MovieChat Forums > Religion, Faith, and Spirituality > Question about Noah's Flood

Question about Noah's Flood

posted 4 years ago by MovieChatUser497 (18943)
44 replies | jump to latest

After the flood what did all of the animals eat? I mean food webs as we know it are out now because if a lion eats one of the I don't know deer then the deer population is done with because now there's only one deer left. If a species of snake eats a mouse then that mouse population is done because there's only one left.

What did herbivores eat? If the flood covered the entire world then there's no way sunlight would penetrate that deep and therefore the plants would have all died after the flood.

Where did all of the water come from? If the entire world were flooded that boat that had millions of organisms on it (2 of every 8.7 million species we have today (give or take)) were above the altitude of Mt. Everest wouldn't they have frozen? (the atmosphere is heated by conduction, the sun heats the surface then the surface heats the atmosphere, but water is not a good conductor of heat so therefore it's going to take forever for the water to heat up that means it's going to take a long time for the air to heat up, in the meantime Noah and everyone on his boat are in sub zero conditions and are shoveling out at least a foot of snow every minute as in order for the world to have been flooded that quickly like at least a foot of rain had to have fallen every minute).

I've been told that if I don't accept this story along with the rest of the bible then all kinds of horrible things are going to happen to me after I die but I'm having trouble with all of these glaring contradictions to science and logic as we know it. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14379) 4 years ago

You wouldn't be the first to ask such questions, and it's not blasphemous to do so. There are many questions we kids asked in Sunday school about the logistics behind such phenomena, and in some ways, it doesn't make sense, but then again, we weren't there when it happened. All we have to go on is what's written in the Scriptures.

From what I recall, the flood was begun by rainstorms all around the world, that lasted for 40 days and 40 nights. When Noah sent out the raven and the dove, the rain had stopped, the sun had come out, and the floodwaters had begun to retreat, with the ark landing on Mount Ararat. By then, there would have been [very soggy] grass around, left over from the flood, as well as trees and other plants. There were also seeds floating around in the air that would have landed in the [again, very soggy] soil, and started growing back.

Did you know that to this day, there are people who still visit Mount Ararat, trying to find remnants of Noah's Ark?

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Right but all of the plants would have died because they were buried under 29,000 feet of water, sunlight cannot penetrate that far down so they definitely would have all died, so how are the herbivores going to eat once the flood is over?

Also rainwater comes from the evaporation of surface water, therefore once it rains all that is doing is replacing the water that had been evaporated and it all evens out. If I am to believe this flood myth somewhere there had to have been extra water that came from somewhere?

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14379) 4 years ago

Noah still had hay in the ark, and there was a lot of dead grass they could eat. They would be very dumb animals not to take advantage of the dead, soggy grass around the area.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

But there wouldn't be grass, the grass would have died due to lack of sunlight, not all of the animals would have eaten hay, like a lion is going to want to eat a giraffe (or whatever) but it can't because if it does there goes the species.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14379) 4 years ago

That's is one other thing that confused me: you can't keep a species alive with just one mating pair. You need a reasonably large pool of any one species to keep them going and to prevent inbreeding. For human's it's 60 people at minimum (30 men, 30 women), and even then, they'd have to have the women have 3 different children with 3 different men to keep genetic diversity up.

It has been reasoned that the predatory animals were calmed by God when on the Ark, so they wouldn't eat the other animals or hurt Noah and his family, and they left soon after the boat landed and let everyone out. But that doesn't answer what the predatory animals ate on the ark during the 40 days and nights they were there (unless Noah kept dried meat in his food reserves, or he and his family fished during that time period).

I did read that one thing they get wrong in every Noah's Ark movie and cartoon is, they make it look like he built that boat in a week, when it actually took 10-20 years. Considering the primitive technology, and the fact that only he and his family were working on the Ark in all that time (and it was a very big boat), that doesn't surprise me one bit. It would have been plenty of time to gather food resources needed to last 40 days and nights.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I see, so how does that work? How does an invisible deity tell a predator not to eat its natural prey? I highly doubt that Noah fished considering if the flood flooded the world in 40 days then the amount of rain that would have fallen would not only alter the salt balance of the oceans and kill the fish but also the seas would have been so rough it would have been impossible. Plus I think it's like 10,000 feet in altitude temperature is below freezing (Mt. Everest is about 29,000 feet) so fishing is pretty much out by that point. Where would Noah have room to store all of this meat? How did he keep the carnivores from eating the herbivores? Wouldn't the meat go bad considering they didn't have refrigeration back then?

