Exposing Atheistic Myths

[James Brown]

Let's not forget that the Ark was absolutely unnecessary. Jehovah's stated purpose for the flood was to kill off sinful humanity. And he could have done that by inducing all sinful humans to have heart attacks, save perhaps Noah and his family.

Problem solved. No need to build an ark to save a tiny sample of all the animal species. No need to somehow find a planet-circling body of water and remove most of it afterwards. And no need for apologists to invent implausible explanations how Jehovah levitated distant species across land and sea, put them into a year-long suspended animation while they were embryos, then levitated them back to their native habitats which somehow managed to survive massive devastation. No need for any of it.

If you're going to defend the Noahic deluge by stubbornly insisting that a magic God can magic his way out of multiple problems, then you'll have to explain why this same magic God didn't just magic his way out of a single problem--destroying all humans.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's not forget that the Ark was absolutely unnecessary. Jehovah's stated purpose for the flood was to kill off sinful humanity. And he could have done that by inducing all sinful humans to have heart attacks, save perhaps Noah and his family.

I think the story was supposed to be symbolic of God being an asshole.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I still want to know how Noah and his family got rid of all that animal shit! It's really difficult for me to understand how an intelligent person can believe some of these Biblical myths as literal truth. Yet, I've known intelligent people who do take all that stuff literally.
...

I take the Flood account literally.

Can you "literally" show me where in the "literal" text it says there was an insurmountable problem with animal dung?

This is a good point. The narrative of the Flood does lack much in the way of any details. It must have been the boringest 300 days on a boat ever.

Show me where exactly in the text it literally states (mathematically) the total number of animals.

We do have animals today. We should be able to do a little math here.

Does the text state that they were all ADULT animals?

Nope. Just says 7 pair of the clean animals, 1 pair of the unclean. Which is kind of odd, because God didn't go into what a clean or unclean animal was yet. Nor does it explain how all of the animals in the world were collected. Nor did the story indicate any real specifications for the massive ark, just length, width, breadth, window at the top. It is almost as if all of these rather potentially important historic tidbits weren't included because it never happened. We've got more info about what was on Jonah's mind while inside a fish for three days, than information about being on a massive floating fortress with all of the remaining animals to exist... for hundreds of days.

Does it say whether or not the any of the animals were in a state of hibernation? (A confined space. Deep inside the cold and dark hull of the Ark.)

Where in the story does it say it was cold?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I still want to know how Noah and his family got rid of all that animal shit! It's really difficult for me to understand how an intelligent person can believe some of these Biblical myths as literal truth. Yet, I've known intelligent people who do take all that stuff literally.
...

I take the Flood account literally.

Can you "literally" show me where in the "literal" text it says there was an insurmountable problem with animal dung?

Show me where exactly in the text it literally states (mathematically) the total number of animals.
Does the text state that they were all ADULT animals? Does it say whether or not the any of the animals were in a state of hibernation? (A confined space. Deep inside the cold and dark hull of the Ark.)

When's the last time you saw Superman or a cartoon character have to take a dump?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you're going to defend the Noahic deluge by stubbornly insisting that a magic God can magic his way out of multiple problems, then you'll have to explain why this same magic God didn't just magic his way out of a single problem--destroying all humans.

I don't think when the story was first invented it was taken - or meant to be taken - literally. People who took it literally were probably laughed out of the room same as today. Kids only believe kid stories literally until they're not kids anymore. it couldn't have been much different a few thousand years ago. Adults don't take kid stories literally when they first hear them.

Our Lion doesn't take this stuff literally either.

 

[steve_bank]

I wonder who had the job of shoveling shit.


According to the Oxford bible commentary Job was likely part f a greeter set of teaching materials. Some books begin as Father to son or teacher to student.

