need for God as an explanation.

BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

There is no such thing as "supernatural" every single event can be described in a set of math proofs or scientific theory based on laws and fundamentals. If there is a God he isn't "magic" he is intelligent. And the bible hints at what God might be.

In Genesis God said something like "Man has eaten from the tree of knowledge and now knows both good and evil, we must remove him from the garden before he eats of the tree of everlasting life and becomes LIKE US"

Who was god talking to?? like us eh? So knowledge + time = godlike powers my friends and why is that? Because of SCIENCE.

Ask yourself what is the probability of extra terrestrial intelligent life based on what we know so far? Its tiny I believe but even tiny gives lots of intelligent civilizations as likely. Now ask yourselves this... what if an intelligent being did not age? What if Einstein was born in 4000 BC and was still alive today???

See we lose so much information, there is no way we can pass down every iota of knowledge we have.. but we can pass down alot, then the next gen has to learn it and basically take our word for it if they want to progress faster. I mean if they spend all there time doing experiments we have already done to verify what we teach them then progress will be slow.

We need to place a little faith in mankind and our collective wisdom, our peers, and we may indeed finish Einsteins quest to "know the mind of God".

Maybe then we can simulate our own universes in super computers, even down to life and AI... exciting to think about the future I wish I wasn't born for another 2,000 years or so

 

[SnakeLord]

The notion of a global flood is a relatively archaic one that - like so much misinterpretation - originated in the Catholic Church. That it has stuck is a reflection of a weakness in modern Christianity. That it is the only position atheists will discuss is a weakness in their argument.

1. This isn't much of an argument and what little argument there is does not help christian theology. If you dismiss the flood as being global, then you actually negate the validity of the entire story. In that story, god declares that he is going to kill all life - ridding the surface of the earth of humans, animals, crawling things and birds because he regrets having made them. If the flood is but a local, small time flood - you're either saying that all humans, animals, crawling things and birds lived in this one local area or dismissing the story as fiction. Which is it?

2. I wouldn't consider it valid to attempt to blame this on atheists but that there is little consistency in christianity and should such consistency be found, it typically asserts that the flood was global. If you consider that 'weak christianity', you'll need to establish that as being the case.

Your accusation is also false to begin with, in that we are after all discussing a different claim regarding this supposed flood.

Please do not attempt to deflect an issue with christian theology and the fact that christians cannot even agree amongst themselves onto atheists. Thank you very much.

The link I posted earlier provides additional examples of the use of yom, as well as the morning and evening, that does indeed support the currently discussed theory.

Can you please cite the link once more? Thanks.

P.S Kindly don't misuse the word 'theory'.

 

[dhcracker]

BTW I do not beleive the universe was created in 7 days as written in the bible, because chapter 1 and 2 have different versions of events its unreliable and for all we know the original myth may have said something different.

I do not hold anything up in the bible as historically accurate, I do hold up some of it as good wisdom to live by... thats about it.

I don't think there is only the christian God.. if there is a God he isn't going to favor people based on which mythology of him they subscribed to.

 

[dhcracker]

1. This isn't much of an argument and what little argument there is does not help christian theology. If you dismiss the flood as being global, then you actually negate the validity of the entire story. In that story, god declares that he is going to kill all life - ridding the surface of the earth of humans, animals, crawling things and birds because he regrets having made them. If the flood is but a local, small time flood - you're either saying that all humans, animals, crawling things and birds lived in this one local area or dismissing the story as fiction. Which is it?

2. I wouldn't consider it valid to attempt to blame this on atheists but that there is little consistency in christianity and should such consistency be found, it typically asserts that the flood was global. If you consider that 'weak christianity', you'll need to establish that as being the case.

Your accusation is also false to begin with, in that we are after all discussing a different claim regarding this supposed flood.

Please do not attempt to deflect an issue with christian theology and the fact that christians cannot even agree amongst themselves onto atheists. Thank you very much.



Can you please cite the link once more? Thanks.

P.S Kindly don't misuse the word 'theory'.

