Feed on Posts or Comments 23 October 2014

Christianity Thomas on 02 Dec 2010 12:31 am

Bringing the myth to life – Life-size Noah’s Ark costs $24 million

What do you say to this?

Full-Scale Replica Of Noah’s Ark Planned

Answers In Genesis, which built and operates the religious-themed attraction, plans to build a full-scale wooden replica of Noah’s Ark based on biblical descriptions.

The $24.5 million project will be constructed by the same team that built the Creation Museum.

The religious ministry is soliciting online donations to help construct the project, which they expect to draw an estimated 1.6 million visitors per year.

If they really built it, and really floated it, they would discover that a wooden boat that big sinks at the first wave.

If they really built it, and they really filled it with the millions of species found on earth today (plus the necessary food), they would discover that there is no way it all fits.

But reality will not deter the faithful, will it?

129 Responses to “Bringing the myth to life – Life-size Noah’s Ark costs $24 million”

  1. on 02 Dec 2010 at 12:32 am 1.Simbot said …

    What a waste of money. Why not feed the poor?

  2. on 02 Dec 2010 at 1:08 pm 2.Rostam said …

    Why would they need millions of species? Have you guys rejected evolution. LOL Since when do wooden boats sink at the first wave. If you check in to the history of ship building you will find ships where not built from steel until recent times.

    So silly.

  3. on 02 Dec 2010 at 3:16 pm 3.Simbot said …

    Rostam, Have you ever considered doing any research? The ark is twice as big as any wooden ship ever built, and wooden ships had already reached the limit of structural stability.

  4. on 02 Dec 2010 at 3:54 pm 4.Severin said …

    3 Simbot
    I have already asked them how did Noah get kangaroos, aramdillos, condors, polar bears.. to his ship.

    I never got any answer, of course.

  5. on 02 Dec 2010 at 4:12 pm 5.Anti-Theist said …

    Why would an equity based goals entity ever feed the poor when they could instead attract the largest demographic of naively affluent, famously ignorant, self honoring,
    supernaturally influenced, nincompoops to buy tickets to an impossible feat with no evidence backing whatsoever. This is what works for Christianity and fills its coffers with cash; this is no different than the magic show mother Teresa performs, watching children die from appendicitis in a hovel while collecting millions annually in donations.

  6. on 02 Dec 2010 at 4:50 pm 6.Rostam said …

    shabot,

    You are such a silly boy. The treasure ships of the Ming dynasty are reported to be over 400′ long and about as wide as Noah’s Ark. Also the Greek Tessarakonteres were also over 400′ long so I can only conclude you are just another uninformed troll.

    Again Severin the creature all swam out of the primordial soup.

  7. on 02 Dec 2010 at 6:17 pm 7.Simbot said …

    Rostram, your Ming ships appear in the “mythological” category on this list, as no actual evidence exists. Tessarakonteres are in the same category:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_largest_wooden_ships

  8. on 02 Dec 2010 at 6:28 pm 8.Anti-Theist said …

    Now those are promising figures. The “Noah’s Ark” being the largest wooden vessel should be able to carry the most Abrahamic followers while boasting (and I do mean it this time) the largest percentage chance of delivering them directly past Armageddon, to collecting 200$ in the golden streets of heaven. Sorry folks, I surly am kidding.

  9. on 02 Dec 2010 at 8:44 pm 9.Rostam said …

    Simba
    It is not necessarily mythological just because we don’t have archeological evidence silly. You know, evolution has many of those same issues. Is it now myth?

    PS: I would not use wiki.

  10. on 02 Dec 2010 at 9:39 pm 10.Anti-Theist said …

    The most sobering truth about these interactions is the depressing knowledge that these lunatics make up the majority of the American population. As great a nation as it is, the Unites States is a top offender in its grossly primitive and stubborn, childish beliefs. Looking onward the Christians of this country judge and are repulsed by the other nonsensical religions always lacking the intelligence to turn the vision of rationalism on themselves. I cannot conjure a vocabulary intricate enough to describe my disgust with my fellow Americans.

  11. on 02 Dec 2010 at 10:36 pm 11.Rostam said …

    “I cannot conjure a vocabulary intricate enough to describe my disgust with my fellow Americans.”

    Don’t be too hard on yourself. Once you graduate High School I’m certain your vocabulary will improve as well as you silly atheism.

  12. on 03 Dec 2010 at 2:26 am 12.Joe said …

    How did the kangaroos get to Australia after they had left the arc? And why did most marsupials decide to go to Australia and not elsewhere?

  13. on 03 Dec 2010 at 6:42 am 13.Dave said …

    God obviously magic’d the kangaroos to Australia. Nah j/k god doesn’t exist.
    everyone knows that.
    end of comments
    ______________________________________________

  14. on 03 Dec 2010 at 2:20 pm 14.Burebista said …

    “How did the kangaroos get to Australia after they had left the arc?”

    Isn’t it possible it that all land masses were connected at one time? I have heard that theory postulated. If all life originated from a single cell in the primordial ooze would not the same problem exist?

  15. on 03 Dec 2010 at 2:34 pm 15.MrQ said …

    Isn’t it possible it that all land masses were connected at one time?

    Noah’s Ark is from 4000 years ago. Is it possible that within the time frame of only 4000 years we have the existing continents, emerging from one supercontinent, Pangea? Use common sense and you will get your answer.

  16. on 03 Dec 2010 at 3:41 pm 16.The Answer Man said …

    Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner of that continent. This is one way animals migrate but land bridges are also a likely path of travel.

    As for Kangaroos getting to the ark, it is certain that our land masses are not what they were before a flood the size of Noah’s. Good possibility there was only one land mass before the flood.

    The primordial ooze resents many more problems for scientist than a flood which has written documentation across the globe as well as geological evidence. One can make an argument for anything by just citing time and chance.

  17. on 03 Dec 2010 at 3:56 pm 17.rael said …

    #16

    really? i can hardly believe anyone would seriously say that

    are you joking?

  18. on 03 Dec 2010 at 5:18 pm 18.Thomas said …

    #13 said:

    “Nah j/k god doesn’t exist.
    everyone knows that.”
    ______________________________________

    Really R U serious or just joking?

  19. on 03 Dec 2010 at 10:22 pm 19.MrQ said …

    Good possibility there was only one land mass before the flood.

    Not so good of an answer, Answer Man.
    First of all, there has never been a global flood. Do the math. Yes, there have been and continue to be regional floods every year.

    Second, the land mass you speak of, Pangea, occurred long before Man ever evolved. Are you trying to claim that the supercontinent existed 4000 years ago?

  20. on 03 Dec 2010 at 10:44 pm 20.Dutch said …

    Who are these

    “Everybodys”

    that know God doesn’t exist? Is this in your momma’s basement?

  21. on 04 Dec 2010 at 5:24 am 21.Joe said …

    Continents do not move fast. The Americas currently move away from Europe at a speed in the order of magnitude of one inch per year. If you assume that there was a flood just 4000 years ago, you really have a problem explaining the kangaroo thing. If you know, however, that 135 million years ago there was one large continent, it is no problem to explain the kangaroo thing within this larger time scale.

    The fact that the continents separated from each other 135 million years ago also explains why all these genuinly Australian marsupials could evolve. If you believe in the flood story, however, you have to assume that all these marsupials happened to run into the same direction after they had left the arc and travelled all the way together to Australia. Not a real explanation, isn’t it?

  22. on 04 Dec 2010 at 8:03 am 22.Severin said …

    6 Rostam
    “The treasure ships of the Ming dynasty are reported to be over 400? long and about as wide as Noah’s Ark.“

    Let’s accept it as true, and let’s say the arc had 3 decks 400’ x 250’ each.
    It makes 3 x 400 x 250 = 300,000’ sq, or some 5,2 American football playgrounds.

    The whole area was some 25,000 sq m, or a aquare with sides of ca160 m each (total surface of all 3 decks).

    Now, please, put on this surface:
    - 8 pairs of bears
    - 68 pairs of kangaroos
    - 100 pairs of lemurs
    - 100 pairs of bats
    - 10,000 pairs of birds (condors included)
    - 2 pairs of hypos
    - 2 pairs of elephants
    - 2 pairs of buffalos + several pairs of Asian water buffalos
    - Several pairs of tigers, pumas, lions, other cats
    - Several pairs of wolfs and other dogs
    - Horses, goats, sheep, rabbits, mouses
    - Some 30 pairs of gazelas, zebras, antilopes
    - A pair of EACH insect, reptile, worm…(more than 1,000,000 pairs)
    - Rtc, etc
    I am speaking ONLY survived species living today!

    BUT, didn’t your god know that species CAN NOT be renewed form one single pair?

    Anywa, you try to put all those animals on 25,000 sq meters, and put also their meals for 40 days there.

    Time to collect hem all?
    Methods to get them from different, very far, parts of world?