According to the commentary Job was probably allegory for Hebrew captivity and assimilation. A story for ccontemporay conversation among Hebrews. Like all cultural myths.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Job is a book that deals with the subject of why bad things happen to good people. The problem of evil. The Oriental teller of Oriental tall tales that created this had no idea of how to resolve the problem. This teller of tall tales was not a sophisticated theologian. In the end he simply had God bully Job. We have no right to question God, no matter how bad things get. Divine command theory in all it's gauche glory. A lot of modern day theologians will tell you with a straight face that God is not a moral agent and owes us no moral obligations. But God is perfectly and essentially good! God is per Bible revelation, merciful, compassionate, just and fair. Today's Christian theologians tell us all will be corrected in heaven, after we die. But the ancient Hebrews had no life after death, no heaven, no hell. That was a later addition to theology of the time of Job. And thus is no solution for Job.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, the animals were adults.

Genesis 7;2
Take with you seven [1] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate

,

Unless the animals mated in infancy, they were adulterated. But tgat's just a literal reading. I'm sure an inerrentist could reason away the actual words.

Also, in 6:21, god dinae say 'don't worty about food, i'll hibernste them' or 'i'l drop manna' he said

You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

Nothing about the animals requiring a different amount than the family who would be up for the yesr....

 

[Lion IRC]

No, no, no.
You don't get to argue from silence unless you afford me the same latitude.
It doesn't say the animals were NOT hibernating.
It doesn't say fully grown ADULT animals.

Now, since you obviously enjoy bible study, the exegesis does not imply age.
It implies gender. Male/Female.
zâkâr and un’ḳêbah

 

[DBT]

The story doesn't work for numerous reasons. It hardly matters whether the animals were supposed to be adults or juveniles.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The story doesn't work for numerous reasons. It hardly matters whether the animals were supposed to be adults or juveniles.

The Fable only works if you understand it non-literally, no different than enjoying any modern day superhero movie or even something as simple as Charlie Brown. Are we to believe that Snoopy really did all those things that Schultz had him doing? Better to talk about Snoopy and Charlie Brown and Superman in non magical, non literal terms. Think of the magic as only being there for the kid in all of us.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, no, no.
You don't get to argue from silence unless you afford me the same latitude.

You already did, and so it did on the return. The narrative of the Great Flood is void of almost any details during the flood. 300 or so days, and not much as a thought about what is going on in the boat. No praying, no worship, no zoo, no anything. Meanwhile Jonah gets a whole chapter dedicated for thoughts while being eaten by a fish for a few days.

It seems odd to take a story so literally... when there is almost nothing to take literally.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Might be a slight difference between 'there's no mention, but animals typically produce a significant amount of shit' and 'we need to add an uncredited miracle here or the story falls apart.'

 

[Treedbear]

Yeah, the animals were adults.

Genesis 7;2
Take with you seven [1] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate

,

Unless the animals mated in infancy, they were adulterated. But tgat's just a literal reading. I'm sure an inerrentist could reason away the actual words.

Also, in 6:21, god dinae say 'don't worty about food, i'll hibernste them' or 'i'l drop manna' he said

You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

Nothing about the animals requiring a different amount than the family who would be up for the yesr....

No, no, no.
You don't get to argue from silence unless you afford me the same latitude.
It doesn't say the animals were NOT hibernating.
It doesn't say fully grown ADULT animals.

Now, since you obviously enjoy bible study, the exegesis does not imply age.
It implies gender. Male/Female.
zâkâr and un’ḳêbah

If food was required for the animals it can reasonably be assumed that the majority of them were not hibernating for any significant amount of time. That is, if reason is at all a valid tool for understanding the Bible.

An animal and its mate only applies to adult animals. That is, ones presently capable of producing offspring. The two animals aren't simply assigned to one another for future mating as when children are betrothed one to another. They would not yet be considered mates. Your argument holds little water.

ETA - I don't know why I let myself get involved in these inane discussions. It's like arguing about the plot line of Harry Potter. My comment is only meant to reflect on what the originators of the Bible text meant at the time. Pointless really.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Going back to the actual topic, this thread was supposed to be about atheistic myths. Did anyone list any yet? I think all this talk about Noah highlights a pretty huge one: many atheists think an all powerful God would somehow be restricted by physics or logic. That makes no sense.

