Views: 505

Comment by warofages on September 5, 2012 at 9:56am

he used pokeballs duh. don't underestimate the Lord.

Comment by warofages on September 5, 2012 at 9:58am

either that or Noah is a Time Lord.

Comment by James Cox on September 5, 2012 at 2:13pm

What I would really want to know is Noah and family dealt with woodpecker birds? I mean, the ark was built using timber or did he have them birds in cages?

Well it was like this, Noah and crew also needed to have a few very nice bug infested tree logs for the little peckers to feed on.

With all the details involved to make any type of sense out of the flood story, why did not 'God' just build a whole new planet, transport/recreate all the life of earth there, than transport/recreate the few humans he thought worth keeping. 'God' created the universe in seven days, surely a new earth would hardly be more than a simple wink and nod, then done.

Since the old testiment writers knew nothing about the rest of the universe, but 'God' should have.

Another possibility, the universe might already contain a near infinite number of very earth like planets. 'God' could just pick one at random, set transporter coordinates. then beam the chosen to that 'new earth'. The chosen might not even be the wiser, which seems about right.

With an infinite, omnipotent, ominicient 'God', why did the old testiment writers settle for for such a lame one? I think this really shows how the flood story was really a human produced, fiction. It shows the very strong indication of a challenged 'human' imagination.

Of course, we have the privilage of several thousand years of cultural evolution and imagination to consider. If the old testiment writers knew of ~100 years of Science Fiction writing and 'what if' technology, the old testiment might read more like a Greg Bear space opera! Sadly, I might be willing to finally read the Bible to the end without snikering.

Consider this as a hint to the Tim Lahay Rapture series folks. Sorry, I have not read that series either.....;p)   

Comment by Matt Maxwell on September 5, 2012 at 2:14pm

As an atheist I would never accept the Bible to be literal, that would be called Bible literalism, or Fundamentalism. And I'm sure as HELL not a fundamentalist. So, instead of going straight to criticism and biased interpretation, why not read/interpret the Bible via comparable analysis/inquiry? Don't get caught up on the little details in the Bible, sure it's completely irrational  to believe that Noah built a boat much too small to hold so many animals and assume that it's truth, go deeper, like archaeopteryx and recognize that there are other stories/parables in history (especially in the mediterranean/mesopotamia region) that are nearly identical and try to research what it meant in the historical and cultural context. Depending on the version one is reading you might find that not only is the ark suppose to reflect a three layer temple (deeper meaning), but also that the ark "carried" more than one male/female pair of every animal, the extras were used for sacrifice - or food for the ark dwellers. They ate the clean and pure animals and kept the unclean for reproduction, an idea or tradition we might find later on in the Bible.

Consider this, when looking at an optical illusion try to see more than what the eyes see at first because more than likely there is more to it. Sociologists call it perspective, such as religious perspective, scientific perspective, common sense perspective, and the bizarre perspective. Every individual has one, just decide which one you have. Don't just look at reality (because the Bible is real but that does not mean we must accept the content to be so) with a boring common sense perspective, unless you would prefer it that way...

Love and respect.

Comment by James Cox on September 5, 2012 at 2:28pm

I leave it to others to do the deeper study. I just don't seem to have the time. I did some of this when I was much younger, but now my real interests have matured. I am much more interested in the natural sciences, and I find this as very rewarding, atleast for the growth of a 'perspective'. For me a bible study would be more like playing slot machines, waiting for the occasional payout, but being disapointed most of the time. I'm just sick of it. Knock yourself out.

Comment by Dale Headley on September 5, 2012 at 3:45pm

My favorite Noah's Ark factoid: there was only one window and one door on the boat (Genesis 6:16).  Granted, the size and extent of either of them is not specified, but still... Think about THAT for a minute!  

My favorite question: where did Noah plug in his Skilsaw?

My second favorite question: did Noah leave a hole in the roof for the Apatosaurus (formerly brontosaurus) to stick its head out?

Comment by Ed on September 5, 2012 at 6:20pm

All of the examples provided that debunk ole Noah and his ark are simply dismissed by the cud chewing Bible believers on the basis that the "devil is in the details."

Comment by Ward Cressin on September 5, 2012 at 7:16pm

What amazes me is that the world's largest zoo for all time was located right near where Noah lived. And the first mega-stores of Menards and Home Depot on the other two corners. After all, where else could he have gotten the wood?

A couple of things stump me (not really - they only matter if you believe the myth):

I've heard the phrase "salting the earth" and I thought it meant to distribute salt on the ground to make it difficult for your enemies to grow plants. So, after the Flood, wouldn't that have left much of the ground around the world salted as the ocean water evaporated?

After the Flood, all the plants are dead and it's going to take months (at least - years for some) for the seeds to grow into new plants. So what are the herbivores going to eat? Some are rather picky. Hmm, actually most don't care for dead plants soaking in sea water for months.

After the Flood, all the herbivores are dead except for those from the Ark and it's going to take years for the small Ark herbivores to repopulate - decades for the large. So what are the carnivores going to eat?

Hmm, sounding like the Ark was rather pointless.    :)

Comment by Scott Benton on September 5, 2012 at 7:54pm

I've become really fascinated by the Noah's Ark story lately.  It was one of the reasons I started looking around for more religious info and discussions and ended up here.

I'm reading the Bible online and I noticed after the flood, when God decides not to do this again, he reasons that man's heart is wicked anyway.  This seems an admission of failure since it was the reason he undertook it to begin with.

It's one of the most ridiculous stories ever told and would be dramatic overkill for a deity.

Comment by Scott Benton on September 5, 2012 at 8:32pm

Agreed.  I think this story, like most of the Bible stories, is a handed down tale that was exaggerated into what was finally written. 


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service