    Then think how to clean all their shit!

    The BF is a big bullshit.

    A book pretending to be as importanta as to rule our lives, containing such BS?

  23. on 04 Dec 2010 at 8:06 am 23.Severin said …

    22 Severin

    A book pretending to be as importanta as to rule our lives, containing such bullshit IS bullshit.

  24. on 05 Dec 2010 at 6:42 pm 24.Jesus of Fairy Land said …

    Ironically, non-believers can see the story for what it is, and as fiction it doesn’t have to be true. If you leave it there it doesn’t need magical explanations.

    Sadly, the believer has to rationalize away the obvious silliness with ever-increasing desperation. Hence comparisons with other non-existing ships.

    Likewise, the post-flood distribution of animals is problematic so lets just rearrange the continents, right? After all, facts can be so annoying. The trouble is that this approach simply paints the Christian into their own corner of nonsense.

    Eventually when all else fails, it’s easier to simply load up on logical fallacies, throw a reference to evolution in there, and retreat behind the non-thinkers ultimate catch-all “It’s true because its in the bible”.

  25. on 05 Dec 2010 at 7:25 pm 25.Anti-Theist said …

    Why would you spend so much energy thinking up and rattling off the extreme type of anti intelligence that it takes to explain miracles like noahs ark when the bible states that god only needed to speak the cosmos into existence. Wouldn’t he need only to speak the arks abilities unto the annals of history for them to have existed, logistics or not? This is why people attack your intelligence; stand behind your bible which is the only evidence you have.

  26. on 05 Dec 2010 at 7:59 pm 26.Hell Yeah said …

    Speaking of the Ark story, there are so many problems with the validity of that story. First of all, there isn’t enough water on Earth to cover the whole world, and that includes the amount of evaporated water that is always currently floating around. Localized floods have happened all over the world, and the story probably got fabricated from those. Second, every species of animals couldn’t have been picked up by the ark and dropped back off to where they came from. There are different species in different parts of the world. Thirdly, during the time of this supposed flood, only a small amount of the world was known. Fourth, a study was done and an ark that was built like it was described couldn’t have stayed afloat very long. Conclusion? Noah’s Ark is a fabricated story. Along with this and talking snakes and people living in whales, and other magical supernatural events that took place that haven’t been seen since it suppposedly happened, kind of hard to believe anything that doesn’t fit into reality.

  27. on 05 Dec 2010 at 10:53 pm 27.Xenon said …

    I think the funniest thing on this thread is this important point. Now, if you buy macroevolution, everything descended from a single cell organism. HOWEVER, in order for Noah to carry every kind of animal he would need 8 bears, 7500 kangaroos, etc. I guess the atheist believe in macroevolution but not microevolution which we actually observe.

    I find that absolutely hilarious, but that’s just me.

  28. on 05 Dec 2010 at 11:06 pm 28.MrQ said …

    Gas Bag, #27,

    Did you read my posts #15 and 19?
    Try and stay on topic. If you have any proof of the Ark story, then present it for analysis and critique.

  29. on 05 Dec 2010 at 11:08 pm 29.Jesus of Fairy Land said …

    Xenon, please elucidate on what you understand the difference between microevolution and macroevolution to be, and the source of your assertion as to why one is valid and the other is not?

  30. on 05 Dec 2010 at 11:11 pm 30.Jesus of Fairy Land said …

    @MrQ… good point, it’s off topic unless Xenon has some point in connecting this with the story of the ark.

  31. on 06 Dec 2010 at 1:23 am 31.Joe said …

    Xenon,

    4000 years since the flood is too short a time for any significant macroevolutive phenomenon to occur. So Noah did have to take all these animals into the arc. (Or the Noah story is wrong.)

    So I fail to see the funny thing here.

  32. on 06 Dec 2010 at 2:56 am 32.Lou said …

    Xenon,

    Great point of which this group is incapable of understanding. So what proof do we have of evolution coming from a single cell coming about through abiogenesis? None. We only have assumptions.

    Therefore since we have stories of a great flood throughout most ancient cultures the livelihood of a flood is great. We really don’t know how far back.

    There is much more evidence for a flood than for some single cell popping up from some hot water.

  33. on 06 Dec 2010 at 3:38 am 33.JohnnyP said …

    It’s not really the supernatural aspects of the story that bother me. If there is a god, then he would be supernatural. And thus supernatural occurrences would be possible. It’s the illogical, inane decisions this supernatural (plus all-knowing, all-powerful) god makes that are unbelievable.

    The story of Noah begins with a direct quote from god expressing regret for ever having created man (because he’s disappointed in man’s out-of-control disobedience and corruption). Well didn’t he see it coming? (the question of god’s omniscience again). How can he regret creating man when he knew all along how disobedient and corrupt man would become and chose to create him anyway? If he knew he was going to regret it, they why do it? Or why not try it a different way, a way that he knew would not lead to regrets? Would a rational person do something he knew he was going to regret, and then blame (and let’s not forget punish!) the objects of his regret for it?

    Why save 2 of every animal? Why not just recreate them all after the flood? It only took him a day to do it the first time. Think of how much time that would’ve saved on building and gathering. And obviously god didn’t give a crap about the lives of the animals, since all the rest perished in the flood.

    God can’t think of any other way to rid the world of sin other than a global flood. And as we (an he) know, that didn’t exactly work out as planned. Maybe because he allowed Satan to survive the flood as well as Noah and company. And didn’t Noah’s sons still have the Original Sin coursing through their veins?

    So it was up to Noah and his family to repopulate the earth. To “go forth and multiply”. Hmmm, where did we read that expression before…? Oh yes, he told Adam and Eve the same thing. That is, knowing in advance he was going to wipe ‘em all out eventually and require more going forth and multiplying.

    He really does work in mysterious ways.

  34. on 06 Dec 2010 at 4:37 am 34.MrQ said …

    Lou,
    On topic. This is all abut the Ark. Do you believe in it?
    Two of every animal….that would include:

    Extinct branches such as australopithecus http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusrobustus.htm

    All of these dinosaurs:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

    And lets not forget all those nasty parasites:
    http://www.parasitecleanse.com/GALLERY.HTM

    Is that right? You and the gas bag are building a case for all that and more? Stay on topic. Prove the ark and don’t employ your favourite fallacy of digression techniques.

  35. on 06 Dec 2010 at 4:58 am 35.Hell Yeah said …

    “Therefore since we have stories of a great flood throughout most ancient cultures the livelihood of a flood is great.”

    All that is saying is that many different areas on Earth had a flood at a certain time in history. Over a few Billion years we had some glacier periods, so when those melted floods occured. Hurricanes take place, so floods can occur from that. There are many reasons localized floods can happen. The only thing these ancient cultures can prove is that they had a localized flood at one point in time. What would they know about a world wide flood? And this world wide flood, where did all the water come from? God waved his magic wand and more water that ever has been on Earth appeared and then the difference disappeared again? It is hilarious how you guys try to come up with any crazy idea to back up your beliefs.

  36. on 06 Dec 2010 at 7:15 am 36.Severin said …

    30 JFL
    “@MrQ… good point, it’s off topic unless Xenon has some point in connecting this with the story of the ark.”

    I debate here for a long time, and all that was already seen many times:
    They avoid any “sensitive” topics they can’t deal with.
    They never answer “sensitive” questions, which are straight, logical, and call for answer to clear some lack of logic, some inconsistency or just stupidity (or extreme brutality).
    When pushed to wall, they turn to primitive sarcasm, or just change the topic.
    When pushed closer to wall, they sometimes just rest for some time, then continue dicussing as that nothing happened.
    And, of course, all their “arguments” are based on circular reasoning or on appeal to majority: read Bible to prove it right, or: god exists, because there are so many believers.
    Finally, they NEVER feel obligate to prove anything. They expect US to prove god does not exist!
    That stands is in their brainwashed minds, far of any logic AND honour.
    Don’t lose your patience. Maybe you save some young boy/girl who reads this blog from that poison.

  37. on 06 Dec 2010 at 7:23 am 37.Severin said …

    34 HY
    “And this world wide flood, where did all the water come from?”

    And where did it go after the flood?
    God drank it?

  38. on 06 Dec 2010 at 9:12 am 38.Severin said …

    27 Xenon

    Are you trying to “sell” us the story that all the animals Noah did not take on th ark developed AFTER the flood?

    How old is the earth, according to your creationist “theory”? Some 6,000 years?
    And flood was some 4,000 years ago?

    It seems that, according to you, 4,000 years is long enough for new species to be created.
    About 250 new species a year, or (appr.) 2 new species in every 3 days.

