Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

[align=center][/align]

As part of a ‘Taboo’ series I want try and get my own mind around certain topics. I don’t and would never try to call into question another’s happiness, so this really is me asking simple questions. Today the title say it all, Scripture Vs Logical Thinking. I have said many times ‘Religion ruins our World’ then I backtrack and say ‘But in reality it is the people in Religion’ And I am one of many to believe this, for some reason Atheism is now classes as a religion, I ask how can non-belief in religion, the bible and all it tells us makes people who don’t believe these words religious in anyway, strange huh.

I will give a few examples where we apply logic and see the story is impossible. The first one is ‘Noah’s Ark’ The bible tell this story here:

Noah’s Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח‎; Biblical Hebrew: Tevat Noaḥ) is the vessel in the Genesis flood narrative (Genesis chapters 6–9) by which God saves Noah, his family, and a remnant of all the world’s animals from the flood. God gives Noah detailed instructions for building the ark: it is to be of gopher wood, smeared inside and out with pitch, with three decks and internal compartments; it will be 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft); it will have a roof “finished to a cubit upward”; and an entrance on the side. The story goes on to describe the ark being afloat throughout the flood and subsequent receding of the waters before it came to rest on Mount Ararat. The story is repeated, with variations, in the Quran, where the ark appears as Safina Nuh (Arabic: سفينة نوح‎ “Noah’s boat”).

The Genesis flood narrative is similar to numerous other flood myths from a variety of cultures. The earliest known written flood myth is the Sumerian flood myth found in the Epic of Ziusudra.

There is no scientific evidence supporting a global flood. Searches for Noah’s Ark, sometimes mockingly referred to as “archaeology”, have been made from at least the time of Eusebius (c.275–339 AD) to the present day. Despite many expeditions, no scientific evidence of the ark has been found.

Now let’s apply logic. Look at the time this is meant to have happened, I ask how Kangaroo’s left Australia, I ask how Polar Bears managed to get down from the North Pole, how did the Moose get from the North Americas? Now please remember the time, year and technology of the time, this is vital here. I could go on and on with any animal. A friend and I debated this lately and I love to debate, many assume hatred or ‘Point scoring’ but all that does is reaffirm my belief that Religion causes hatred division and more. I believe this story could be true but true in a sense of Noah’s time, Noah’s World, his place and his time. Try and do this today, 2 of every species, all 4 Million plus species of Animal, 2 off each and try get them onto a boat that would have to be huge, perhaps a mile long and don’t forget half of every species would have eat the other half, unless the boat was 10 mile long with cages for every species, long shot right? and remember the species that have perished as a species by the hand of man. Now there is a loophole for two species, this would be the swimming and flying animals. There is just no way this fete could be done in 2014, never mind the time stamp the bible would have us believe, this story for me is IMPOSSIBLE. Many have faith in the story and are scared to let logic into the story. I go back to the Woman I spoke to who did not believe Dinosaurs roamed Earth’s surface many millions of years ago. There is faith and there is stupid blind faith. Again I mean no disrespect but to believe things logic or Science (I will get to Science) would tell them is ‘Impossible’ because it is.


[align=center][/align]


[align=center][/align]


[align=center][/align]
Inside boat found
How It Was Discovered:
In 1959, Turkish army captain Llhan Durupinar discovered an unusual shape while examining aerial photographs of his country. The smooth shape, larger than a football field, stood out from the rough and rocky terrain at an altitude of 6,300 feet near the Turkish border with Iran.

NOW LETS LOOK AT LIFE

[align=center][/align]
Life has found a way to live on the outside of the ISS
This one I know people will have an answer for but I am going to take in a whole new direction.

“O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth, Who hast displayed Thy splendor above the heavens! …When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which Thou has ordained; …O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth!”

Above is scripture I have no idea what bible it came from or the verse and all that. The problem I have with Religion and the Bible is ‘Life’ God is said to have 2 Humans on Earth, one man, one woman, the woman being made from one of Man’s ribs. Why? Why would God take a Rib from Man to create Woman? He is all powerful and all able right? Why didn’t he just put a woman there? When I read this I see an ‘Anti Woman’ type argument. So Man had to give something up in order for Woman to live? or be created? I don’t get that.