Yeah as far as building the ark goes Ken Ham needed an entire construction crew, Noah definitely didn't have that.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 4 years ago

It has been reasoned that the predatory animals were calmed by God when on the Ark, so they wouldn't eat the other animals or hurt Noah and his family, and they left soon after the boat landed and let everyone out. But that doesn't answer what the predatory animals ate on the ark during the 40 days and nights they were there (unless Noah kept dried meat in his food reserves, or he and his family fished during that time period).

That's not the problem. The problem is, what did they eat after the flood?

Oh, and the animals weren't on the ark for 40 days and nights. That's how long it took to flood the earth. After those 40 days and nights, the earth - according to the Bible - stayed flooded for a year before the waters receded.

[–] Kazak (2187) 4 years ago

It still hasn't occurred to them. The Epic of Gilgamesh is clearly a very credible story.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

The Flood Story exists in all Mesopotamian cultures religions and myths; there is more beyond the Noah's arc story; therefor it is very likely the stories come from the same source (either an older story or event).

Mesopotamia mean "land between 2 rivers", the Tigris and Euphrates, while this provided the source (river resources that allowed settlement) for the dawn of human civilization it also posed the biggest natural disaster threat to them.

Now you have to question what the bible means by "world". At the time the land between 2 rivers was the known world. If it rained for 40 days and 40 nights the mesopoatamia area (known world) would have been completely flooded for 339,689 miles squared (the entirety of the Tigris-Euphrates system). This is not only possible but all evidence points to likely happened. So did the bible mean the "world" was covered in water, or the "planet"? By close analysis of the original texts language it almost always translates to "World".

Of course this does not prove any individual flood story is "true" it just means the event likely happened.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

So world doesn't mean planet? What are you basing this on? So are you saying that the entire planet wasn't flooded? If that's the case then how could God ensure that only two of each species survived? That means he didn't hit the reset button like the story claims.

Thank you very much for your clarification because this whole story just isn't making a whole lot of sense to me and I really really don't want to be tortured for eternity when I die.

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"So world doesn't mean planet? What are you basing this on? So are you saying that the entire planet wasn't flooded?"

Based on the translation of the Hebrew that the original books of Moses were written in. I am by no means a Hebrew scholar but I have done some reading on material by Hebrew scholars. Gerald Schroeder is one, I can't remember which book (I think Genesis and the big bang) he discusses this but from that and other translations of the word "world" more accurately translates to what was thought of as the world, which would have been the understanding of the known world of the people at the time. Before discovering the Americas when people of Europe called something "the world" they unknowingly did not include the other 2 continents. Likely the same in the biblical time

The story is an allegory; the flood was likely real, I doubt Noah was an individual Noah and the idea of saving animals was probably more like a community; if the biblical version of the flood story is the more 'authentic' version of what happened.

"how could God ensure that only two of each species survived"

I doubt that it ever meant 2 of every species. did that include the millions of species of bugs and reptiles and such? I really don't think that story is meant to be taken literally anymore than the Epic of Gilgamesh is (another flood story from the Mesopotamia area (likely it predates the biblical flood story)

" I really really don't want to be tortured for eternity when I die."

I don't believe in God; per-say; I don't not believe in the idea either (if that makes sense); but I am pretty sure no where in teh bible (I have read it) does it say you will be damned for having doubts. The christian narrative states all one needs to do to avoid damnation is accept Jesus as your god and repent of your sins. If the repentance is true (which will reflect in a character change in you) then you are saved; if the repentance is false then you will not have a character change.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Ok so what I am gathering the flood didn’t literally happen? Please feel free to correct me if I don’t have your stance correct and thank you. And yeah maybe the Hebrews didn’t know of the other continents but God certainly would have and the Bible says all land was flooded and if it wasn’t then that means more than just two of every species survived so his plan to reset the earths biosphere didn’t work