    My calculation is based on more than 1,000,000 species which DO exist today, and Noah did NOT take them on the arc (of course, I count not only kangaroos – and not 7800, but only 68 pairs! – but also, birds, worms, reptiles, insects…

    So, Xenon:
    a) Noah took them all on his arc, according to god’s order, to save them,
    in which case it would be fair from you to give us some explanations about size of the arc compared to its cargo, transportation and “package” logistic, food, time limits…
    b) They developed after the flood
    in which case we would be witnesses of appearing of 2 new species each 3 days

    I don’t see appearng of new species on dayly basis.

  39. on 06 Dec 2010 at 12:19 pm 39.dxt said …

    #33 Johnny,

    “The story of Noah begins with a direct quote from god expressing regret for ever having created man (because he’s disappointed in man’s out-of-control disobedience and corruption). Well didn’t he see it coming? (the question of god’s omniscience again).”

    In the Hebrew, the word is “naw-kham”. It means to “sigh” or “breath strongly”. “sorry” or “repent”, as some translations have it, it carries the meaning by implication. Its not like this caught God by suprise that man became so evil, it is His expression of being sorrowful. Though this is no suprise, it still grieves Him. This would not allow you to conclude His Sovereignty is in question.

    “How can he regret creating man when he knew all along how disobedient and corrupt man would become and chose to create him anyway? If he knew he was going to regret it, they why do it?”

    We can rephrase this statement and let it ride its meaning, as stated previously. Why do it? To draw a portion of mankind to Himself and elect to save them through unmerited grace. Here is the real question, why would He choose to save any?

    “God can’t think of any other way to rid the world of sin other than a global flood. And as we (an he) know, that didn’t exactly work out as planned. Maybe because he allowed Satan to survive the flood as well as Noah and company. And didn’t Noah’s sons still have the Original Sin coursing through their veins?”

    The flood was judgement, not an attempt to rid sin from the world. Yes, Noah and his family still had sin coursing through their veins, but God found him righteous. He doesn’t destroy the righteous with the wicked.

  40. on 06 Dec 2010 at 1:00 pm 40.Hell Yeah said …

    dxt,
    Seems you still ignore how impossible it was for the Noah’s Ark story to be true.

  41. on 06 Dec 2010 at 1:13 pm 41.JohnnyP said …

    dxt, at least your responses are thought-provoking. But it seems like every time you address my issues, it only opens up more holes.

    “The flood was judgment, not an attempt to rid sin from the world.” Okay, sounds good if you stop thinking about it there. But if you follow it through, then I have to ask why god only wiped humans out for their sins, but not Satan who is the father of all sin. Since he’s the one that “tempteth man” into sin (starting with since Eden), why not wipe him out too? Otherwise, it’s like patching the leaking ceiling instead of fixing the roof. What sense is that? Think of the millions of souls that would be saved (no temptation to sin), leaving more to “draw unto him”, which is what it all seems to be about.

  42. on 06 Dec 2010 at 1:32 pm 42.Jesus of Fairy Land said …

    Folks, stand back and look at this for a moment.

    “God” is angry. Tells man to build big, really big, boat. Despite logistics, place one of each kind in boat, including examples from places unknown at the time. Big, really big, amount of waters come and flood covers earth. Bad stuff dies horrible death due to temper tantrum of loving and caring god. Waters recede leaving no trace of the event. Man and stuff on boat repopulate world in an impossibly short amount of time. Music plays and credits roll.

    Classic “my dad is bigger than your dad” story. But, people honestly believe that this event happened.

    Really?

    I mean, really?

  43. on 06 Dec 2010 at 2:38 pm 43.Doug said …

    Jesus of Fairy Land yes people really believe in this story. Despite it being ridiculous, impossible, contradicting every available evidence of The total amount of water on the earth, boat building techniques, the uninterupted records of other civilizations that were supposedly drowned into non-existence, genetic record, logistics, inbreeding consequences, and so forth.

    They really do believe because they are delusional. Like any delusional, they construct elaborate justifications to any current challange to their delusion rather than seriously question it. Of all Delusional Structures, religion is particularly difficult to deal with as so many share very similar delusions that they can affirm each other in their divergence with reality rather than face up to it.

  44. on 06 Dec 2010 at 3:39 pm 44.rael said …

    it seems to me that literal interpretation of this story is impossible to defend; there are just too many holes as Doug says. Christians would do better to treat it as an allegory. However, if they continue to try and defend the literal truth of these stories, they do more to undermine thier own position. How would anyone with any reasoning ability believe such unlikely accounts as literal truth?

  45. on 06 Dec 2010 at 3:45 pm 45.Jesus of Fairy Land said …

    Doug, this is where I stuggle and I suspect many others do too.

    If someone was to stand back and say, “well, yes, OK, it’s a classic apocryphal tale of good vs evil. It’s an allegory, something to make people think about the common good”, then great.

    However, as a literal story. That blows my mind.

    A few weeks ago I was talking to a four year old at a family gathering. He literally told me that he was using a piece of string as an imaginary backpack and told me the string was too small for me, but it fitted him fine – and so it did. This child then took me on a tour around an imaginary castle that looked pretty much like our kitchen. Now, this kid absolutely knew that these items were imaginary, yet they served his purpose.

    This four year old could happily use imaginary things in the context of a real world. Noah, miracles, resurrection, the bible, god, these are all imaginary. They are made up things. A 4 year old can see this. Why can’t grown ups?

  46. on 06 Dec 2010 at 4:55 pm 46.Lou said …

    Seriously? The ark story is not possible? A theory that lightning struck some hot water and created life all by happenstance is possible, but not an Ark? Now that story is liken to Swiss cheese.

    For a moment consider God is real. He created a mind-boggling universe and somehow you think building an ark to house a few people and numerous animals would be too difficult?

    It may very well be Noah’s ark is allegorical but it would not be simply because it is not a possible event.

  47. on 06 Dec 2010 at 5:20 pm 47.Jesus of Fairy Land said …

    Lou, we are discussing the story of Noah’s ark. If you want to further your understanding of abiogenesis, there are plenty of places that you can do that; here’s one: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ A friendly word of advice. If you characterize abiogenesis as “lightning struck some hot water and created life all by happenstance” you’ll get eviscerated. Truly, please read some more about that subject and don’t just be spoon fed by creationist websites.

    Next, you want us to imagine the imaginary then you ask us if an imaginary being could do imaginary things. Of course one could; that’s the nature of imaginary beings. But that’s not what we are talking about. Once again, there is only evidence to the contrary that the ark story is real.

    “It may very well be Noah’s ark is allegorical but it would not be simply because it is not a possible event.” — what does that even mean?

    The story might be true, but if it isn’t true, it might be made up, but if it was made up it’s not because it couldn’t be true? Is this meant to be the ultimate in unfalsifiable circular arguments?

    You started with “Seriously? The ark story is not possible?”. Yes, that’s what people here are saying. Saying “god did it” isn’t proof.

  48. on 06 Dec 2010 at 5:42 pm 48.Doug said …

    Yes Lou, the story of the Ark is not possible, just pointing to something you think as impossible is not a defence against it. The only way to make it possible is “magic.” If we allow for that, then yes, it is possible. But if we allow for magic, then the story that the universe was created last tuesday by a hyperintelligent plate of pasta becomes possible.

    Allowing for “magic” means you never, ever, discount anything as false or impossible.

  49. on 06 Dec 2010 at 6:39 pm 49.Severin said …

    43 real,
    “Christians would do better to treat it as an allegory.”

    The problem with allegories is in how to distinguish allegories from “truth” and who is authorized to do it.

    They (theists) tried “allegories” many times in this blog, but never could answer the a.m. simple questions.
    If they are not able to tell us WHO is authorized/rsponsible to interpret the Bible (and NO ONE IS, according to Bible itself), then my (your)interpretation is as valid as any other one, BUT, unlike thier, my (your) interpretation is LOGICAL, and “holds water”.

    Then they started with “absoulte truth”, which falls on many biblical stories, including the flood story: if this story is illogical, inconsistent (in fact impossible, a LIE), the whole bible is a big BS, because no one will trust other stories are the “absolute truths”, if this one is a lie.
    We come again to the question: who is authorized to distinguish “absolute truths” from bullshits, and HOW is he/she/an organisation doing it? Using WHAT criteria?

    They CAN NOT do it better, because their “arguments” are EXACTLY the same as “arguments” of all other religions, ever: illogical, inconsistent, impossible…lies and bullshits.

  50. on 06 Dec 2010 at 7:04 pm 50.Severin said …

    45 Lou
    “Seriously? The ark story is not possible?“
    No, it is NOT POSSIBLE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCED DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE!

    Maybe it could, somehow, be possible today, if you had a boat some 50 to 100 x bigger than the biggest tanker, specially built for that purpose, AND if you had all necessary logistic to find and transport the animals: hunters, transportation means, and, of course, A LOT OF TIME. Probablu decades, or, more likely, centuries (more than 1,000,000 species!).