It was proven life can live in many places, just lately life was found to live on the outside of the International Space Station (ISS) Now this brings huge implications to the Bible argument. Life can exist half a mile below and in Ice. Life can exist near a Lave fisher 5 mile down on the seabed, life is extraordinary, it is more than amazing. We have the ‘Creationism Vs Evolution’ question and it can be hard to believe either. If Man (Why always man?) came from Apes then I ask ‘Why do we still have apes and not what they evolved from’ You follow? If we came from Apes where is the lineage from before Apes? What did Apes evolve from? Therein we have the ‘Missing Link’


[align=center][/align]

The Philae lander has found organic molecules – which are essential for life – on the surface of the comet where it touched down. The spacecraft managed to beam back evidence of the carbon and hydrogen–containing chemicals shortly before it entered hibernation mode to conserve falling power supplies. Although scientists are still to reveal what kind of molecules have been found on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, the discovery could provide new clues about how the early chemical ingredients that led to life on Earth arrived on the planet.


[align=center][/align]

Molecules have been found on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenk

Above is Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenk, the Philae lander spaceship detected life on a COMET! How versatile is life? Isn’t it amazing? Life can and does exist anywhere and in any condition. Life has survived many ‘E.L.E’s’ Extinction Level Events and every time, life has survived thus allowing me to write this and you to read it. I don’t have the answers and something I can be sure is neither do you. You have ‘FAITH’ You believe with all your heart these impossible feats in the Bible are true to the point of writing. Every word is believed.
The Irony is, Science will in the end tell us what is true and what is impossible, can you feel the irony? Talk it up peeps. I hope debate can happen

a reply to: shauny

Nice thread! I may chime in later but for now I will get the popcorn.

One thing I will add actually...

Atheism is not a religion, nor is it classed as one.

Well, it is not classed as one by anyone who actually understands what atheism is. It's amusing how hard it is for some people to comprehend because it is really quite simple.

How many Christians don't believe in Leprechauns?

Is your lack of belief in them a religion?

Would you believe in them if you saw conclusive evidence?

Replace leprechaun with God and welcome to atheism.

Well... only Christians call Atheism a religion... even though its obviously not...

I think they only do it as an attempt at insulting Atheists though

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Well to be fair, we don't see people who don't believe in leprechauns rally together in the name of non-belief in leprechauns. I think the religious classify it as a religion because people gather in the name of it.

Not saying I agree with them but I do see a reason behind it, however weak it may be. I don't see atheism as a religion personally.

Those that believe the bible as literal word of ''god'' do so on blind faith alone.

Those that believe in ''god'' due to personal experience of a spiritual nature not so much faith alone, but those experiences do not often really tally with the exact words of the bible. For example ''angel'' experiences, might show an ''angel'' in some way though that isn't proof of any bible's version of ''angels''.

There is also the fact that bibles were written by men, men with agendas at a primitive time in the timeline of humanity where knowledge was limited, people were gullible and chose ''magic'' as ways of explaining phenomena they didn't know the science or facts to comprehend.

The very fact that these writings by men persisted to today is due to manipulation of the gullible. Religions have been used as primary control of humanity based on their lack of knowledge, ignorance and follower type nature. The structures of societies have been built around the same pyramid structures laid out in such religious texts, which are essentially rewritings of the same stories that originated in Ancient Egypt and before.

These stories might well be based on actual events and told as 'folk stories' that grew into larger tales, they might well be moral stories used throughout the ancient world or rehashed long term memories of floods, divination etc, but have essentially been corrupted by men throughout the ages for their own agenda of power and control.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

LOL! It would be funny if they did though wouldn't it.

Big crowds debating leprechauns every St. Patties day!

But I do agree with you. Some people have understandable reasons for viewing it as a religion, though some don't. It's really one of those things, it depends on the person.

a reply to: Akragon

It's not a religion so much as a position of faith just like a belief in God.

a reply to: ketsuko

See that I can agree with...

It takes just as much faith to believe there is no God as it does to believe In God without evidence

a reply to: ketsuko

Faith is belief in something according to the popular definition. Someone who has belief in nothing is by definition faithless. I don't see how atheism can be a position of faith personally.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Because atheists can definitively say there is no God with all the same fervor and faith that the faithful can say there is one, and yet, despite their protestations that they base all this on science and logic etc., they have no more concrete proof of this lack of God than we have proof of His existence.

It is pure faith alone that drives their certainty.

faith - a confident belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing; belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

As you can see, the contentions that atheists have fit both the first two definitions of faith as my dictionary defines it. The same could be said of the religious.

a reply to: ketsuko

It is pure faith alone that drives their certainty.

Nope. Atheism is simply the rejection of a certain presentation of "god". The problem with believers and atheists is the believers definition of "God" that the atheist rejects. There is no faith involved.

a reply to: ketsuko

I will actually agree with you here. I guess fervent belief in something, whether something is existent or non-existent, is a form of faith.

If it really came down to it, I think hardcore atheists would deny any proof of a god even in the face of indisputable evidence, just as believers deny the non-existence of their god despite the evidence brought forth.

I take back what I said.

a reply to: windword

No, you are not an atheist. You are in the "I hate God" category. That means you believe in Him and don't like what you see.

You are the Riddick-style person.

Think someone could spend half their life in a slam with a horse bit in their mouth and not believe? Think he could start out in some liquor store trash bin with an umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and not believe? Got it all wrong, holy man. I absolutely believe in God ... And I absolutely hate the f****r.

- Riddick

You call yourself an atheist, but you really just reject Him which is quite different from not believing He exists.

a reply to: ketsuko

As far as I can tell, windword has no belief in your god. She may reference him sometimes but that doesn't equal a belief in him. In her case the rejection was a result of coming to find he doesn't exist, so rejection and non-belief aren't different at all in this case.

I'm sure windword can speak for herself though. (you are a her right?)

a reply to: ketsuko

I don't believe in the biblical God. I reject the belief that "it" is the creator of the universe, the earth or me. I don't believe that Jesus, if he existed, was "his" son or that Jesus was "God" or "Christ" any more than I am. In that sense, the sense that I believe that I am God/Christ, you are correct, I'm not an atheist.

I'm not a hard core atheist because I have found a way to communicate my definition of "God" so that I can have spiritual conversations, but I don't believe in a God that exists outside of the Universe. I don't believe in a God that doesn't follow the rules of the Universe. I believe the Universe is all that there is, was and all that will be.

I'm one with the Universe. The Universe is God.

a reply to: ketsuko

Not all atheists say definitively there are no Gods. We generally fall into two categories. Those that make that claim, and those that don't. The former is sometimes called "Strong Atheism" and the latter "Weak" or "Agnostic Atheism". Strong atheists take up a burden of proof when they make the claim a God (take your pick) definitively does not exist. They are then often asked to prove that, but as you say, they have no concrete proof of a lack of God than theists have of an existence for one. You can't prove a negative! Though I am not afraid to say you can get close enough for comfort when it comes to any of the claimed Gods or Goddesses. At least as far as my personal study has gone.

The agnostic atheist makes no definitive claims that there are no Gods. They have nothing to prove one way or another and since agnostic atheists make no claims they have zero burden of proof. They do not deny the possibility that a God exists like strong atheists often do. They see zero conclusive evidence that can't be explained without a God, from those that do have the burden of proof that a God exists.

Like has been said you can't prove a negative. So you can't prove there is or there is no God. I believe you can however show that this or that God was created from the minds of men, by studying and scrutinizing all of the claims made in the various holy texts and claims from theists. When so many of the claims surrounding any particular God are proven wrong for one reason or another, you have to ask yourself if the source of all those claims actually came from a God or not..

Sure you can make the case atheists and theists have faith in common. I'm not going to disagree entirely. A lot of atheists make the mistake of thinking faith has only one definition ("belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence") and honestly it annoys me. I would say though, that atheists and theists have different kinds of faith. From my perspective one is healthier than the other. Atheists do not have faith, in the religious sense of the word.

A commonality here or there between theists and atheists hardly makes them both religions though. I understand that many atheists have a religious like fervor but things like that come down to the individual and their personality. Atheism itself is not a religion.

originally posted by: shauny
Inside boat found
How It Was Discovered:
In 1959, Turkish army captain Llhan Durupinar discovered an unusual shape while examining aerial photographs of his country. The smooth shape, larger than a football field, stood out from the rough and rocky terrain at an altitude of 6,300 feet near the Turkish border with Iran.

Are you certain a boat was found inside?

I am not sure of the credibility of these claims.

Last I looked at that it turned out to be another natural formation.

It's known as the Durupinar Site. Talk Origins Article - Snopes Article

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

You can't prove a negative!

Common misconception, but yes a negative can be proven...

For instance Humans cannot fly...
& I can prove this negative when I flap my arms up and down like a maniac while not even making it a millimetre off the ground.

Negative proven.

Too spurious...?



Okay...


Working out how the Universe came to be would be the way to "prove the negative" of God...

The Universe is God's creation...
Those goalposts can't be moved...

So prove the origin of the Universe as otherwise and you "prove the negative".

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Strong atheists take up a burden of proof when they make the claim a God (take your pick) definitively does not exist. They are then often asked to prove that, but as you say, they have no concrete proof of a lack of God than theists have of an existence for one.

This is not aimed at you. I'm just using what you said here as a springboard. I personally, will state unequivocally, there is no god/goddess/deities/divinity. However, I am willing to entertain a creator, or creators. There is a big difference in my mind. Deification of a creator(s) is strictly a human concept.

To the OP: We didn't evolve from apes. We have a common ancestor with apes, according to science.

I like the meme, BTW.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I guess you're right about that.

Thanks for pointing that out to me!