If God is all powerful, then that water didn't have to come from anywhere or go anywhere. God just made it come to exist and cease to exist. And it needn't have effected the wobble of the earth, the animals need not have pooped, etc. Absolutely any inconsistencies can be magicked away.

 

[James Brown]

Absolutely any inconsistencies can be magicked away.

Including the need for a flood in the first place.

It's like a magician using magic to set his house on fire in order to fix a leaky faucet.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Going back to the actual topic, this thread was supposed to be about atheistic myths. Did anyone list any yet? I think all this talk about Noah highlights a pretty huge one: many atheists think an all powerful God would somehow be restricted by physics or logic. That makes no sense.

If God is all powerful, then that water didn't have to come from anywhere or go anywhere. God just made it come to exist and cease to exist. And it needn't have effected the wobble of the earth, the animals need not have pooped, etc. Absolutely any inconsistencies can be magicked away.

But that solves nothing.
If God had the power to magic a few billion gallons into place, then magic them away, why didn't he just magic the evil people away? Wouldn't have taken years, wouldn't have killed any animals...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Going back to the actual topic, this thread was supposed to be about atheistic myths. Did anyone list any yet? I think all this talk about Noah highlights a pretty huge one: many atheists think an all powerful God would somehow be restricted by physics or logic. That makes no sense.

If God is all powerful, then that water didn't have to come from anywhere or go anywhere.

Odd statement seeing that the water specifically came from "all the springs of the great deep" and the "floodgates of the heavens". Genesis 7:11 (slurpee not included)

IT mentions it again in Genesis 8:2, that the water from the floodgates below were closed... and it stopped raining. So the water specifically existed in these location prior to the flood. Which is in line with the First Story of Creation as the creation of the where these people lived was in a bubble (well, a dome) that separated the water that was existence from the land.

The story then says the water recedes, slowly in Genesis 8:3 onward. Noah first sends out a raven and it returns with a jellyfish that it drops on Noah's head. Then Noah sends out a dove which comes back with a sting ray, and drops it on Noah's face. Noah sends the dove out again, and this time the dove drops an anvil on Noah's head. The third time Noah sends out the dove, it returns with an olive branch twig, clearly indicating trees are growing (and it didn't pick up a floating twig)... somewhere... kind of like Wall-E. One week later, he sends the dove out again... this time it died from exhaustion as it tried to carry a large shark to drop on Noah's head... and didn't return. However, Noah took this to mean the dove found land to live on.

Then Noah looks over the edge, see's the land is dry. God says to let everything out so it can multiply. Granted, the entire earth has been flooded and nothing remains to eat. Hungry as all heck, Noah cooks up some of the clean animals (because 7 pair of them and that won't make them extinct!) and God mistakes this as an offering and then makes a rainbow appear. God finishes up by saying, "I might have over-reacted a little".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't know why I let myself get involved in these inane discussions. It's like arguing about the plot line of Harry Potter. My comment is only meant to reflect on what the originators of the Bible text meant at the time. Pointless really.

We get involved because at some level it's satisfying, emotionally engaging. The trick it to not let emotion control behavior and to appreciate the fact that people have issues, life isn't easy.

I think a devout person is a person obsessed, their world is a binary place and they're constantly trying to fix something that isn't broken. It's an existence without peace, a life where everything is depressingly tainted. What keeps them going is their magic.

 

[Politesse]

Going back to the actual topic, this thread was supposed to be about atheistic myths. Did anyone list any yet? I think all this talk about Noah highlights a pretty huge one: many atheists think an all powerful God would somehow be restricted by physics or logic. That makes no sense.

If God is all powerful, then that water didn't have to come from anywhere or go anywhere. God just made it come to exist and cease to exist. And it needn't have effected the wobble of the earth, the animals need not have pooped, etc. Absolutely any inconsistencies can be magicked away.

I feel like an actual discussion of atheistic myths would almost be off-topic at this point.