    It has NOTHING to do with first cell, and your trying to compare it and to turn our attention to ANOTHER ISSUE, is as sahallow as always (demagogy).

    HOW would our agreeing with your claims about the first cells help in making the flood story true?
    By a comparison typical for theists: if someone can jump 10 m, why another one would not be able to jump 100m?

    Your problem is, and you KNOW IT WELL: if the flood story does not hold water, WHAT in the Bible DOES?
    How to distinguish „truth“ from „bullshit“?

  51. on 06 Dec 2010 at 7:04 pm 51.Horatio said …

    LOL, excellent Lou! Don’t expect to bring abiogenesis into the conversation. Don’t you know The Fairy controls the conversation! We want to talk about the ark!

    Ah, it is great stuff. That ark would be quite the bugger for the creator of the entire Universe. It probably is just allegorical but I like to see how upset atheist get over the whole issue. I mean the entire universe’s existence defies logic but the ark, um that is just unacceptable.

    Now The A-Word is a nice theory but lets be genuine here. How can you ever prove it even if it was recreated in a lab? Lets being back spontaneous generation. It has a nice Michael Jackson ring to it.

  52. on 06 Dec 2010 at 7:30 pm 52.MrQ said …

    Don’t expect to bring abiogenesis into the conversation.

    Fallacy of digression, as you like to say. Unless you can relate abiogenesis to the ark.

    You are quite perplexing, Hor. You acknowledge that the Earth is billions of years old, give yourself a pat on the back. Then you line up with the nutbars claiming the ark actually floated. Maybe check and see what Francis Collins, one of your favourite references, and his biologos.org site thinks of the ark story. http://biologos.org/questions/genesis-flood/

    Get educated.

  53. on 06 Dec 2010 at 7:34 pm 53.Clausewitz said …

    Unfortunately for both warm pond and hydrothermal vent theorists, heat may be the downfall of their theory. An undiscovered life-law is more probable than all existing terrestrial abiogenesis theories, and can better deal with the many seemingly insurmountable problems of abiogenesis.

    The Bible wants us to believe in miracles instituted by God.

    Atheist want us to believe in miracles instituted by Nature.

  54. on 06 Dec 2010 at 7:42 pm 54.Severin said …

    45 Lou
    “For a moment consider God is real. He created a mind-boggling universe and somehow you think building an ark to house a few people and numerous animals would be too difficult?”

    No! For an allmighty god it would be easy! I am able to imagine an allmighty god to do whatever he wants!

    I can imagine god did it (flood) another way, BUT we have no traces of evidences he did it the way you and I are able to imagine!
    If he did it another way than described in Bible, why is the Bible shitting that primitive, illogical, inconsistent, impossible story?
    WHY is Bible LYING?

    Of course, you can take it as allegory, too.
    Fine!
    Then the Jesus story (resurrection) is an allegory too!

    In that case, bye bye Christianity!

    How do YOU distinguish biblical allegories from biblical „truths“?
    I can not.

    Can we take a book of allegories as the „absolute truth“?
    Can we live in accordance to a book containg allegories? Or the „mixture“ of „truths“ and „allegories“ that no one is able to distinguish?

    Again, the whole Bible turns to be a pure bullshit!
    We can not trust that book.

    Bye bye Christianity, anyway!

  55. on 06 Dec 2010 at 7:49 pm 55.Severin said …

    50 Horatio
    Your bitter, helpless “sarcasm” does not help!

    Maybe you can enlighten us about how to distinguish
    “allegory” from “truth”?

    If the floods story is an “allegory”, what is then resurrection story?

  56. on 06 Dec 2010 at 7:55 pm 56.Jesus of Fairy Land said …

    Horatio, your desperation to change the subject is duly noted.

    You said the the story of the ark is “probably” allegorical. Can you please provide a list of which parts of the bible are literally true, which an allegory, and how one can determine that without appealing to any kind of post hoc fallacy?

    Also, please don’t forget to apply the same standards of evidence as you would expect from others; not true even if recreated in a lab and must not defy logic.

  57. on 06 Dec 2010 at 9:03 pm 57.Horatio said …

    Fairy Said:

    “Can you please provide a list of which parts of the bible are literally true, which an allegory”

    No, of course not. Do you think I will bend to your fallacy of digression. I won’t even use the A word we are discussing the ark. LOL……thanks buddy

    Clause,

    That is about the best post I have read here in quite awhile. I think it went right over Fairy & Sev’s head.

  58. on 06 Dec 2010 at 9:37 pm 58.dxt said …

    #40 Johnny,

    “The flood was judgment, not an attempt to rid sin from the world.” Okay, sounds good if you stop thinking about it there. But if you follow it through, then I have to ask why god only wiped humans out for their sins, but not Satan who is the father of all sin. Since he’s the one that “tempteth man” into sin (starting with since Eden), why not wipe him out too?”

    Because satan is not “flesh”. God said in verse 3 “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever….” Verse 7 “I will blot out man whom I created from the face of the land…”

    “Otherwise, it’s like patching the leaking ceiling instead of fixing the roof. What sense is that? Think of the millions of souls that would be saved (no temptation to sin), leaving more to “draw unto him”, which is what it all seems to be about.”

    God has fixed a day already when satan will no longer lie and decieve mankind. He has already been defeated by the Cross of Christ. What is 100 years of our life compared to the eternal God?……A snap of a finger. Judgement will be swift and satan knows this. He is operating on a divine timetable. Hope this helps.

  59. on 07 Dec 2010 at 1:12 am 59.Xenon said …

    Fairy Land,

    I can help you with your question regarding Biblical interpretation. Check this out

    http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Biblical-Hermeneutics-Search-Meaning/dp/0310279518/ref=pd_sim_b_1

  60. on 07 Dec 2010 at 1:43 am 60.Hell Yeah said …

    Hold the phone! I just found out that Jesus is coming back on May 21st of this next year! Look it up!

  61. on 07 Dec 2010 at 10:21 am 61.rael said …

    #59 HY

    Also, I just saw that the world will end in fire on October 21st 2011 – I guess we’ll know for sure then eh!?

  62. on 07 Dec 2010 at 12:04 pm 62.Severin said …

    58 Xenon

    Psalm 19:7
    The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.

    Why would we need ANY interpretation for perfect (god’s!!!) words?
    Was god an illiterate idiot unable to express what he ment?

    Since when are Walter C. Kaiser and Moises Silvia authorised to interpret Bible?
    Who authorized them?

    There is nothing written in the Bible about them.
    Bible does not mention hermenutics!

    Why should I trust them more than I trust my eyes when reading Bible, THE GOD’S WORD?!

    Be careful! Dxt claims that we have to take the Bible litarally!
    You have to discuss that problem with him!

  63. on 21 Jan 2011 at 12:03 am 63.James Smith said …

    If you can dispense with rational thinking and reject reality enough to believe the rest of christianity, then the ark business in nothing to worry over.

    All you have to do is ignore the most obvious facts, accept the most improbable propositions, and agree never to think about anything or ever ask questions and it all becomes easy.

    Religions depend upon two things, total gullibility, and unquestioning acceptance of self-appointed authority. Then use those two characteristics to keep people ignorant and fearful. Everything else is easy, like fleecing them of their resources, especially money to build castles “for the greater glory of god”. What kind of omnipotent, omniscient god would be impressed even by the largest, most ornate cathedral? Those couldn’t really be for the “anointed of god” could they?

  64. on 22 Jul 2011 at 2:42 pm 64.BritPirate said …

    I gave up at about comment 15, but noticed a hilarious thing. When fundies talk to atheists about stuff, they ridicule their “belief” system, but because atheists are using talking to fundies they also take a literal view of the bible (which is the only real view to take if you believe, because if you believe in all that stuff, it may as well be literally). So when an atheist asks a fundie a question that is based on stuff atheists know (evolution, plate tectonics, etc), the fundies can’t see the irony and treat it as ignorance, then make a snide remark about “some crackpot theory like…” and then laugh to themselves. The hilarity is that this is all pointless, as when we all die, no matter who is right, we won’t care by then! So, might as well live life in a nice way and have fun :D *awww*

  65. on 07 Jul 2012 at 4:07 pm 65.Steve T said …

    When the kangaroos and koalas got off the ark, how did they get back to Australia? Did the ark sail around the world and drop them off?

  66. on 07 Jul 2012 at 4:14 pm 66.alex said …

    “The hilarity is that this is all pointless, as when we all die, no matter who is right, we won’t care by then! So, might as well live life in a nice way and have fun :D *awww*”

    it ain’t pointless. you think it’s ok that other people are miserable/unhappy because of the idiot theists? you see atheists going around talking shit and overbearing?

    don’t confuse the atheists protesting as the same as the bible thumpers campaigning for banning gay weddings. if you don’t care, you’re complicit.