Also there are verses that say the non believers will go to hell to be tortured, I do not believe in god as I do not see any evidence and I can’t be convinced by fear so according to the Bible all kinds of horrible things are going to happen to me when I die. But if that’s not the case thank you so much for laying my fears to rest

Also one more question how do you differentiate between what in the Bible is an allegory and what is literal? It doesn’t seem to be very clear thanks again

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

From my interpretation of the biblical story and the fact that literally every Mesopotamian civilization of that time has a flood story, I believe this is pretty concrete evidence "A Great Flood" did happen and this flood covered teh entire Mesopotamian world. The people writing the story would not have understood that the entire planet was not covered in water; the "world" as far as they knew was. Hence why the hebrew is specific in the difference in teh word "world" and "planet". Again I am not a Hebrew Scholar, so this is second hand information from years ago when i did the reading; for the most accurate understanding of the words, their meaning and their translation you will have to do the heavy lifting and read deep into this stuff. It is not simple.

I believe also that if the Noah story is the more accurate 'authentic" flood story then it is likely that "Noah" was not an individual but a community that did this Ark thing and made an effort to save 2 of every species. As for how the animals didn't eat each other question; same way as in a Zoo, keep them separated. As for feeding them; I am sure they came up with something. People, IMO, were smarter back in the days that they did not have such easy access to information. Today we are more knowledgeable but it is unearned knowledge that lacks proper understanding.

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"Also there are verses that say the non believers will go to hell to be tortured,"

The entirety of the new testament is about Jesus being the "way, truth and the light" and that "whoever believes in him" and repents of their sins will be saved. If you don't believe in god, I see no reason to fear hell. Also it depends on what one means by "believe" this is not a cut and dry definition. Is it not possible to believe in the truth of a moral or story and think the event it is based on is not factually accurate? I think it is possible.

"Also one more question how do you differentiate between what in the Bible is an allegory and what is literal? It doesn’t seem to be very clear thanks again"

That is a good question. I think a majority of the events are literal. Because there are other cultures stories that share the events (which is an indication they are based on the same source). In the Same way that I think the City of Troy really was sacked. But does that mean the Iliad is a literal story? I don't think so.

With the bible I think the further back it goes the more allegorical it is. The more modern it is the more literal. This is why you see less "god like" miraculous interventions; floods, plagues, fire tornadoes and storms (stuff like that) as the stories become more recent. Especially right after the Jesus stories are done, there are actually very few 'miracles'. Which I find interesting in terms of matching reality.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Hmmmm interesting, I’m sure at some point there was a flood (whether it was caused by God is a whole other discussion) , just about every where on earth was flooded at some point just the Noah story in the Bible seems very far fetched if you take it at face value, obviously you don’t but again I don’t see how you determine what is literal and what I’d allegorical. Also if the Bible is truly the word of god wouldn’t he know about the other continents? Or is it not the word of God? Also from what I understand like a few decades after this flood apparently happened they were building the pyramids in Egypt , I think that pretty much debunks the entire global flood assertion , no way Noah’s family would be able to produce that amount of people in such a short amount of time.

It’s good to hear though that atheists don’t have to worry about eternal torture and I can tell all of the Bible thumpers I come across tang they are wrong. Thank you for relieving me of my anxiety on that one

It also seems that the more we discover more of the Bible Becomes “allegorical” an interesting coincidence that’s all

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

" again I don’t see how you determine what is literal and what I’d allegorical."

for me it is subject to change base on evidence I see. The flood stories of Mesopotamia are way too similar to not come to a conclusion they come from a single source. Either an older event or story. IT is not hard to believe the area of Mesopotamia could be covered by water and in fact there is some evidence it happened more than once within the last 10,000 years. Flooding was the biggest concern of the people of that civilization; likely because it happened for them at least once in their collective history. Other Parts I take with a grain of salt; I believe the exodus happened and I do believe they were able to somehow cross the red sea. God parting it for them? No I doubt that, but I believe they interpreted whatever made it possible was god's intervention. If that makes sense? Jesus was pretty indisputably a real person who was crucified under questionable circumstances (not uncommon in those days) , now water to wine and raising the dead, probably not.

"Or is it not the word of God?"

Depends on what the bible means by "word of God". Most christians believe the bible itself is the "word of god" which is odd because when those words were being spoken the bible had not been assembled yet and for all intensive purpose didn't exist and few actually could read any of the existing scriptures (the scrolls were not manuscripts that would be widely distributed). So what did the authors mean by the "word of God"? I don't have an answer but I don't think they meant "The Bible" which didn't exist.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

That is true, again I am sure at some point there was a flood in that area. The idea that it;s a supernatural flood caused by God seems to be an assumption that is not supported by any kind of evidence. I have no problem conceding that a flood may have happened, they happen all the time, just about everywhere on Earth was flooded at one point. The leap in logic these people seem to take seems to be that A) It was supernatural and not natural and B) It was caused by God. There's no evidence for either. What I've noticed that theists often do is if they can't explain something they just put a supernatural label on it which is fallacious, if you can't explain it then the answer is "I don't know" until you have a justification for an answer. They may have thought the flood was supernatural at one point but now that we know more about science and how floods happen it seems there is no evidence that it was supernatural and now the entire story has become "allegorical", I have a feeling more parts of the bible will become "allegorical" as we find out more information, meaning there was never any justification to label them as supernatural to begin with.

Ah yes if it's "the word of God" that means that God spoke the words of the bible and it came from him directly. I don't see any evidence that it is and I am leaning towards it was just written by people and people write down things that aren't true all the time (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc.)

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

If I was to ever believe in a 'creator' I would only accept this being operates within the limits of physics (this makes sense to me in a way too; why would a god create physical limits and then immediately start breaking the rules for his own objective). But miracles do happen and depending on how you define it supernatural things do as well. As I stated in another thread; physical reality should not exist and neither should biological life. The mathematical physical impossibility of it means that it happening was a miracle (even if it was a "miracle of science"). Supernatural just means "anything outside the known limitations of the natural" the fact that we know about quantum physics and quantum computing means there is "supernatural" stuff happening all the time; stuff outside of our knowable reality having an impact on our reality. Now that does not prove that there is A God that is personally interested in our day to day lives; but there is something beyond our perception influencing our reality.

As for "word of God" i interpret this to mean anything that was interpreted to be divine intervention. I do not think the authors were lying or telling fiction stories. I get the impression that they believed what they wrote to be true; the events as it was told to them and in some cases first hand experience (such as the writings of the Apostle Paul. They were not lying, they really believed it to be the truth as they comprehended it. This is especially true for the christian writers of that time because they would not be willing to die horribly for a lie, not that many of them anyway. They went to the grave painfully praising Jesus and not once breaking in what they said up to that point. They believed it; that does not mean it is what actually happened of course but that is the power of belief.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Hmmm what is a miracle and what is supernatural and how do you know they exist? If you discover some new force that caused something you once labeled a miracle wouldn’t that make it not a miracle? That’s why I think the supernatural is a fallacy. There’s nothing miraculous about the appearance of life, theists love using this probability argument but the problem is they are making a prediction after the fact. The probability that I would be typing this message at this point in time at this position in the universe also has a low probability by theistic logic but so what? It’s like buying a lottery ticket after the numbers have been called. I am sure there is a lot that we don’t know about the universe, like a lot, but that doesn’t give anyone a justification to call it God or the supernatural, the logical answer for now is “I don’t know” and let’s go find the answer. Some people think that if they don’t know something then it’s justifiable to put a god label on it. If the people who wrote the Bible truly believed it that’s fine I’m not going to argue they didn’t but that also does not prove at all that any of it is true. The degree that someone believes something is irrelevant to the validity

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Read my comment here for a little more detail:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000108/Religion-Faith-and-Spirituality/5efc18b440c732014c33ea83/Hasnt-evolution-shown-that-Christianity-is-false?reply=5f2c5127f1477c4ddcf2dc2c

"The probability that I would be typing this message at this point in time at this position in the universe also has a low probability by theistic logic but so what"

This is not how probability works. You track an event and look at the develoment what took place and look at things that would stop it and then you calculate out how likely all the things happening combined together are. In Short, biological life is not possible; it is not just unlikely it is a mathematical impossibility. I don't think that this proves there is a god; I think this was a miracle but a mathematical/scientific miracle. One day we might find out what made it possible but in my interpretation of the word it is still a miracle.

"that also does not prove at all that any of it is true"

What do you mean by true? if they believed it then they were telling the truth. They could have been wrong and believed incorrectly; but they told the truth as best they could. Now with factual validity; some of it happened as they said it did, some of it most likely didn't. You can split hairs forever on whether or not things from that long ago happened as we understand them; it is hard to get a fix on history if with the presence writing and records which really only started in the Roman era. I am not so arrogant that I think what they saw, heard and reported on was by default untrue. I take with a grain of salt and doubt it; but I don't dismiss it entirely. That is too rigid and doesn't leave you open to objective interpretation of the evidence.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

I did read that comment and I agree that’s not how probability works but that is the way theists think probability works. When you say that there’s only a so and so billion chance that life could have formed you again are making predictions after the fact. I mean what’s t he probability that Jupiter would have a Great Red Spot or Saturn would have the rings it does, or that we would have one moon. The truth is we aren’t too entirely sure how life began but the proposed models (abiogenesis) do have some justification. The thing is I would rather just go and find out rather than just say “oh it’s a miracle case closed” which is what theists want to do. What I mean by true is exactly what I said that the stuff the Bible claims actually happened. I will concede there are some things in the Bible that have been confirmed but that doesn’t mean the Bible is true by default. I can concede that there was probably a man named Jesus who was crucified that doesn’t mean he rose from the dead

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"It’s good to hear though that atheists"

I do not define myself as atheist, and in fact I find much of the 'atheist's' interpretation of history and religion to be way too emotionally invested to be objective. I am more akin to agnostic; because i am not sure if I care either way if God exists or if the bible is true; I think there are things about the belief system that are good and 'true' more true than other religions. I also find too much of the focus of athiesm is targeting Christianity above other, arguably more harmful religions, so I find the motives suspicious. In addition; Atheism seems dedicated to trying to prove this religion is wrong, or that scripture is contradictory to science or this or that religion has this flaw. I find that counter productive, even if they proved every religion false; that does not prove there is no God or creator; it would just prove people are stupid and prone to false interpretations of reality. In many cases I find "Atheism" indistinguishable from "anti-religious" and a majority of those many cases it is specifically "anti-christian". That is not science, that is not objectivity; that is agenda using science as a weapon to destroy an 'enemy'. This, IMO, usurps the purpose of science and reason, and basically makes a mockery of it.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

There are two kinds of atheists: Agnostic and Gnostic. If you don't accept theistic claims then you are an atheist but a gnostic atheist will say "there is no God, I know there is no God", an agnostic atheist will say "I see no evidence for a God but I can't prove there isn't one", I am an agnostic atheist. Agnostic atheists do not have a burden of proof, gnostic atheists do. The same applies for theists: Agnostic theists will say "I believe there's a God but I can't say I know for sure", Gnostic theists will say: "I know there is a God with 100% certainty". I think that in the US atheists "target" Christianity just because that's the dominant religion and it was probably the religion their parents attempted to indoctrinate them with. If they lived in Kuwait they would probably be "Targeting" Islam, if they lived in India it would probably be Hinduism. In the US there isn't much point in pointing out the flaws in Islam, Hinduism, etc. because the vast majority of the people around them don't accept those religions anyways, but yes Christianity has as little evidence behind it as any other religion. Atheism is not about disproving religion, it's about not accepting religion until theists can prove their claims. Atheism isn't an assertion, it's just a non-acceptance of theistic claims. Science also has nothing to do with this but it gets brought up because theists attempt to justify their beliefs with science (very poorly) and then the discussion becomes about science and educating theists as to why they are not thinking scientifically nor does the evidence point to the conclusion that they decided they wanted (which is the opposite of how science works). This is what gets under my skin when theists attempt to hijack science to justify their non-scientific assertions.

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"If you don't accept theistic claims then you are an atheist"

here is the thing though; what do you mean by "accept" theistic claims and what about deistic religions? Those exist too. If a theist claims to believe in god; you have no choice but to accept that THEY BELIEVE IN GOD. atheist try to somehow say they can't prove it in your interpretation of agnostic you are saying "I see no evidence for a God" but at the same time there is this tendency to not want to accept this and demand proof. quite simply they don't have to prove to you what they believe.

" If they lived in Kuwait they would probably be "Targeting" Islam, if they lived in India it would probably be Hinduism"

Have you ever been around the world? This does not happen. Atheists in other 'non-christian' countries do not go after other religions. Look at india, china, Russia, Japan. There is no atheist movement against other religions in those areas. When is the last time you stated and took issue with or questioned the validity Quran or Purana; combined Islam and Hinduism are a much larger religion than Christianity.

"religion their parents attempted to indoctrinate them with."

why use the word "indoctrinate" that is such an antagonist way of looking at it. People practice the religion of their family; and their family before them. When they have children they don't stop practicing they try to maintain a family and a community with their people. Calling this "indoctrination" I find highly suspicious; you cannot be objective if you are bitter or scornful about this subject.

"it's about not accepting religion until theists can prove their claims."

And yet atheist accept all kinds of things they have not studied for themselves and yet they make claims of scientific evidence that they neither actually know or understand. Dawkins says something and the good little atheist repeats it (sounds Like a religion to me).

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

If you don’t accept there is a god then you are an atheist. Theists believe there is a god, atheists do not. You don’t have to be able to prove there isn’t a god to be an atheist, now if they atheist says they know there isn’t a god then they’ve taken on a burden of proof which would be gnostic atheism. Agnostics don’t have to prove anything.

Hmmmm what do you mean when you say atheists go after other religions? If you mean just trying to have a discussion we’ll that’s not what I would call going after. Yes some atheists are disrespectful to theists and I don’t condone that, it does go the other way, I’ve been told multiple times I’m going to hell which is a pretty sick thing to say.

And yeah when a parent tells a child that God is real no question about it and you have to accept it then that is indoctrination if the kid is such a young age that they can’t logically think for themselves. Kids look up to their parents and trust them.

What are these things you claim atheists accept without evidence? I’ll remind you atheism isn’t an assertion it’s just saying “I don’t believe you” when theists day there is a god.

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"what do you mean when you say atheists go after other religions?"

No , I am saying Atheists don't go after other religions and scriptures (at least not often). The focus is unequally directed against a single religion. I find that to be a sign of bad faith motivations.

" If you mean just trying to have a discussion we’ll that’s not what I would call going after."

That is often not the case; atheist have this scornful dismissive attitude that Christians take as a sign of hostility. You have this attitude as well, I can see it in your word choice: "indoctrinate" "burden of proof" " theists attempt to hijack science" (many atheist do the same thing). Your tone is riddled with scorn, how is a christian not supposed to take that scorn as an attack on their faith?

"I’ll remind you atheism isn’t an assertion it’s just saying “I don’t believe you” when theists day there is a god."

This is a splitting hairs argument I actually hate. Atheist DO believe something they believe there is not enough evidence to justify belief. That IS a belief because for religious they look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. Atheist try to wiggle their way out of having any burden of proof by saying "I am not making a claim I am contesting your claim". Contesting a claim with claiming things IS a claim that has just as much burden of proof as the religious claims have.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Well I can’t speak for other atheists but I debate Christians most of the time just because that happens to be the people I encounter although I have debated a Muslim before and didn’t show him any special treatment, I do find it odd that some people think Christianity is so radical yet give Islam a pass when Islam is a far more extreme and violent religion. Well the way I see it telling your kids Christianity is objectively true and you just accept it or go to hell is indoctrination that’s how I see it and I think that satisfies the definition, not trying to attack anyone’s faith I just don’t think it’s fair to the child when the child doesn’t have the ability to know any better. Atheism is not a claim unless you are saying you do know there isn’t a god. You don’t need to disprove Christianity wrong to not accept it. I could tell them the FSM is real and they would not need to disprove it to not believe me, it would be my job to prove it. If you state the claim you accept the BOP

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Sorry, I know I said it was the last comment before but 1 thing you said stands out to me here:

"Well the way I see it telling your kids Christianity is objectively true and you just accept it or go to hell is indoctrination that’s how I see it and I think that satisfies the definition"

This is almost NEVER how it works. People don't tell their kids to practice the faith or go to hell; the kids are just brought up in the community and end up believing because that is what they know; it is the community they know; the people the culture. It happens naturally, it would be no different in an Atheistic dominated culture; the rituals would just be different. The fact this is how it plays out in your head says something about your view of religion. There is so much scorn and bitterness in this statement. If you were told 'you are going to hell' if you don't believe, I am sorry; but those people were not doing "Christianity"(or any religion for that matter) right. It is supposed to be the 'promise' of Gods love and forgiveness that people focus on in Christianity; not threats of hell. I do believe that people are by nature bad; I have seen too much evil as the result of laziness and desperation to think otherwise; so you can say the idea of a fallen people needing forgiveness to me sounds like a good message. Not the threat of hell though. The places I have been to, hell is a real place, it is here on earth. Go spend sometime in Sudan after the rebel insurgency goes through villages or Afghanistan when the Taliban 'makes a statement'.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Well I guess I'll just have to speak from experience and from what I've observed and heard from people. That was how I was brought up and it terrified me at first when I started to question whether this stuff was really true or not. In my experience that was indoctrination, I was threatened with eternal torture should I ever stray too far from the reservation. I'm willing to concede that's not how it is in every household, but it certainly is in some, how many? what percentage? well I guess that's up for debate. But regardless forcing a religion on a child well before they have the mental ability to think for themselves in indoctrination. I have a very neutral view of religion, if it's proven to me then I'll accept it but so far it hasn't so I don't accept it. Yes the idea of atone for what you do wrong is a good statement I agree with that, I just think some people take things way too far, I have seen articles about parents throwing their kids out of the house because they were atheist which is absolutely horrible. Oh yes the Middle East is a war zone and most of it is being done in the name of their religion, I believe I said on another post that Islam is far more radical than Christianity, I would much rather live in a Christian nation than a Muslim nation, I would probably be stoned to death simply for who I am if I lived in Saudi Arabia and I do think it's quite hypocritical of some people to attack Christians for being intolerant (a lot of them are not but some are) while they make every excuse in the book for radical Islamic extremists.

BTW what is your opinion of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYtYQ0a7btQ&t=2s . I am fully conceding that these parents have a right to do this despite the fact that I don't agree with it.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 3 years ago

an agnostic atheist will say "I see no evidence for a God but I can't prove there isn't one"

An agnostic atheist, if he expresses himself honestly, will say "of course I can't prove there is no god, but I am as certain as it is possible to be that there isn't one." And that's nearly all atheists, myself included.

The way you describe an agnostic atheist here is not an atheist at all, but someone who is completely on the fence. "It's a 50/50 proposition, as far as I'm concerned." That's not an atheist, but someone who is undecided.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Not really because if you see no evidence for a God then the logical position is to not believe in a God. Whether or not you can prove there isn’t one is irrelevant.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 3 years ago

Not really because if you see no evidence for a God then the logical position is to not believe in a God. Whether or not you can prove there isn’t one is irrelevant.

It's not as simple as that. When one hears a claim, one immediately forms an opinion whether or not one finds it believable. And that can range from "that totally makes sense" to "what a bunch of nonsense". I have yet to find a single atheist who merely lacks belief in gods. All atheists actively believe that deities are non-existent. If you do not believe that, then you must necessarily believe that the god-claims have merit, even if you are not convinced of their existence.

To illustrate my point:

1. I claim to be a doctor.
You do not know me from Adam, so you have no idea whether this is true or not. Maybe I am, maybe I ain't. You have no belief either way.

2. I claim to be the Dalai Lama.
You don't know me from Adam, but this is obviously nonsense. The likelihood of the Dalai Lama having an account on these boards, and using the handle "Karl Aksel" is practically nil. Even though it could happen, the chances are so slim that they can safely be discarded as nonsense. In other words, in this case you can safely assume I'm full of shit, and the only evidence you need is my claim.

Just for the record, I am not a doctor. Nor am I the Dalai Lama, in case you should have any doubts.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

If someone makes a claim then they hold the burden of proof, sure if the claim sounds reasonable then one may go ahead and accept it if A) The claim sounds like it could happen and B) the source is reliable. However that is not the case with the bible as many of the assertions in the bible completely contradict what we know about the laws of nature so therefore the default position is to not accept those claims.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 3 years ago

However that is not the case with the bible as many of the assertions in the bible completely contradict what we know about the laws of nature so therefore the default position is to not accept those claims.

No, further than that: if a claim is made that contradicts what we know about the laws of nature, and no evidence is presented in favour of that claim, then not only can we refrain from accepting those claims but we can discard them as false.

Like injecting or ingesting bleach as a treatment for covid - do we say "I do not accept that claim"? No, we go beyond that, and say "that's a dangerous load of horseshit". And sure, you can say that this is a claim that has a burden of proof, but this burden of proof has already been met.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

The thing is we can prove that ingesting bleach is harmful to humans and can kill them. We don't need to be able to disprove the bible because the bible was never proven in the first place.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 3 years ago

The thing is we can prove that ingesting bleach is harmful to humans and can kill them. We don't need to be able to disprove the bible because the bible was never proven in the first place.

We don't need to, but we can. The very notion of a deity is unscientific, which is why we can say it is nonsense. And I dare say you believe it to be nonsense, too, for that reason. I haven't proven I'm a doctor, but I can be, so it could be 50/50 as far as you're concerned. But don't tell me that you think God is a 50/50 proposition.

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"It also seems that the more we discover more of the Bible Becomes “allegorical” an interesting coincidence that’s all"

aspects of it become allegorical; most of the events don't though. In the same way the event of Greece Sacking Troy; a real event and some of the people were there in that time and place. But the details got changed for dramatic effect or to 'tell a story' that has a 'true' moral or lesson. An allegory can lead you to something that is true, even if the story itself is only partially true.

But because this is all so complex and in most ways unknowable; I try to just always leave myself open to new evidence and then adjust what I believe based on that.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

And that's the thing, there is no way to determine (if you go by the bible) what is allegorical and what is literal. The truth is they don't have a justification to call any part of the bible "literal", if they had evidence I would accept it but they don't.

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

An event can be literally and then allegorical stories can be told about it. Jesus existing has evidence; the Hebrew exodus and occupation of the land of Isreal has evidence, The great flood has evidence, The Apostles and their being martyred definitely happened. So what do you mean "they don't have justification to call ANY part of the bible "literal"". These things did or very likely did happen. That does not mean that God was speaking to them and directly involved (which there is NOT evidence of) but many of the major events very likely did happen in literal sense. There is as much evidence of Jesus existing as there is for Socrates, do you also not believe Socrates was real?

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Right I’m sure some people mentioned in the Bible existed, I don’t dispute that. Nicholas fernel (sp?) from Harry Potter and the philosophers stone was a real person. But the Bible says that Jesus was the son of God and rose from the dead. If that’s allegorical then how do you know the person who wrote the Bible intended it to be allegorical? Just the way the Bible is written it doesn’t specify what’s allegorical and what’s not, it you just have to figure it out well then it’s open to interpretation and it’s not possible to determine what’s the truth

[–] SomeCodhopper (76) 4 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

" son of God and rose from the dead."

It depends on what they meant by this. this will be my last post on this topic since I am losing interest, am not invested enough to care and want to talk about movies but 'rose from the dead' could mean the 'movement' he started. Or the faith that he developed rose from the ashes of death and defeat. However, IMO, the martyrs fully believed that Jesus literally rose from the dead. And they were willing to die painful deaths for this. How they came to believe he rose from the dead, I don't have an explanation for; but they clearly believed it to a fanatical level. If they were involved in a scam of hiding the body I doubt seriously they would die for what they knew was a scam.

"If that’s allegorical then how do you know the person who wrote the Bible intended it to be allegorical"

There were many persons that wrote it and each had their own writing style; some I think were more detailed focused some more 'theme' focused. So you would have to break it down by each book, each author and then try to figure out who the author was (which is not always clear) and then try to get a sense of what they would have meant. The 'letters' of the new testament don't really describe any events they are just books of 'guidance and inspiration'. So would we say that these are 'not true'? No that would be ridiculous.

"it’s not possible to determine what’s the truth"

No it is not possible. but then it is also impossible for people to be 100% objective in their perception of reality. So even if you are told the truth there is no guarantee you will accept it.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Right and I’ll go ahead and accept they truly believed it but a persons confidence in the claim is irrelevant to the validity. And yes all we really have to go by is evidence , the evidence could be wrong your perception of reality could be wrong but the evidence is the best we have , if you don’t go by that you are just guessing. Anyways thank you for your clarification on this subject and have a nice day

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

cheers. have a good one.