Noah's Ark

[OldWiseGuy]

I love how Christians assume that the only people who've read the Bible are those who agree with them 100%. LOL.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Reading the bible usually only confirms traditional beliefs. Studying carefully often reveals much more. I always recommend reading it first, then if one is more curious, to study more deeply.

 

[Cearbhall]

Reading the bible usually only confirms traditional beliefs. Studying carefully often reveals much more. I always recommend reading it first, then if one is more curious, to study more deeply.

And after doing that, most people go on to gain knowledge from a variety of other sources to provide context for science and history. They don't just go down a rabbit hole of Bible study.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And after doing that, most people go on to gain knowledge from a variety of other sources to provide context for science and history. They don't just go down a rabbit hole of Bible study.

Of course one uses other sources to explain some things. They are called "helps".

 

[Obliquinaut]

There's always more to learn.

Agreed. As I've said now countless times.

Interestingly so far no Christians have been willing to answer my question: I can conceive that I am wrong about everything (including God)...can you?

I'm happy for those whose mind is made up, but mine isn't. I invoke science only because God uses the natural world and it's laws for his purposes.

I've read the science you invoke and so far I see no reason to assume you really know it sufficiently to be invoking it as you are.

Again, I could be mistaken, but since you've so far invoked laminar flow and vague statements about sedimentology but never showed us your calculations or even basic numeric statements I'll go with the preponderance of evidence that you really aren't quite up to speed on the topic yet.

He doesn't 'poof' everything into compliance with his will. He uses man and the earth to do so.

And as a former Christian I heartily agreed with that view point! So why do you wish to defend literal Noachian Flood geology? Why must it be literally as written? The evidence and the science you seem to glibly grasp at doesn't really support that.

I've said often that a better flood model is needed than the paintings of medieval artists.

There is a nearly perfectly workable Flood model: it is an ancient story of a localized disastrous flood leveraged for metaphorical/spiritual purposes and does not reflect an actual global event.

Easy peasy! It's parsimonious and it explains almost every aspect of the discussion.

Why do I believe in the flood when hardly anyone else does? It's a gateway belief. Close that door and I exclude myself from many beneficial beliefs.

But by opening that door you exclude yourself from other beneficial beliefs. Geologists had to give up the Literal Noachian Flood hundreds of years ago and in the ensuing centuries geology has blossomed into one of the most useful of the sciences!

So I choose to believe the story, and approach it's details not with skepticism but with ideas about how it occurred. It's fun and fascinating (and doesn't cost anything).

Well, it doesn't cost anything because you seem to be doing it without benefit of education in the topic. That's where the cost comes in: discipline and effort to learn things that don't necessarily confirm your biases.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Doesn't bother me at all. Some of my best friends are unbelievers.

And yet you assumed I had failed to read the Bible. Of course, as per usual, you were 100% wrong.

With such surety about knowledge of things and so many times being shown to be in error, I'm curious why you think your debate points on these things are so more likely correct?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Reading the bible usually only confirms traditional beliefs. Studying carefully often reveals much more. I always recommend reading it first, then if one is more curious, to study more deeply.

Study it until it confirms one's beliefs. Got it.

 

[bhsmte]

And yet you assumed I had failed to read the Bible. Of course, as per usual, you were 100% wrong.

With such surety about knowledge of things and so many times being shown to be in error, I'm curious why you think your debate points on these things are so more likely correct?

Common claim you see from many; you don't believe as I do, because you have not studied the bible or simply don't understand it.

Fact is, studies have shown, non believers understand and have a greater level of religious knowledge, than believers do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you know that the traditional version of the flood isn't true, as do I. But does that mean there was no "flood of Noah"? Unbelievers have constructed straw man arguments that are easily explained, and the rest will fall as well in time.

Tell me which version that you believe in. I can explain to you whether it happened or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Common claim you see from many; you don't believe as I do, because you have not studied the bible or simply don't understand it.

Fact is, studies have shown, non believers understand and have a greater level of religious knowledge, than believers do.

Yep, studying the Bible is what leads many to atheism. Perhaps that is why the Catholic Church used to oppose any translations of the Bible or even private ownership of the Bible. And now there is even an organization for those that do understand the Bible the best and have faced the many problems that they found by studying it:

The Clergy Project - Religious Leaders Beyond Belief

 

[AV1611VET]

I've read the Bible.

(But I understand that it scares you that I might not have arrived at the same interpretation as you have.)

Obviously, or you wouldn't be an atheist.

 

[AV1611VET]

I love how Christians assume that the only people who've read the Bible are those who agree with them 100%. LOL.

I allow for a 2% margin of error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously, or you wouldn't be an atheist.

Hardly, one does not need to read any religious text to be an atheist. In fact in regards to belief it is the "null hypothesis". But most atheists in the western world were Christians. They studied the Bible and understand it better than most theists. That is why they lost their belief. Understanding is what leads to atheism.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is why they lost their belief.

Lost what belief?

If they were saved, then read the Bible and chose to be an atheist, then I have to believe it's not because they don't believe in God ... it's because they're mortified at what they read.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lost what belief?

If they were saved, then read the Bible and chose to be an atheist, then I have to believe it's not because they don't believe in God ... it's because they're mortified at what they read.

Your misunderstanding of what being "saved" means does not help you. One does not "choose" to become an atheist. One becomes one by understanding the Bible better than those that won't let themselves understand it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Study it until it confirms one's beliefs. Got it.

Study it honestly and God will reveal the meanings. There are levels of understanding only attainable by first accepting the literal text. The whole thing is eventually spiritually discerned, not scientifically understood.

Regarding science; science is the study of the 'natural' or 'steady state' of the supernatural creation. It's all magic you know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Study it honestly and God will reveal the meanings. There are levels of understanding only attainable by first accepting the literal text. The whole thing is eventually spiritually discerned, not scientifically understood.

Regarding science; science is the study of the 'natural' or 'steady state' of the supernatural creation. It's all magic you know.

How can one accept something that is clearly false? Taking the Bible literally is self defeating. And if you want to claim "magic" the burden of proof is clearly upon you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How can one accept something that is clearly false? Taking the Bible literally is self defeating. And if you want to claim "magic" the burden of proof is clearly upon you.

I'm not trying to prove it to anyone. I'm just explaining my beliefs. I believe many things unrelated to the bible that people find silly but work very well for me. My understanding of the flood is a work in progress. I think up new things all the time. The narrative was written on paper, not in stone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not trying to prove it to anyone. I'm just explaining my beliefs. I believe many things unrelated to the bible that people find silly but work very well for me. My understanding of the flood is a work in progress. I think up new things all the time. The narrative was written on paper, not in stone.

Actually you were. You responded to Obliquinaut.

By the way, studying the Bible "honestly" would mean NOT assuming that it is true when one began. Also it would mean NOT assuming that it is false. Sadly for you if one does this one finds all sorts of fallacies in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your misunderstanding of what being "saved" means does not help you. One does not "choose" to become an atheist. One becomes one by understanding the Bible better than those that won't let themselves understand it.

You said that is why they lost their belief, and I'm asking you what belief it is they lost.

If you call that 'my misunderstanding', that's your prerogative.

But you're the one dodging the question, not I.

 

[bhsmte]

Study it honestly and God will reveal the meanings. There are levels of understanding only attainable by first accepting the literal text. The whole thing is eventually spiritually discerned, not scientifically understood.

Regarding science; science is the study of the 'natural' or 'steady state' of the supernatural creation. It's all magic you know.

And how do you determine when someone is studying the bible honestly? Would it happen to be, when they agree with you?