  67. on 07 Jul 2012 at 4:28 pm 67.Lou(DFW) said …

    66.alex said …

    “it ain’t pointless. you think it’s ok that other people are miserable/unhappy because of the idiot theists? you see atheists going around talking shit and overbearing?”

    Not to mention flying airliners into buildings. Praise Allah!

  68. on 07 Jul 2012 at 6:52 pm 68.CASTBOUND said …

    I see no point to the blog or the derision. Why are atheists so interested in converting theists to atheists? All the energy and time put in here must be to convert theists. But why would I want to convert to atheism? My life is very happy, I am well educated and I enjoy God’s creation. If I am wrong how would my belief hurt my future or my prosperity?

    Alex seems quite despondent and I certainly want no part of that.

    So to sum it up, if atheists just lack belief, why would I want to participate? How would that benefit me?

  69. on 07 Jul 2012 at 7:11 pm 69.DPK said …

    Well, point taken Castbound. No one says you must “convert” if you are happy in your make believe world. It comes down to if you strive to know what is true, or if you merely want to believe what you want to believe because it makes you feel good.
    Just remember, every step of progress toward the betterment of humanity has come from science and rationality, not religious superstition and myth.
    If religion had been left to it’s ‘druthers, we would still be living in the dark ages, burning witches and casting out demons. Believe what you want, but ask yourself this… the next time you, or a loved one is sick, will you seek help from a doctor, or a priest?
    THAT is why it matters.

  70. on 07 Jul 2012 at 7:40 pm 70.Severin said …

    68 Castbound
    “Why are atheists so interested in converting theists to atheists?”
    Why are theists so much interested to convert atheists to believe in their gods?
    Why are all churches, no exception, so loud and aggressive in recruiting new members of congregations?
    Luxurious churches, propaganda, TV, bells, going door to door, brochures, newspapers, … circus!
    All the energy and time put in there must be to convert atheists and theists looking to the “wrong” side.

    Why wouldn’t we tolerate few atheist’s words, at least on an ATHEIST site.
    I never (never!) come to theist sites to tell theists what should they believe in and why are they wrong.

  71. on 07 Jul 2012 at 7:43 pm 71.Severin said …

    70 Me
    “All the energy and time put in there must be to convert atheists and theists looking to the “wrong” side.”

    I missed the point, forgot to put a “WHY?” on th end of this sentence!

    So, WHY?

  72. on 07 Jul 2012 at 8:30 pm 72.CASTBOUND said …

    “every step of progress toward the betterment of humanity has come from science and rationality, not religious superstition and myth.”

    Interesting contrast one has nothing to do with the other in any capacity. The majority of scientists through the ages have been theist in nature. From my vantage point, science was created by God and until about 1900 the definition of science included God. You see God as myth but you are a small minority. Everyone desires to know the truth. I believe I have found it and you lack belief.

    “If religion had been left to it’s ‘druthers, we would still be living in the dark ages, burning witches and casting out demons.”

    You make another completely absurd and utterly untrue statement. Again, scientists were and are by a vast margin theist in nature. About 20 people were killed in the Salem witch trials. It would seem religion has adjusted and realized their mistake. Many more were killed by the Communist who held up atheism as the state position. Ironically, this guise was supposedly upheld by science and still goes on today.

    Atheists are very good at misstating the truth and revising history to fit their preconceived lack of beliefs. In the end, from my position, no reason to convert.

  73. on 07 Jul 2012 at 8:43 pm 73.alex said …

    “Alex seems quite despondent and I certainly want no part of that.”

    you a psychiatrist? which part do you want none of:

    1. gays are ok
    2. women equality
    3. non belief in allah
    4. non belief in christ
    5. non belief in santa claus
    6. non belief in bullshit

    you think you’re smart? why would you participate? who the fuck invited you? you think i’m different than other atheists in here? coz of my language? nobody else in here curses? oh, it’s the quantity?

    moron.

  74. on 07 Jul 2012 at 8:46 pm 74.alex said …

    “Atheists are very good at misstating the truth and revising history to fit their preconceived lack of beliefs. In the end, from my position, no reason to convert.”

    ok. atheists makes mistakes, no doubt. that doesn’t change shit. you idiots lie and misdirect to try to avoid your god evidence.

    do the fossil records lie? idiot. who the fuck is trying to convince you?

  75. on 07 Jul 2012 at 9:15 pm 75.Severin said …

    #72
    “The majority of scientists through the ages have been theist in nature.”

    So what?
    Everybody who played against the system was endangered.
    Galileo was most probably a believer, but some OTHER theists wanted to kill him if he continue going against the stream.

    My personal opinion is that most of scientists pretended to believe to save their heads.
    Ones who did believe, believed in gods very different than gods that were imposed to them by actual religions.

    Religions are dangerous for individuals and for societies.

  76. on 07 Jul 2012 at 9:17 pm 76.Severin said …

    #72
    “From my vantage point, science was created by God and until about 1900 the definition of science included God.”

    Which god was it?

  77. on 07 Jul 2012 at 9:19 pm 77.alex said …

    “Ones who did believe, believed in gods very different….”

    a lot of atheists don’t discount the possibility of a god. not the lunatic xtian or muslim or any other god. oh, no. the xtian god is way gooder than zeus or ra.

  78. on 07 Jul 2012 at 9:21 pm 78.Severin said …

    #72
    “You see God as myth but you are a small minority.”

    Once upon a time ones who believed earth was a globe were very small minority.
    Ones who had the idea of diseases spreading with dirty hands were also minority.

    Does your claim means that, if Muslims were majority, they would automatically become right?

  79. on 07 Jul 2012 at 9:23 pm 79.Severin said …

    #72
    “I believe I have found it and you lack belief.”

    Good for you!
    Only, why do you think it interests me?

  80. on 07 Jul 2012 at 9:25 pm 80.Severin said …

    #72
    “It would seem religion has adjusted and realized their mistake.”

    OOPS! Sorry we killed you by mistake!

  81. on 07 Jul 2012 at 9:34 pm 81.Severin said …

    #72
    “Many more were killed by the Communist who held up atheism as the state position.”

    Even if it “was in name of atheism”, it does not prove anything.
    But, you forget that communists first took power in TOTALLY christian country, with almost 0% atheists!
    How many atheists were there in Russia in 1917?

    A few existing atheists took the power by lying poor illiterate religious people they will give them paradise NOW, on earth (not after death): they promised them land, possibility to educate their children, justice for everyone, milk and honey …
    Poor people (religious almost 100%) gave their lives to support communists. When those took power, poor people finally saw their “god”, but it was too late.

    Do you believe there were atheists in China when Mao started his revolution? I am sure there were … some 1000 or 2000 of them in entire China.

  82. on 07 Jul 2012 at 9:37 pm 82.Severin said …

    #72
    “Atheists are very good at misstating the truth and revising history to fit their preconceived lack of beliefs.”
    1. Can you kindly offer some examples, to avoid the name of a liar?
    2. Atheists have no beliefs.

  83. on 07 Jul 2012 at 10:13 pm 83.Anonymous said …

    and through all this utter shit and nonsense we note that not one, NOT ONE, theist has presented ANY evidence to support their DELUSION that (a) any god, any god at all exists and (b) that this god, gods, or goddesses, actually gives a damn about them.

    Sorry, theists, you are full of crap and every one of your arguments is a diversion to avoid facing reality. All you ever want to do is change the subject. You’d think if you actually could prove this point you’d be trumpeting it. But you don’t, All you do is look for reasons to attack anyoje who points out that you’re invested in 2000 year old goat-herder’s superstitious nonsense.

    Claimotherwise? Then stop boring us with your pitiful complaints, red herrings, and your childish wishes for sky daddy to care about you and show us, demonstrate to us, that you are not mentally ill. Because, frankly, you are either delusional or stupid. Pick one.

  84. on 07 Jul 2012 at 10:38 pm 84.Prime said …

    83.Anonymous

    Don’t forget how many of those red herrings are anger at the president, which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

  85. on 07 Jul 2012 at 10:52 pm 85.alex said …

    “anger at the president”

    uhhm, try other things. seriously, birthers? a muslim? i’m telling you, it’s the negro thing. even the idiots that know he’s a christian just can’t help themselves.

    it’s one thing not to be liberal/democrat, but is it really necessary to utter “Barack Hussein Obama”?

  86. on 08 Jul 2012 at 12:14 am 86.A said …

    Castbound said

    “Atheists are very good at misstating the truth and revising history to fit their preconceived lack of beliefs. In the end, from my position, no reason to convert.”

    Castbound, they have to revise and lie. As you see them claim, they have no beliefs. They are not even sure if they are real. What makes me literally lol is they believe nothing but they will argue tooth and nail for their nothing.

    In reality, their lying and distortions come from their liberal bias not their atheism (they even hate the ism). In order to get their president reelected, they have to be a great revisionist. In order to wipe out religion from America they have to revise history.