Are you saying the earth was never covered by water?? What if the myth goes back even farther than humans? I often wonder if there could be information in our heads that we are unaware of that comes out like these myths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

The earth was apparently covered by ice or slush 650 million years ago.. sorry noah you wasn't there for that unless you were a plankton or some cellular life form. Right after that was the cambrian explosion where life took hold all over the planet very very fast.

Now most of the information in this link is biased, however the evidence presented is pretty good data. You can find here that flood myths were not unique to sumerians, every single continent and every race has its own flood myth and they are very similar.

I suspect this myth goes back to africa unless maybe the black sea was populated earlier than we think.

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

I think the jist of it is a big flood wiped out huge populations, each clan probably had its own scant survivors that told of their escape.. of course over the years more gets added to it. Apparently however there may have been a boat involved, since almost all myths have a boat. Maybe man was smart enough back then to build boats and fish the lakes.. thus maybe some of the survivors were on the lake and not on shore. the rest of it you can tell it got added by the differences in all the stories.

Also we have to remember that there probably was a global flooding event 10,000 years ago when the ice retreated. However either the myths we have today are stained by intermingling with other myths.. or possibly this story has been told since humans were very small in number and mostly in one area.

But as the bible tells us it could not have happened i am sorry to dissapoint anyone... 6000 years ago there was no global flood.

 

[Red Devil]

The Flood has been scientifically proved to have taken place. It was the breaching of the 'wall' which is known as the Bospherus now. When the Med flowed over the wall and formed what is not the Black Sea. Check the floor of the Black Sea and you find - artifacts of life.

 

[SnakeLord]

Are you saying the earth was never covered by water??

I am unsure where from my statement you came up with this. I was telling SolusCado that he had no valid position with which to blame atheists for problems in christian theology and that claiming the biblical flood as being local as opposed to global causes far more problems than it actually solves.

What if the myth goes back even farther than humans?

Then I am unsure of it's value here. In context of christian theology, boat building humans must have been present at the time.

You can find here that flood myths were not unique to sumerians, every single continent and every race has its own flood myth and they are very similar

Certainly, indeed the Noachian flood gets it's origins from the Sumerian Utnapishtim version. Of course it's unsurprising that countless cultures will have flood myths given that this planet is over 75% water with regular and consistent cases of flooding - even now. It is further unsurprising that similarites are found within flood sagas of various cultures given that cultures shared and adapted earlier stories. Not to mention that most would involve animals, (once humans had started herding etc), and boats, (once humans knew how to make them), and gods, (most cultures believed in such beings).

Also we have to remember that there probably was a global flooding event 10,000 years ago when the ice retreated.

Not the case, (although I welcome explanation as to why you say probably). The geological data shows that there has never been a global flood - although there has been, and continue to be, countless small scale floods.

Regards,

 

[phlogistician]

'yome' the word used to signify 'day', has various meanings
of lengths.
I think you just want to use 24 hour days, because it obviously contradicts
science.

jan.

'day' can mean different lengths too Jan, you seem to be missing the point. 'back in the day' doesn't mean a single day, we accept that. But when we use constructions such as 'morning of the first day', that clarifies the meaning to be a regular 24 hour day.

I actually don't care how long the 'day' was, because it's nonsense however it works out. If you start saying the days were longer, you are weakening your God. Genesis uses the word 'day' to show what a feat God pulled off making so much is such short time. If you start apologising for this, and saying it was longer, well, you are weakening that miracle. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Lori_7]

'day' can mean different lengths too Jan, you seem to be missing the point. 'back in the day' doesn't mean a single day, we accept that. But when we use constructions such as 'morning of the first day', that clarifies the meaning to be a regular 24 hour day.

I actually don't care how long the 'day' was, because it's nonsense however it works out. If you start saying the days were longer, you are weakening your God. Genesis uses the word 'day' to show what a feat God pulled off making so much is such short time. If you start apologising for this, and saying it was longer, well, you are weakening that miracle. You can't have it both ways.

no, most atheists do in fact care how long the day was. after all, as jan pointed out and i have many times, this is the scapegoat. if someone is arguing the miracle it's generally an argument founded in ignorance and ego, and atheists love that, right?

first of all, the word "morning" may not have anything to do with the sun coming up. "a new dawn", a "new day", a "morning" can signify a beginning of any kind.

secondly, if the word "morning" does have to do with the sun shining, there are a hell of a lot of conditions that could affect whether, and/or when, the sun shines or not, particularly if the earth was in a state of disarray or flux, as the scripture suggests.

 

[Lori_7]

You are just trying to rationalize your belief in the literal truth of ancient mythology, no matter how ridiculous it is. If a day can mean anything you want it to mean, then the creation wasn't that miraculous, was it? You are giving it enough time for presently understood natural processes to work, thus eliminating the need for God as an explanation.

what the...with the paradigm here. this drives me nuts. natural processes and god do not contradict each other or cancel one another out. natural processes = how. god = why. those questions are not contradictory!
:runaway:

 

[SolusCado]

1. This isn't much of an argument and what little argument there is does not help christian theology. If you dismiss the flood as being global, then you actually negate the validity of the entire story. In that story, god declares that he is going to kill all life - ridding the surface of the earth of humans, animals, crawling things and birds because he regrets having made them. If the flood is but a local, small time flood - you're either saying that all humans, animals, crawling things and birds lived in this one local area or dismissing the story as fiction. Which is it?

As usual (for people, not you in particular), you can't get past your own preconceptions. The validity of the story is only lost if you are still trying to apply a story based on a now non-existent element. In recognizing the flood as regional, one must then re-evaluate the meaning of everything predicated on that foundation. Incidentally, the Bible never says that God regretted making anything, and the notion that an entire region of tribes, families, cultures, and civilizations were wiped out, providing a fresh start for Noah and his family is still applicable to a regional flood. Those elements are just as valid in one interpretation as the other.

2. I wouldn't consider it valid to attempt to blame this on atheists but that there is little consistency in christianity and should such consistency be found, it typically asserts that the flood was global. If you consider that 'weak christianity', you'll need to establish that as being the case.

There are two separate things here - one for which I call out Christians, and the other for which I am calling out atheists. Christians should have enough faith to question their beliefs and re-evaluate scriptures without clinging to archaic interpretations that came from some church. It isn't "weak Christianity" though; it is a weakness in modern Christianity. There is a difference.

Regarding atheists, I am calling them out for refusing to engage in interpretations for which they don't have a prepared argument. It indicates a stubbornness and lack of conviction that I just described. If you are so sure of your position, you should be able to entertain new theories and discuss their merits, instead of crying foul every time someone deviates from the same old archaic interpretations. It's kind of like picking on a kid. Followers from 500 years ago didn't have the information we do today, so to only be willing to discuss THEIR interpretations is like only engaging 10 year olds in debate.

Your accusation is also false to begin with, in that we are after all discussing a different claim regarding this supposed flood.

I'm not inventing something here. These are the claims and theories and modern archaeologists and biblical scholars.

Please do not attempt to deflect an issue with christian theology and the fact that christians cannot even agree amongst themselves onto atheists. Thank you very much.

See above. I am delineating two separate issues. One with Christianity, and the other with atheism. That I have issue with one doesn't negate the issues I have with the other.

Can you please cite the link once more? Thanks.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html
This is but one article on the subject, and I actually disagree with the latter half of the page, but it provides a pretty solid introduction to the subject, and you can search on the words to get more articles on the same subject.

P.S Kindly don't misuse the word 'theory'.

I'm not. I'm using the word in the English language sense of the word (definition 6 on dictionary.com). I could use the term hypothesis if you prefer, but I am not applying the scientific method since these are to a large degree untestable suppositions. Given that, I believe theory is still a more applicable term - since hypothesis DOES invoke the scientific method, and theory does not (necessarily).

 

[AlexG]

I've always considered it strange how people like Lori and Jan can both accept the bible as truth, and still change it in whatever way they wish to make it conform to their own version of the world.

 

[dhcracker]

I've always considered it strange how people like Lori and Jan can both accept the bible as truth, and still change it in whatever way they wish to make it conform to their own version of the world.

I agree it seems that alone should wake them up. Listen guys the bible WAS NOT DICTATED BY A SUPREME INTELLIGENCE.

If anyone still believes the bible is 100% accurate and was literally put in the heads of the authors then please say so, and I will educate you and show you why that is impossible. I'll show you how MAN and not only man but an emperor or Rome put our bible together and decided POLITICALLY what would be in it or not. Actually the most sensible gospels and books of theology were the discarded Gnostic books. If you compare the "red letter" or what is considered as the most sensible wisdom of the book, and you compare it to each authors style and prejudices its obvious the bible was written by man and inspired by the authors own perspective very heavily.

I'm not saying its bad, or entirely false. I am saying its no more inspired by God than your posts are.

"but the bible says its gods word and anyone that changes it is damned to hell" No the bible doesn't, it says in a couple books of that bible that those books ALONE are not to be changed and are inspired by God. Most books of the bible make no such claims at all so that scripture your preachers take as gold is false in its applied use. When those books were written they were STAND ALONE BOOKS AND LETTERS, paul or john didn't know they would end up with their books held just as high as the torah itself and if they did know that they probably would have OBJECTED to having a christian "bible" period.

If you want me to show the evidence for this, I will.. from your own bible.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I've always considered it strange how people like Lori and Jan can both accept the bible as truth, and still change it in whatever way they wish to make it conform to their own version of the world.

I haven't changed it. It has been mistranslated.
Truth is not the issue here. The issue is what it actually says,
and whether it makes sense.

Why aren't you bothered about understanding the real hebrew
meaning of the bible?
Why are you satisfied with the contradictory mistranslation?

For example, it doesn't say that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
It doesn't even hide the fact that they weren't.
And it doesn't say that the whole planet was covered in water.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I agree it seems that alone should wake them up. Listen guys the bible WAS NOT DICTATED BY A SUPREME INTELLIGENCE.

If anyone still believes the bible is 100% accurate and was literally put in the heads of the authors then please say so, and I will educate you and show you why that is impossible. I'll show you how MAN and not only man but an emperor or Rome put our bible together and decided POLITICALLY what would be in it or not. Actually the most sensible gospels and books of theology were the discarded Gnostic books. If you compare the "red letter" or what is considered as the most sensible wisdom of the book, and you compare it to each authors style and prejudices its obvious the bible was written by man and inspired by the authors own perspective very heavily.

I'm not saying its bad, or entirely false. I am saying its no more inspired by God than your posts are.

"but the bible says its gods word and anyone that changes it is damned to hell" No the bible doesn't, it says in a couple books of that bible that those books ALONE are not to be changed and are inspired by God. Most books of the bible make no such claims at all so that scripture your preachers take as gold is false in its applied use. When those books were written they were STAND ALONE BOOKS AND LETTERS, paul or john didn't know they would end up with their books held just as high as the torah itself and if they did know that they probably would have OBJECTED to having a christian "bible" period.

If you want me to show the evidence for this, I will.. from your own bible.

Did the emporer of rome write the texts?
Where does it damn those to hell who say's it not Gods' word?
How do you know the authors of the books were not inspired by God?

jan.

 

[AlexG]

Any good religious believer has no trouble reconciling contradictions by ignoring and excusing them.

Reason never shakes belief. They have no common ground.

 

[dhcracker]

yes it was the case, when the ice melted sea levels rose all over the world inundating countless villages based on the coasts...... I didn't say a the whole globe was underwater it was just high water in every continent.. glaciers melted.. rivers overflowed.. seas rose like what 100 ft or so over a period of time so short it covered up lots of settlements. I'm sure it didn't come as a tidal wave but I bet it caused plenty of local flash floods.

And also the black sea event wasn't really far enough back to explain how every branch of modern humans has its own myth of the flood. I think if we look back around 40,000 years ago we'll find most our ancestors lived near flooding events or a flooding event. Apparently this is when modern humans evolved comlicated communication and trade also they were pretty close together.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Any good religious believer has no trouble reconciling contradictions by ignoring and excusing them.

Reason never shakes belief. They have no common ground.

Is this a response to my post to you?

jan.

 

[AlexG]

Just a general reflection on most of your posts.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Just a general reflection on most of your posts.

Can you respond to that particular post?

jan.