  87. on 08 Jul 2012 at 12:27 am 87.alex said …

    “come from their liberal bias…”

    you’re an idiot. atheists strive for tolerance. call it liberal, but it’s beside the point.

    are you a mormon? i bet your religion is more closely aligned with the prez? how do fuck do you explain that? because even with your religious facade, your nothing but a piece of irreconcilable shit.

    go ahead and admit you’re a mormon. just try it.

  88. on 08 Jul 2012 at 4:59 am 88.Lou(DFW) said …

    86.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Castbound, they have to revise and lie.”

    Not all. Atheists don’t have to revise or lie about anything. All we must do wait for your evidence for your imaginary god, but you NEVER, EVER present it. Instead, you claim that we “revise and lie.” But, in reality, the lie is that god exists.

  89. on 08 Jul 2012 at 5:03 am 89.Lou(DFW) said …

    72.CASTBOUND said …

    Oh hell, here comes another sock puppet who can’t compose a coherent sentence, yet expects readers to accept his rambling nonsense.

  90. on 08 Jul 2012 at 9:15 am 90.Severin said …

    #72

    And, of course, you can put the equality sign between communism an religions:

    - ONE idea (in case of communists = communism, in case of religions = god), NO other ideas are permitted
    - Whoever tries to think differently than ordered, endangers his/her life (no more, no less!)
    - Totally closed minds (only WE are right!)
    - Extreme luxury for elite, shit for people
    - Pompous iconography, full of symbols
    - Propaganda of epic dimensions

    What are the differences?

  91. on 08 Jul 2012 at 11:03 am 91.alex said …

    “In order to wipe out religion from America..”

    a lie. who/when said? like your god, it’s a lie. your foolishness ain’t gonna work here. as always, you have nothing.

    “In order to get their president reelected..”

    all atheists here vote the same? you think by lumping all atheists together, you’ll energize your fellow morons? failing at that, your sock puppet springs into action, ready to fluff.

    i know lots of xtians who are so different from you morons. they don’t go to church, they have gay and colored friends and we joke about me going to hell, which they really don’t believe. we laugh at the pope and the bible, but at the end of the day, they are xtians and are my good friends.

    so keep your bullshit coming and they will be called out. count on it.

  92. on 08 Jul 2012 at 1:44 pm 92.Lou(DFW) said …

    86.ASStrophysicist said …

    “What makes me literally lol is they believe nothing but they will argue tooth and nail for their nothing.”

    This is another ASS lie. Atheists don’t argue for nothing, but argue against theism (a lie) and lies about atheists.

    “In reality, their lying and distortions come from their liberal bias not their atheism (they even hate the ism).”

    This is another ASS lie. As previously stated, there’s no reason for atheists to lie, theism itself is a lie that theists cannot support with any evidence. If I’m lying, then provide the evidence for your imaginary god. Furthermore, not all atheists are liberals anymore than all theists are conservative.

    “In order to get their president reelected, they have to be a great revisionist.”

    This is another ASS lie. Obama is, in fact, a theist, xtian POTUS who was elected by the voters of an alleged xtian nation. Furthermore, ASS, if you live in the U.S., then he’s your POTUS, too.

    “In order to wipe out religion from America they have to revise history.”

    Another ASS lie. How could that be accomplished? That’s the same as saying in order to wipe out Santa Claus or the tooth fairy from America we must revise history. Or it’s the same as saying in order to wipe out the Mayan religion from Mexico they have to revise history.

    It’s obvious to see ASS’ desperation to defend his delusion.

  93. on 08 Jul 2012 at 5:00 pm 93.DPK said …

    72.CASTBOUND said …
    “every step of progress toward the betterment of humanity has come from science and rationality, not religious superstition and myth.”
    Interesting contrast one has nothing to do with the other in any capacity.”

    You asked “why” you should abandon a belief in an imaginary being and embrace reason and rationality? “How will it make my life better?” So, yes in fact one DOES have to do with the other. Provide a list of all the things religion has provided to humanity that has improved the quality of life, and then do the same for science and reason. If you are HONEST (which I suspect you will not be) one list will be pretty short and the other will be extensive. If you do not think science and reason have improved your life, then get off your computer and go sacrifice a goat to your god and see how much better your life gets.

    “The majority of scientists through the ages have been theist in nature.”

    What a ridiculous statement. The majority of PEOPLE throughout the ages have been theists, so it stands to reason. Especially in a time when denying the existence of god could get you beheaded and your house burned down. Besides that fact, you must agree, the the gods worshiped by “The majority of people throughout the ages” were in fact, imaginary. Do you claim Greek scientists who believed in the ancient Greek gods as evidence that those gods are real? Your point is absurd.

    “From my vantage point, science was created by God and until about 1900 the definition of science included God. You see God as myth but you are a small minority.”

    I see, the tired old appeal to majority. How sad. As has been pointed out, 1000 years ago everyone on the planet believed, no, KNEW, the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Did that make it so? Poor argument… and even if we were to give merit to it, the MAJORITY of people on earth do NOT believe in your Jesus god… so where does that leave you?

    “If religion had been left to it’s ‘druthers, we would still be living in the dark ages, burning witches and casting out demons.”
    You make another completely absurd and utterly untrue statement.”
    Really? Maybe ask Galileo or Bruno or the victims of the inquisition or crusades and get their take on that. The fact is, even now where religious organizations fight against teaching of evolution, dogmatic religions have fought scientific progress every step of the way. Religions have historically only been brought into agreement with scientific discovery after it has become too painful and embarrassing to continue otherwise. The pope even admonished Stephen Hawkins not to investigate the big bang because it was the province of god.

    “Again, scientists were and are by a vast margin theist in nature.”

    Answered. How many scientists TODAY are theist in nature? (google “project steve” if you want to know) And, of those that ARE… how many have published accepted, peer reviewed papers that list “then god performed a miracle” as a step in their hypothesis? Why do you think that is?

    “About 20 people were killed in the Salem witch trials. It would seem religion has adjusted and realized their mistake.”

    “ONLY 20″… really… that’s your answer? And what do you think MADE religion adjust and realize their mistake?? Rational people, like me, who said.. “this is insane.” That’s for making my point as to why we should be vocal. They are still burning witches today in Africa in the name of Jesus. Should we just keep quiet and wait for them to sort it out?

    “Many more were killed by the Communist who held up atheism as the state position. Ironically, this guise was supposedly upheld by science and still goes on today.”

    Ah, the argument from Communism. Um…. religious wars have killed more people than anything. But, the point is, religious people do bad things, secular people do bad things… neither fact has ANY bearing on the truth of a position. If killing people was an indication of the falsehood of a position… religion would loose, hands down, no contest. Please stop with the bullshit.

    “Atheists are very good at misstating the truth and revising history to fit their preconceived lack of beliefs. In the end, from my position, no reason to convert.”

    Umm… you came HERE… none of us went knocking on your door and asked you to “convert”. So where the hell is THAT coming from? You decided to join in the discussion, so since you did, be prepared to be asked to defend your position. Otherwise, what is the point? Please show where any atheist here has “misstated the truth” or “revised history”. Since you cannot, that makes YOU the liar.

  94. on 08 Jul 2012 at 5:18 pm 94.Prime said …

    Let’s not forget that while “only” 20 or so were killed in the Salem witch trials, the witch hunts across Europe verifiably killed hundreds of thousands of “witches,” and that number might actually be as high as millions (but evidently not tens of millions).

    The only reason I didn’t mention it earlier is because I didn’t want to start the boring and irrelevant pissing contest about “communism and state atheism” that invariably follows (and was already mentioned) whereby things are vastly misrepresented (witch hunts were directly religious edicts leading to killing, “state atheism and communism” were features of a totalitarian regime that also happened, like all totalitarian regimes, to kill lots of people). It gets old sometimes.

  95. on 08 Jul 2012 at 5:42 pm 95.Curmudgeon said …

    Cast

    Thank for the rationale question. Why convert? It is a great question. When you convert you must defend all atheists even the Harris’ of the world who spew hatred and call for the elimination of the religious masses.

    You get to deny all the deaths committed the state atheists which exceed in number all the massacres in history.

    Then you get to believe nothing, make up moral positions as you go and steal when you feel it is OK.

    A lot to offer there. Oh, and you get to hide in the weeds and take shots at those who have the courage to believe in something. Sounds like High School, yes?

    I hope this helps you in your quest.

  96. on 08 Jul 2012 at 5:46 pm 96.Curmudgeon said …

    I forgot one. You get to bring up witches and Galileo. The same Galileo who argued against a professor of math that Heliocentrism is supported in Scripture. You get to believe Galileo was another scientist who supported atheism.

    Sounds fun, yes?

  97. on 08 Jul 2012 at 6:28 pm 97.alex said …

    “all the deaths committed the state atheists which exceed in number all the massacres in history.”

    another made up shit from the moron. predictable from someone subscribe to a make believe.

    “you must defend all atheists even the Harris’ of the world”

    says who? more made up shit. do you defend all the other religions, dipshit? where do you come up with this crap?

    what’s your evidence, moron?

  98. on 08 Jul 2012 at 6:46 pm 98.DPK said …

    Curm again shows his propensity to lie and misrepresent to support his delusion. To wit: No one here has EVER claimed Galileo “supported atheism” or even WAS an atheist. What a lie. The point made in mentioning Galileo was that historically, religion has denied scientific advancement whenever it conflicted with their dogma.
    Galileo was forced by the church to recant his believe that the earth revolved around the sun as heresy under threat of execution. THAT is a fact, and that is what was presented, Curms lies to the contrary. Par for the course for he, and many of the theists here, who seem to have no trouble misrepresenting facts and re-writing history to rationalize their irrational claims.

    Now, how does the fact that neither of you find anything appealing about atheism in any way demonstrate that the claim you make about the existence of your god is actually true. Fact is, until you can provide some evidence or reason for me to accept that any of the claims you make about the existence of supernatural gods, and afterlife, heaven and hell, judgement, or any other thing, why should I “convert”?

  99. on 08 Jul 2012 at 8:16 pm 99.CASTBOUND said …

    Thank you Curmudgon, A, Lou and the rest. I asked the simple question if atheists just lack belief, why would I want to participate? How would that benefit me?

    The answer clearly is the benefits are none. If there were any benefits atheists certainly do avoid sharing these benefits.

    Its seems what they share as benefits is attempts to point out what is wrong with me. I’m happy and I am blessed. I needed to know why I should convert. I now know.

    Thanks again.

  100. on 08 Jul 2012 at 8:27 pm 100.Scott said …

    Its a shame how the Roman Catholic church misinterpreted Scripture and persecuted Galileo. A good thing Martin Luther came along to straighten out matters.

    Misinterpretation still occurs today and much of it done by atheists.

  101. on 08 Jul 2012 at 8:28 pm 101.DPK said …

    You miss the point that reality does not care if it benefits you or not. Why should it? Why do you feel that the universe owes you a benefit. Atheism is not a “religion”. It doesn’t make you any empty promises. It simply states that your belief in god is unfounded. No one asked you to “convert”. Please stop claiming that they have. The reality is, you can believe any nonsense you want. Have at it.
    “Reality is what exists whether you believe it or not.”

  102. on 08 Jul 2012 at 8:33 pm 102.CASTBOUND said …

    “It simply states that your belief in god is unfounded.”

    No we are getting somewhere. This would be a benefit if true. How is my belief unfounded?

  103. on 08 Jul 2012 at 8:50 pm 103.alex said …

    i believe in santa claus.

    “How is my belief unfounded?”

    you are a moron. the question has been asked many times. what is the evidence for your belief? none, zip, nil. therefore, your belief is _______.

    why can’t you just be a moron in your house, instead of coming in here talkin shit? because you’re entitled?

  104. on 08 Jul 2012 at 8:59 pm 104.Lou(DFW) said …

    98.DPK said …

    “Galileo was forced by the church to recant his believe that the earth revolved around the sun as heresy under threat of execution. THAT is a fact, and that is what was presented, Curms lies to the contrary.”

    It’s actually irrelevant that Galileo argued about “heliocentrism” and scripture, because it did, in fact, contradict scripture. Galileo only argued “not to take every passage literally when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history.”

    Not only that, but the Catholic Church, in effect, apologized to Galileo for ruling as it did:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7188860.stm

    In 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret at the way Galileo had been treated.

    “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture[.]”

    Crum and his lying ilk represent the lowest form of theism, one that even Pope John Paul II understood is wrong.

  105. on 08 Jul 2012 at 9:01 pm 105.alex said …

    “I am blessed.”

    you must be the chosen one. is it god’s will that a lot of other people are fucked?

    so which religion is better than being an atheist. since atheists are non believers, all religions must be of equal footing. you sympathetic to jews, muslims, mormons, or scientologists? you must be, they’re your moronic, delusional equivalent.

  106. on 08 Jul 2012 at 9:02 pm 106.Lou(DFW) said …

    102.CASTBOUND said …

    “How is my belief unfounded?”

    Because there is no evidence to support it – without foundation; not based on fact, realistic considerations, or the like.

  107. on 08 Jul 2012 at 9:05 pm 107.Lou(DFW) said …

    99.CASTBOUND said …

    “I’m happy and I am blessed.”

    Another symptom of your delusion. You believe that out of billions of people who will ever live on earth that you are one of the relatively few who the creator of the universe blessed?! And you expect us to seriously consider your comments?

  108. on 08 Jul 2012 at 9:33 pm 108.DPK said …

    Well, Lou beat me to it.
    Exactly. Until you present a foundation for your belief, then your belief is in fact, unfounded.
    So, as you have been asked multiple times, present whatever evidence you have that your claim that your god in fact, exists. If you have none, then your belief is unfounded. If your “evidence” is your “personal relationship” with god, then your belief is unfounded. If your evidence is the bible… well, prepared to be bashed repeatedly on that one. If your evidence is that your god somehow intercedes in the physical world by answering prayers and performing miracles, be prepared to present real evidence to back your claims.
    If you can do none of those things, then do everyone a favor and STFU!

  109. on 09 Jul 2012 at 12:23 am 109.CASTBOUND said …

    “Exactly. Until you present a foundation for your belief, then your belief is in fact, unfounded.”

    Notice that without even knowing what I believe you post “It simply states that your belief in god is unfounded”. This shows you to be judgmental and unreasonable.

    I have bad news. You are not qualified to judge my facts for God. I realize atheist frequently believe they are qualified to pass a verdict but that credence is groundless. I in turn simply pass my judgment that your lack of belief is unfounded. I do not seek validation from the bloggers since it is not requisite.

    I merely asked for a question to be answered. Sharing support for God with irrational atheist is much like attempting to demonstrate to the moon landing deniers we landed on the moon. I don’t waste precious breaths in contention with them.

    Well thank you for answering my initial question. That was what I desired to analyze.

  110. on 09 Jul 2012 at 12:43 am 110.alex said …

    Notice that without even knowing what I believe you post “It simply states that your belief in ______ is unfounded”.

    “This shows you to be judgmental and unreasonable.”

    fill in “leprechauns” and what does it look like, moron?

    what does “god”, “fairies”, and “unicorns” have in common. they’re all bogus. who the fuck is passing judgement? do babies pass judgement? they must, coz they don’t believe your bullshit.

    is your god, allah? zeus? ra? or tom cruise?

  111. on 09 Jul 2012 at 12:50 am 111.alex said …

    “moon landing” is like your god? you dimwit!

    use the same argument for all thousands of gods. is this the proof that all gods exist? all these gods and your xtian god is not even the main event. go ahead and add up all the rest of the theists in the world, do they believe in your christ?

    fucking moron. you’re too stoopid to be an atheist.

  112. on 09 Jul 2012 at 1:00 am 112.A said …

    “do babies pass judgement?”

    Actually you do pass judgment alex :). I bet you pass a lot of gas too. Babies don’t believe in evolution either, hey, so that must not be true :) :).

    Is “Coz” in reference to the drummer? Seems an odd way to bring up his name.

    Castbound,

    I appoint myself the Judge on the evidence for God. The atheists are too bias to make an accurate assessment so the position is mine.

    So, after careful deliberation, yes, God does exist.

    I like the moon landing analogy. It fits quite well.

  113. on 09 Jul 2012 at 1:55 am 113.alex said …

    “Babies don’t believe in evolution either, hey, so that must not be true.”

    congrats on being the newest moron. or are you the standby sock? is this site called whyevolutionwonthealamputees?

    who’s talking about evolution? you see, your side shit doesn’t work. babies don’t believe that the earth is round, hey, so that must not be true. see your failed attempt?

    “you do pass judgment alex”

    because i called you a moron? feeling that pseudo-persecution? ok, to shut your ass, i’ll play along. i passed gas and judgment. is this is your god evidence, my gas?

    i bet you get along fine with your muslim and mormon brothers? show us some links with your posts?

  114. on 09 Jul 2012 at 2:30 am 114.Lou(DFW) said …

    109.CASTBOUND said …

    “Notice that without even knowing what I believe you post “It simply states that your belief in god is unfounded”.

    We KNOW that your belief in god is unfounded because unless you present your evidence that is greater than the all the other (non) evidence for god, then it’s unfounded – it’s that simple. Oh yea, you didn’t bother to present said evidence.

    “I have bad news. You are not qualified to judge my facts for God.”

    Yes, we are. We are just as qualified to judge any “facts” for god as you are qualified to judge “facts” for Santa Claus.

    “I realize atheist frequently believe they are qualified to pass a verdict but that credence is groundless. I in turn simply pass my judgment that your lack of belief is unfounded.”

    But you don’t have any way to know that until you present said evidence. So go ahead, prove us wrong.

    “I do not seek validation from the bloggers since it is not requisite.”

    Irrelevant.

    “I merely asked for a question to be answered. Sharing support for God with irrational atheist is much like attempting to demonstrate to the moon landing deniers we landed on the moon. I don’t waste precious breaths in contention with them.”

    Actually, moon landing deniers aren’t simply that. They allege not that the moon landing did not happen, they allege that it was staged, a “cover-up,” and conspiracy. But just as there’s no evidence for that, there’s no evidence for god. In effect, you are “moon landing denier nut.”

    “Well thank you for answering my initial question. That was what I desired to analyze.”

    I remind you, you didn’t provide any evidence for your imaginary god, so until you do, you are of the moon landing deniers nuts.

  115. on 09 Jul 2012 at 2:54 am 115.DPK said …

    109.CASTBOUND said …
    Notice that without even knowing what I believe you post “It simply states that your belief in god is unfounded”. This shows you to be judgmental and unreasonable.”

    No, I said that unless you present a foundation for your belief, your belief is unfounded. Stop re-writing what was said. It is not a judgement, it is a fact. How dense are you?

    “I have bad news. You are not qualified to judge my facts for God.”
    As I thought. A dodge. You have nothing. If you had proof your god was real, why should it be a problem for you to convince someone else?

    “I do not seek validation from the bloggers since it is not requisite.”

    And yet, here you are, seeking exactly that. Curious.

  116. on 09 Jul 2012 at 3:35 am 116.Prime said …

    100.Scott said …

    “Its a shame how the Roman Catholic church misinterpreted Scripture and persecuted Galileo. A good thing Martin Luther came along to straighten out matters.”

    Methinks you might want to read a little more about Martin Luther. Start with his “Seven Point Plan” from “On the Jews and their Lies.” Follow up by reading more about him in Mein Kampf. It doesn’t even qualify as Godwin’s law to bring Hitler up when Luther comes up as a hero-figure. Jesus Christ. Learn your history.

  117. on 09 Jul 2012 at 3:36 am 117.Anonymous said …

    Once again we see the curious double standard that applies only to religion.

    Castbound essentially declares that his facts don’t need to be presented, all he needs do is state that he has them.

    How ludicrous.

    Present your case, Castbound. There’s no middle ground here. Either you have a case or you don’t and if you continue to play games of evasion, then not only are you showing that you have nothing, you’re also proving that you’ve known that all along but were too afraid to admit it. You’ve been called out and now you’ve been caught out too.

  118. on 09 Jul 2012 at 3:48 am 118.Prime said …

    109.CASTBOUND said …

    “I in turn simply pass my judgment that your lack of belief is unfounded.”

    That word “unfounded” you are using. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Let me help: Unfounded means “lacking foundation.” Your beliefs lack a foundation, as there is no evidence for God that passes any kind of muster.

    On the other hand, a lack of belief in the existence of something cannot have a lack of foundation. We choose to believe things based upon a foundation for those beliefs. This is not the same as denial, which may need a foundation. This is lack of belief.

    What you’re engaging in here is a shift of the burden of proof, though a slightly more subtle one than the crass horseshit that passes from Crum, ASStro, etc., wherein they say it’s someone’s job to disprove the existence of God.

    As has been done on numerous occasions, though, the existence of the God claimed in the bible has been disproved as a logical impossibility. That requires you guys to invent some wishy-washy philosophical conception of God, which is necessarily a metaphor, to hide out with until the discussion “forgets” the clear contradictions, at which point, like whack-a-moles, you guys stick your God of the bible back into the fray like the tired, repetitive joke that everyone hates.

    If you’re honest, get with it. If you’re a troll, get out.

  119. on 09 Jul 2012 at 4:00 am 119.Prime said …

    PS: Insofar as your wishy-washy God inventing goes, it’s a real shame for you that the Church Fathers were such small-minded dudes and did such a poor job of it, painting you guys into a corner of embarrassment that sat festering under church-state control until the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment shed the light of objectivity, free inquiry, and honesty upon the whole thing. Now that it’s out in the open, it leaves you guys just looking stupid, whether you actually are or not.

  120. on 09 Jul 2012 at 4:58 am 120.Severin said …

    #109
    “You are not qualified to judge my facts for God.”

    What “facts for god”?
    The ONLY fact you provided was the fact you believe in god, which is good for you, and we DO believe that you believe in god.

    Now we expect to see/hear some evidences that that god from your mind exists.
    Everything else is blah blah.

  121. on 09 Jul 2012 at 5:31 am 121.Severin said …

    #119
    “Now that it’s out in the open, it leaves you guys just looking stupid, whether you actually are or not”

    Crazy, not stupid.
    They have voices in their heads.

    Poor people are unison only in claiming that there is a god, but when they come to attributes of their gods and to procedures of worshiping thereof, the “creation” problems, …, they become as (dangerous) children: “My dad is stronger than your dad”, “My dad can brake winds louder than your dad”, …
    If someone doesn’t think those “children” are dangerous, please see: 9/11 + thousands of religion wars + burning people alive (today!) + blowing clinics + …

    Bin Laden was not stupid. He was CRAZY.

  122. on 09 Jul 2012 at 11:40 am 122.buzz said …

    Severin, i love you posts :) keep up the good work

  123. on 09 Jul 2012 at 4:15 pm 123.Prime said …

    I don’t think so, Severin, not to make a full argument of it. Many are crazy, but most don’t hear the voices in their heads. Most want to cling to a belief structure that they think makes them feel better about things that they’re afraid of, and they ignore evidence and reason to do it.

    Where they start to look stupid is when they are unable to trace the logical consequences of their beliefs and where they have absolutely no reliable knowledge about the foundations of their beliefs, including in the case I was making, the historical situation and philosophical nonsense that underwrote their religion, painting them into a corner of contradictory ideas that have to be suspended upon calling them an “impenetrable mystery.”

    Indeed, there is no mystery, just the attempt to hold together poorly crafted, contradictory ideas simultaneously, backed up by scrawlings that have been repeatedly identified as contrary to what we know from science and, indeed, moral reasoning. This, particularly, is the part that makes them appear stupid, along with intellectually lazy and perhaps crazy too.

  124. on 09 Jul 2012 at 6:03 pm 124.Lou(DFW) said …

    121.Severin said …

    “Bin Laden was not stupid. He was CRAZY.”

    He was neither stupid nor crazy, at least not anymore crazy than any other Middle Eastern religious fanatic. And he didn’t die from any suicide mission, did he?

    But who knows, maybe he wasn’t that religious at all, and he used the religious stupidity of his followers to strike at the U.S. Religious people are sheep.

  125. on 09 Jul 2012 at 7:47 pm 125.Severin said …

    #123 + #124
    O.K., people, I can agree with both of you.
    My English is poor (self-taught, remember?), and maybe I can’t recognize the subtle differentiation in meanings of words, especially in different contexts.

    Anyway, someone who was doing something as terrible as B.L. did, can’t be normal.

    I don’t think those guys posting here are crazy or stupid (although some of them probably are), but they can’t be completely normal. They use logic in all possible situations except when talking religion (i.e.: god/leprechauns).
    That must be some sort of mental disturbance, wouldn’t you say?

  126. on 09 Jul 2012 at 10:42 pm 126.Lou(DFW) said …

    125.Severin said …

    “That must be some sort of mental disturbance, wouldn’t you say?”

    I think religious delusion is the result of several factors, one of which is an innate characteristic that some people cannot overcome. But for the most part, it’s simple stupidity and the fear of the unknown.

  127. on 09 Jul 2012 at 10:43 pm 127.Lou(DFW) said …

    P.S. It’s also partly the result of social peer pressure, not to mention years of indoctrination.

  128. on 09 Jul 2012 at 11:06 pm 128.Lou(DFW) said …

    “There’s even an episode where you see a clear light, like light at the end of the tunnel.”

    http://tinyurl.com/bmemjkl

  129. on 09 Jul 2012 at 11:34 pm 129.alex said …

    maybe religion reinforces the racist, homophobic, or sexist tendencies? kinda explains the redneck attitudes.

    also the prospect of going to heaven instead of hell is a motivation that overrides all the ridiculous stuff in the bible. it’s a packaged deal. some folks say they are liberal, tolerant and all that but at the end of the day, to them, women are subservient and homosexuals are sinners.

    of course, there are a few folk that believe in christ only and not in the rest of the nonsense. it’s kinda difficult to reconcile, but i’ll just leave them alone if they’re not pushy.

    now on to the morons. standing by, awaiting more nonsense, misdirections, and spell checking.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply