Noah And The Ark - Maybe There Is Hope For Still Believers

[StephL]

Riight - because of the movie, which I didn't watch - and the media backlash - I came across the fact, that American Christians in especially have among them a considerable proportion of people, who take the bible's account of the great flood and Noah seriously. If you saw the movie and have an opinion - go ahead and tell us. There are many, many Noah rebuttals - but I enjoyed watching this short one: Sums it all up very nicely - it could not possibly have happened as described, if you base the story's aspects on how the world is known to work today - so there must have been major magic activity on God's side, if it is supposedly correct. And that is devoid of any sense whatsoever. But check yourself. Here we have something, religious people are bound to find offensive (upon second thought - goes for the above as well) - but it hits the nail of the ethical implications of the affair bang on the head - god as deeply unethical, genocidal maniac, who gets away with it. Concerning the argument against free speech, which goes along the "I feel deeply offended" tirade - very popular in religious people, but not only - I go with my maybe favourite humanist and atheist Stephen Fry: "You feel offended? So fucking what!?" Get your arguments out and behave like grown-ups - you have not been directly personally insulted in any legally relevant way - or even threatened - you simply do not like what you hear - wo/man up! Here we have a lengthy counter-example in approach - very soft, but not failing the mark anyway - rather the opposite. In February this year Bill Nye (the science guy) agreed to debate Ken Ham on his very own turf - the Creation Museum. Even people on his side largely agree, that Ham lost the debate. Some claiming, he would have pulled his punches out of Christian nicety. Weell - if somebody did pull punches - it was Nye. And I was a bit disappointed in that regard at times - I felt he could have more poignantly used esp. rebuttal time. But overall - that was a good tactic and I guess on purpose - unlike Dawkins would have done it - he left out pointing directly towards giving up all religion - he wanted to just get these Christians to not be much more deluded than the rest. In the name of progress, using science in order to innovate and keep America economically competitive. Dislodging out of heads things, most Christians view as metaphorical and - like Ham also seems to do with parts of the bible - poetic. He also keeps reminding people, that the bible has been written and translated and modified over centuries - that there are bound to be effects of mixing stuff up and misrepresentation of the maybe original stuff telling another story. He also appeals to curiosity and the drive to find out more about the world and the awe of nature's complexity and other emotional things connected with the pursuit of knowledge about nature. Transporting to people, that they will not be deprived of profound - lets say in a way spiritual experiences - of awe, wonder and the bliss of discovery and insight. Good approach for this sort of audience at the lecture - and the millions (sic!) of people watching it in the media - esp. the fence sitters. Richard Dawkins might have not been getting such a result - he opposes going half the way to sort of lure people to atheism - instead he goes all out - which is the only consequential and honest thing to do in my eyes - but lets not dismiss actual effect-size. It worked - all hail to Nye for that - people did change their minds - I wonder, if I can get that in numbers, like the amazing turn of opinions in another panel discussion on if Christianity is a positive force in the world. Maybe I'll post that one as well, later. Nye answers clearly with "we don't know yet", in the cases, in which we really don't - funnily - one thing Ham brings up, is that back in February and for the last 30 years - still the evidence for the inflation of the Big Bang was missing. Just some weeks before we finally found the "suspiciously missing" evidence. A very good demonstration of how the gaps get filled. What I see with most irrational claims - they always point out flaws and holes - perceived or real - on the opposing side, instead of bringing anything remotely useful as a counter-explanation, their own work. Nye did a better job, than I was fearing. So - maybe I do preach to the choir, Christians on here rather taking the bible metaphorically in these aspects - like Noah and young earth - but maybe some sort of discussion could ensue anyway. Go ahead! smile.gif

[Sageous]

Interesting post, Steph! I'm not sure there are many, if any, DV members who hold the Biblical Noah story as true (seems to run a bit anathema with the LD'ing mindset to me), but I too hope to hear from them. For what it's worth, I was raised a catholic, went to catholic school straight through college, and as best as I can remember the subject of Noah never came up at all, much less was the biblical account taught as real. Granted I was raised before the current wave of bible-thumping fundamentalists broke upon our culture(s) back in the '80's, but at least there is a hope that many Christians might still take the Noah story for what it is: a primitive creation myth that found its way into the early versions of the Bible I suppose because inclusion seemed to make sense at the time, and remained there as a symbol (or perhaps threat) of God's power and judgment. That kind of thinking might have been thoroughly beaten out of the mainstream by now, thanks to relentless shouts of "Everything in the Bible is true!" by the fundamentalists, but one can hope. As long as I'm here, I wrote a story once about another possible, and completely fictional, source for the Noah tale. If anyone's interested, you can read it here (for free, of course!).

[snoop]

Take one look at Beyond Dreaming and Inner Sanctum and tell me you aren't just afraid for those people (or yourselves) as you are the Christians who take this story from the Bible literally, or honestly, any part of the Bible literally. Frankly, I'm more concerned with those in Beyond Dreaming and Inner Sanctum simply because they haven't grown up their entire lives being indoctrinated to the wild and crazy beliefs you see expressed in those subforums. I digress, it is indeed sad to have to come to terms with, on a daily basis, that humanity on a whole lacks the skill of logical reasoning and deep thought. In fact people aren't just flat out stupid, but nearly retarded. No one has the desire or the passion to better themselves or the people around them, people don't want to continue to learn or grow. It's pretty sickening. This is one such example that is more easily noticed than others, but with the believers' numbers dwindling, I usually don't worry about it. A small disclaimer: when I say "no one", I don't literally mean no one. However, it might as well be "no one" because the amount that actually do have the drive to better themselves and continue learning is negligible compared to the adult population of the earth.

[StephL]

You seem to have been lucky, Sageous! Even very lucky. I was taught it at primary school. Not many people question the whole affair it seems. I did. But I fear this thread is really relevant - 60% and more of Americans - I can hardly believe it!! Here are the utterly shocking numbers: Most Americans take Bible stories literally - Washington Times An ABC News poll released February 2004 found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.” Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors. The poll, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points, was conducted to 10 among 1,011 adults. The levels of belief in the stories, however, differed among Christians. The poll found that 75 percent of Protestants believed in the story of creation, 79 percent in the Red Sea account and 73 percent in Noah and the ark. Among evangelical Protestants, those figures were 87 percent, 91 percent and 87 percent, respectively. Among Catholics, they were 51 percent, 50 percent and 44 percent. The stories still proved somewhat compelling among those who had “no religion.” Well - forget that video above of the debate with Nye - the below video is the real deal - from Ham and his consorts directly. I am at minute 17 - and if somebody is able to watch this panel of Creationists there - ammunition from the heavens, truly. This is the by far, by really very far best demonstration as to why and how these people are to be considered dangerous lunatics. After this reaction - only part of it - the movie seems to help to lay open the true nature of this particular tale. And coming from that further judgements might ensue, on what exactly the bible says - for the better. I think the movie might reduce the numbers of believers in creation young earth and the ark, same as that we humans are all sinners, totally in some cruel entity's violent volition - and only due to Jesus dying, can we find redemption from that sinfulness. Is that not at the ugly basis of Christianity? What was that sin, from which all Christians supposedly suffer actually? There was a tree of knowledge - and humans did what humans do - they wanted to find out about the world (leaving aside the Eve/devil business - that gets even more nonsensical, to go there). Are you really willing to be convinced, that because of some fairy-tale - you personally are born sinners, and good on you, that Jesus provided you with a possibility of paying for your guilt - by adhering to that violent entity - down to what you think and do with your body - according to some much modified codex from the stone age, still referred to, to make you feel bad and therefore in need of religion? Is that a way to see human beings - than as conscious marvellous wonders of nature?? What they are on about, in that section, is that Noah is portrayed as a psychotic mass murderer and humanity is seen as a plight (like with climate change) - that he kills, and that when he can't bring himself to kill baby girls, because they could survive and reproduce - he confesses to have failed his lord. And that would so not be written in the bible. So what do we do against these portrayals as to Noah/God being evil, they ask themselves as panel. These are their answers - it is really true - check it: Well we deserved it - we are all sinners - and the kids - if they had been righteous - they would have gotten invited to the ark. And - He gave all life - so it is only his right to take it back again. This is so much more efficient to open people's eyes, with what they are dealing with, when it comes to creationists, than anything could. Not only do they not realize whatsoever, that they affirm Maher's above portrayal of the immorality of the tale completely, they make it horribly clear how utterly free of humanism their beliefs truly are. Interestingly - another thing they are on about, is that God does not talk in words loudly from the heavens in the movie, but his messages to Noah would have been rather something like visions, dream-puzzles to for him to make sense of personally - and that so he wasn't entirely sure about his interpretations. Sounds good to me - next eye-opener. Mr. Maher - that "floating piece of giraffe-shit" might be very much working your way!! The creationists fear, it is an anti Christian propaganda film in thin camouflaging veneer from sinful Hollywood - part of a conspiracy actually, to undermine Christianity. Go sing halleluhja, damn it!! Take one look at Beyond Dreaming and Inner Sanctum and tell me you aren't just afraid for those people (or yourselves) as you are the Christians who take this story from the Bible literally, or honestly, any part of the Bible literally. Frankly, I'm more concerned with those in Beyond Dreaming and Inner Sanctum simply because they haven't grown up their entire lives being indoctrinated to the wild and crazy beliefs you see expressed in those subforums. I digress, it is indeed sad to have to come to terms with, on a daily basis, that humanity on a whole lacks the skill of logical reasoning and deep thought. In fact people aren't just flat out stupid, but nearly retarded. No one has the desire or the passion to better themselves or the people around them, people don't want to continue to learn or grow. It's pretty sickening. This is one such example that is more easily noticed than others, but with the believers' numbers dwindling, I usually don't worry about it. A small disclaimer: when I say "no one", I don't literally mean no one. However, it might as well be "no one" because the amount that actually do have the drive to better themselves and continue learning is negligible compared to the adult population of the earth. I am afraid for those people, definitively - and I do my sceptical best to help dispel as much delusion as possible, when I come across it - but I do not actively search for it on here - my energies are invested better elsewhere. How many people generally are drained of their money and time and whatnot by woo of all sorts - hard to know. I was looking "beyond" from time to time when I joined - even posted some - not tempted to do so any more. Do you go there to discuss? I rather hope, some thinking-motivated people come yonder and put their noses in Science and Mathematics for disputing stuff. This thread came about from impulse - I keep getting shocked and worried about America - it does not fit the picture I grew up with and I find the numbers extreme.

[snoop]

I don't really post in Inner Sanctum, but occasionally I post in Beyond Dreaming trying to be as objective as possible so that people could at least start to understand things or think things through (trying all the while to sound neutral and un-insulting so that they don't get offended and throw a fit), rather than just tell them they are wrong and stupid for believing what they do. Unfortunately my attempts are pretty much just as in vain as the latter, they pretty much just say I'm close minded or could never possibly know if whatever it is could exist or be possible or not. You know, using the typical logically flawed arguments that make appeals to (or lack thereof) expertise, comprehension, wonder, and emotion to prove me "wrong."

[Sibyline]

Look at the "explanations" offered by commenters on that first video (if you click the YouTube logo below it). Hilarious! I don't think my 5-year-old knows the story, but if she did, she would only be interested in the pigs. My 8-year-old knows it and quickly decided that it was impossible. So somewhere between the age of 5 and 8 you should have it sussed.

[Sageous]

But I fear this thread is really relevant - 60% and more of Americans - I can hardly believe it!! There is a good chance you need not believe it, Steph! I've been an American for over a half-century now, have lived in several states and visited almost all of them, and to me that statistic seems extremely high. Yes, we've got a surplus of holy-rollers in this country, and yes, christian fundamentalism has reduced entire regions of our country to places I'll never visit again, but in my experience, I highly doubt that 60% of us believe the Noah story was real... indeed, I highly doubt 60% of us believe anything at all. Unless you ask us. Aside from being 10 years old, predating social-networking on the internet, I always have a problem with surveys that ask questions that inspire knee-jerk reactions (i.e.: q = Do you believe in God? a = Of course I do!; q = Do you believe in Noah? a = Of Course I do!). Fear not, Steph, we're not all a bunch of mindless idiots over here! Well, not completely: I have a feeling that the majority of people asked about Noah today will not respond by saying his story was real, but by asking, "Who's Noah?" I know this is unrelated, but I would like to make a quick "Beyond Dreaming" note and request to you and Snoop: Please post there! I post there occasionally (though certainly not as often as I once did), and have found that worthwhile conversations there can happen, but they depend on the presence of patient, sturdy skeptics. Without them, every thread becomes a happy "It's true because I said so" exchange between the faithful that erases any meaningful conversation pretty quickly. Indeed, I just had an intentionally "out there" thread destroyed by just those folks, and I would much rather have had it destroyed by folks who drew on empirical data or mathematical knowledge, with that destruction following a lively discussion. Listening to people announce their successes with, say, shared dreaming, is boring at best, and that's all Beyond Dreaming will be without someone offering exceptions! So, I for one would most welcome your contributions, if you're willing to put up with the highly ironic "close-minded" cliches!

[Sibyline]

Listening to people announce their successes with, say, shared dreaming, is boring at best, and that's all Beyond Dreaming will be without someone offering exceptions! I don't mind lurking there, but it really irks me when it seeps into the other areas. Imagine coming here for the first time, having just discovered something you never knew was possible, then asking a completely normal question about something you really want to understand... and being welcomed by a space cadet offering his colourful theories as solid fact. It's just not helpful. Original Poster has the good sense to leave them alone and let them discover his particular brand of wisdom by themselves, so why can't the true believers offer them the same courtesy? Just the facts, ma'am. They will find you if they want to.

[Alric]

My step father is a pretty intelligent person who happens to be Christian. He is pretty religious but I never really talked to him about religion but I always thought there was no way he would take the bible literally. Then one day we were talking about other stuff and the topic came to living forever and things like cryonics and stuff. Any way, he mentions some of the people in the bible and how they lived a long time, and I was like "Wait those people are not real, they don't count." And he was like, "They are historical figures." And I was like, "No, they are biblical figures." Any way, it occurred to me that he really did seem to believe those stories were literal and historical, and he was taking the idea of people like Moses and Adam as living hundreds and hundreds of years literally. I am kind of scared to ask if he thinks the flood and stuff are literal but the way he was talking about Adam and Eve, it sounded like he might of thought that was literal. On a side note, I have not watched the movie for Noah but I heard that it was pretty good. From what I heard they were able to make a serious movie about it because they weren't taking it as some literal real event. Which makes sense, because any movie that pretends that the flood was a real thing isn't going to be taken seriously.

[Sageous]

I don't mind lurking there, but it really irks me when it seeps into the other areas. Imagine coming here for the first time, having just discovered something you never knew was possible, then asking a completely normal question about something you really want to understand... and being welcomed by a space cadet offering his colourful theories as solid fact. ... Which is why it is a very good idea to have someone willing to call the space cadet on her solid "facts," and let the newcomer know there is more to the story than what said space cadet proclaimed. I find myself regularly offering completely normal answers to those completely normal questions, usually in the midst of, and in spite of, the "factual" proclamations of other posters. Yeah, it's annoying and occasionally tedious, but someone has to say something, else the fictional facts win the day. Right? But this has nothing to do with Noah, so...

[Sibyline]

Exactly. So Noah... well, there isn't much to say, is there? It seems pretty obvious how the story originated and got embellished. It won't be fun until someone comes in and professes to take the story at face value.

[Original Poster]

What is the point of this thread? If you've witnessed a murder but your testimony doesn't count in a court of law for whatever reason, the evidence you look for is based on the truth you already know. Criticizing a religious person for falling into confirmation bias doesn't erase their religious experience. The first step to winning an argument is to understand and respect the opposition's point of view. Marginalizing a religious person's experience as mass hypnosis or fear of death or uncertainty and you've already lost. That being said, I have a feeling the 60% of people that take Noah's Ark as fact are fear-based believers rather than faith-based believers because it is fear that necessitates the bible being true. The bible needs to be true so they can be rewarded for believing in it. Someone with faith-based beliefs has a connection to God evidential in itself and does not require particular details to be infallible. I can imagine a cataclysmic deluge that wiped out coastal cities all over the world, and many societies report one in their myths, but I think any reasonable person can assert that it did not happen the way the myth claims it does, the details got changed. When Ken Ham argues Noah's Ark, he asserts that the criticism against it is based on inaccuracies of historical science, that animals exist of a type, Noah gathered up all the types, and they diversified from there into their species. Not even Ham argues that aspect of evolution, he rants against animals changing from one type to another. Type is his word for either Family or Sub Family, I guess. Obviously it still doesn't work, but it's not about finding the truth. He has the truth, it's about defending the truth against criticism and convincing children of the truth in order to save their souls from atheism. If he can do that, he's serving God, and gets a guaranteed seat in heaven. He makes up for the mistakes he's made in life. I'm guessing, I know, but that was my reasoning when I was 12 and stricken by a fear of death that kept me awake at night. Even then I had a debate with an atheist friend and he brought up the idea that a comet crater was found near the red sea and could account for its parting, and my reaction was that it confirmed miracles, and his retort was that the definition of a miracle can't be accounted by science. Right there made a subtle but profound difference between his belief of God as an atheist and mine, I already believed God worked through Science. I didn't take the bible literally and never have, even when a fear of death had me as caught up in the flock as I could possibly be. So my view of people that take the bible literally and believe it fundamentally is a foreign one. I don't understand where they come from.

[Universal Mind]

DarkMatter2525 is one of the three kings of YouTube religious satire. The other two are Edward Current and NonStampCollector. This is another good video on Noah's Ark:

[Original Poster]

I don't find the film accurate because it depicts Emma Watson making out with someone that isn't me. |:<

[StephL]

What is the point of this thread? The desert-religions are a worthy target to shoot at in my eyes. I like the Noah story - like Sageous says - probably most people believe it without ever thinking about the implications of an unsatisfied god, who kills off every one of his human creations except 8 as solution?? Hitting reset!! Once you take that out of beloved fairy-tale land - it might open eyes of people as to which ideology they are actually following. Another good example is Moses and how he went out of Egypt with the lovely abominations bestowed by god on the Egyptians in the process. I could go more full on and out and say - Christianity is inherently immoral by promising that all your sins will be forgiven, if you follow the gospel finally. You can transfer your own sins on a scape-goat human sacrifice - that this puts you out of any responsibility whatsoever, if you look at it. To make sure, you need salvation anyway, it is declared, that with being born you are already sinful - you inherited that from Eve in the garden. This particular fairy tale stands at the basis of the desert-religions - this is poison!! I think really most people have never seen it like that - the myth of loving, peaceful and moral Christianity is too deeply ingrained. What is moral about being born bad without the famous freedom, god gives to decide between good and evil? They keep saying we would have no morals without faith - what a glaring insult - if people would have been ignorant, that you should better not rape and kill and steal - would they ever have reached mount Sinai? I doubt it. If you've witnessed a murder but your testimony doesn't count in a court of law for whatever reason, the evidence you look for is based on the truth you already know. Criticizing a religious person for falling into confirmation bias doesn't erase their religious experience. The first step to winning an argument is to understand and respect the opposition's point of view. Marginalizing a religious person's experience as mass hypnosis or fear of death or uncertainty and you've already lost. That's why I congratulate people like Bill Nye on his friendly, patient and enthusiastic appeals to open people's minds. There's a need for the Hitchens and Dawkins approach too, though. That being said, I have a feeling the 60% of people that take Noah's Ark as fact are fear-based believers rather than faith-based believers because it is fear that necessitates the bible being true. The bible needs to be true so they can be rewarded for believing in it. Someone with faith-based beliefs has a connection to God evidential in itself and does not require particular details to be infallible. I can imagine a cataclysmic deluge that wiped out coastal cities all over the world, and many societies report one in their myths, but I think any reasonable person can assert that it did not happen the way the myth claims it does, the details got changed. When Ken Ham argues Noah's Ark, he asserts that the criticism against it is based on inaccuracies of historical science, that animals exist of a type, Noah gathered up all the types, and they diversified from there into their species. Not even Ham argues that aspect of evolution, he rants against animals changing from one type to another. Type is his word for either Family or Sub Family, I guess. Obviously it still doesn't work, but it's not about finding the truth. He has the truth, it's about defending the truth against criticism and convincing children of the truth in order to save their souls from atheism. If he can do that, he's serving God, and gets a guaranteed seat in heaven. He makes up for the mistakes he's made in life. Yes agreed. The problem comes in, when children get indoctrinated - this has to stop in my view. In general by the way - why should religion - any religion - be taught in schools in secular states?? Let people believe what they want - tell it to their family at home - but don't give it the sheen of "knowledge" by teaching religion in schools at all. This might be an extremist view in some people's eyes - but that's the way I see it. I'm guessing, I know, but that was my reasoning when I was 12 and stricken by a fear of death that kept me awake at night. Even then I had a debate with an atheist friend and he brought up the idea that a comet crater was found near the red sea and could account for its parting, and my reaction was that it confirmed miracles, and his retort was that the definition of a miracle can't be accounted by science. Right there made a subtle but profound difference between his belief of God as an atheist and mine, I already believed God worked through Science. I didn't take the bible literally and never have, even when a fear of death had me as caught up in the flock as I could possibly be. So my view of people that take the bible literally and believe it fundamentally is a foreign one. I don't understand where they come from. So - do I get that correctly - you would say, whatever happened - whatever God did - it was done within the laws of nature? Say he threw a comet instead of just bestowing plain magic on Moses. How would he do that, though, without ultimately using magic anyway? The only other way would be, that everything is predestined exactly down to the point beforehand. What would be the whole point of the creation endeavour then, though? What makes you think, a god exists? And wouldn't he have to be a horrible monster, if he did?

[Original Poster]

I said I believed in God when I was 12, and even then I couldn't wrap my head around taking the bible literally. What do you plan to accomplish by attacking people that think differently from you if you can't even understand where they're coming from? The closest I can get to understanding those beliefs still have god hurling a comet. If you're going to be a militant atheist and call people's beliefs poison that you know nothing about, then you're just part of problem.

[JettLagg777]

Two things that show you only like to take other atheist's advice. 1. The bible never said that the flood was world wide. I believe along with countless other people, that the flood just covered mesopotamia. 2. Bill Nye is a very "out of context kind of guy". I never even liked him before i found out he was an atheist. He said that the bible was modified and changed over the years. But he obviously never researched it, or perhaps he just heard the same from other atheist. Over the years archieoligist have uncovered thousands of bibles dating back around 2000 years and up, and all of them had been spot on, even the ones in different languages. Unlike the koran (and other bibles), which was re-written 3 times, and almost none match up.

[Alric]

1. The bible never said that the flood was world wide. I believe along with countless other people, that the flood just covered mesopotamia. That isn't true. The bible clearly says it was a world wide flood. In fact it gives exact measurements and says the flood waters rose to 15 cubits over the tallest mountain on earth. In other words, the story is bullshit. Also if you want to interrupt the flood as being a localized flood in Mesopotamia then that pretty much proves that the flood myth was just a word of mouth story created by people who experienced a bad flood. In other words, it wasn't supernatual in any way. People just experienced a flood and made up a story about why it happened. The entire party about God wiping out humans and stuff wouldn't be true and so there would be no reason to believe a god was involved in the flood at all. It would just be a natural flood. So if you do think it was just a local flood, then you must be able to recognize that the bible isn't literally true, and in that case there is no reason for you to believe in a god.

[Descensus]

Two things that show you only like to take other atheist's advice. 1. The bible never said that the flood was world wide. Genesis 7 refers to the flood in the context of "the earth". Some quotes: 7:4 -- For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 7:6 -- And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. 7:10 -- And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. 7:19 -- And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 7:20-24 -- And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. I think you are being too casual in your use of "the earth." This reads like it was a very clear worldwide phenomenon.

[StephL]

2. Bill Nye is a very "out of context kind of guy". I never even liked him before i found out he was an atheist. He said that the bible was modified and changed over the years. But he obviously never researched it, or perhaps he just heard the same from other atheist. This is a pretty genial round-up of the debate: Conclusions I made after watching the debate | Godless Men Over the years archieoligist have uncovered thousands of bibles dating back around 2000 years and up, and all of them had been spot on, even the ones in different languages. Unlike the koran (and other bibles), which was re-written 3 times, and almost none match up. Wait - what exactly are you talking about here? These supposed thousands of bibles, archaeology has unearthed - are you talking about OTs? Care to link up? And what then are "other bibles"? At the side - and not that it would matter in terms of credibility, ultimately - but I thought, the Koran was pretty much conserved in it's original form? Oh - and while I am at it - their you go:

[juroara]

You have a problem against the Beyond Dreaming section? Then I have a problem with you. Why the hell are you comparing its members to fundamentalists who take the bible literally? Just the opposite is true. The Beyond Dreaming asks the opposite of you, to postpone your own doubts about that which you don't understand. But neither does it ask you to take anyone's words as the absolute reality. The motto of the Beyond Dreaming is you don't have to believe in anything that anyone says - but at least try it out for yourself before spouting it isn't true based an a lack of hands on experience. There is no comparison to the open minded curiosity that goes on with groups like the Beyond Dreaming - and those that simply believe what they're told. Dissing those who ask questions regarding the nature of dreams and seek out their own answers? Yeah, that's the only thing that's fucked up about this picture.

[StephL]

You have a problem against the Beyond Dreaming section? Then I have a problem with you. Um, whom are you talking to? Must be me - without further specifications, as the thread-opener. This is, what you probably refer to: Spoiler for off-topic-conversation on Beyond Dreaming with snoop and me: Take one look at Beyond Dreaming and Inner Sanctum and tell me you aren't just afraid for those people (or yourselves) as you are the Christians who take this story from the Bible literally, or honestly, any part of the Bible literally. Frankly, I'm more concerned with those in Beyond Dreaming and Inner Sanctum simply because they haven't grown up their entire lives being indoctrinated to the wild and crazy beliefs you see expressed in those subforums. I digress, it is indeed sad to have to come to terms with, on a daily basis, that humanity on a whole lacks the skill of logical reasoning and deep thought. In fact people aren't just flat out stupid, but nearly retarded. No one has the desire or the passion to better themselves or the people around them, people don't want to continue to learn or grow. It's pretty sickening. This is one such example that is more easily noticed than others, but with the believers' numbers dwindling, I usually don't worry about it. A small disclaimer: when I say "no one", I don't literally mean no one. However, it might as well be "no one" because the amount that actually do have the drive to better themselves and continue learning is negligible compared to the adult population of the earth. I am afraid for those people, definitively - and I do my sceptical best to help dispel as much delusion as possible, when I come across it - but I do not actively search for it on here - my energies are invested better elsewhere. How many people generally are drained of their money and time and whatnot by woo of all sorts - hard to know. I was looking "beyond" from time to time when I joined - even posted some - not tempted to do so any more. Do you go there to discuss? I rather hope, some thinking-motivated people come yonder and put their noses in Science and Mathematics for disputing stuff. This thread came about from impulse - I keep getting shocked and worried about America - it does not fit the picture I grew up with and I find the numbers extreme. I don't really post in Inner Sanctum, but occasionally I post in Beyond Dreaming trying to be as objective as possible so that people could at least start to understand things or think things through (trying all the while to sound neutral and un-insulting so that they don't get offended and throw a fit), rather than just tell them they are wrong and stupid for believing what they do. Unfortunately my attempts are pretty much just as in vain as the latter, they pretty much just say I'm close minded or could never possibly know if whatever it is could exist or be possible or not. You know, using the typical logically flawed arguments that make appeals to (or lack thereof) expertise, comprehension, wonder, and emotion to prove me "wrong." Why the hell are you comparing its members to fundamentalists who take the bible literally? I didn't say, that being one it's members amounts to the same thing as being a Christian fundamentalist. Otherwise I would kick up a fuss. Christianity and it's delusions are not a mostly harmless thing in my view - not something mainly private, disorganized and indeed consisting of people's own subjective, varied and often flexible delusions. Very different. But BD does have a culture of "because I say so" - and it's not only me or other general sceptics of the supernatural who get this feeling: know this is unrelated, but I would like to make a quick "Beyond Dreaming" note and request to you and Snoop: Please post there! I post there occasionally (though certainly not as often as I once did), and have found that worthwhile conversations there can happen, but they depend on the presence of patient, sturdy skeptics. Without them, every thread becomes a happy "It's true because I said so" exchange between the faithful that erases any meaningful conversation pretty quickly. Indeed, I just had an intentionally "out there" thread destroyed by just those folks, and I would much rather have had it destroyed by folks who drew on empirical data or mathematical knowledge, with that destruction following a lively discussion. Listening to people announce their successes with, say, shared dreaming, is boring at best, and that's all Beyond Dreaming will be without someone offering exceptions! So, I for one would most welcome your contributions, if you're willing to put up with the highly ironic "close-minded" cliches! I for one didn't follow this invitation - it's too cumbersome to be a patient, sturdy sceptic, if I don't really care about the subject. That doesn't mean I "have something against" BD being in existence. It's just I don't take part and am of the opinion, that people are by and large deluding themselves with wishful thinking. And yes - that often makes me fear for people - especially for them wasting their precious time and energy. That's ultimately not my business, though. On the other hand I am indeed openly anti-Christianity/Judaism/Islam and find that a worthwhile endeavour. Just the opposite is true. The Beyond Dreaming asks the opposite of you, to postpone your own doubts about that which you don't understand. But neither does it ask you to take anyone's words as the absolute reality. The motto of the Beyond Dreaming is you don't have to believe in anything that anyone says - but at least try it out for yourself before spouting it isn't true based an a lack of hands on experience. There is no comparison to the open minded curiosity that goes on with groups like the Beyond Dreaming - and those that simply believe what they're told. Dissing those who ask questions regarding the nature of dreams and seek out their own answers? Yeah, that's the only thing that's fucked up about this picture. Well - there is one thing, which is really taboo in BD, something that nobody wants to hear or even honestly consider - and that would be somebody expressing his belief, that there is no such thing as a soul, a spirit, something immaterial and supernatural about human nature and the world. And once you exclude a possible conclusion - you are not open-minded any more. Period - as Sageous might add. Also - if you happen to know something for sure - like why this or that theory can't be true, doesn't agree with evidence or reason - you make yourself instantly very unpopular - whatever it is - as if an attack on one specific thing would bring all the spirituality house tumbling down. Which would be the case, were it about biblical inerrancy, but is not when it comes to the latest consciousness belongs into quantum physics enthusiast. I do also disagree with the notion, that you need to try everything out yourself to debunk it, this would be obvious, when it comes to any other topic - but stuff pointing towards the supernatural is treated as almost sacrosanct at times, often actually. I spare myself the effort of debunking things for the benefit of an audience, which is mainly interested in reinforcing what few there is. Members of BD debunking stuff themselves are extremely rare, too. But I do not have a problem with your asking questions and coming to conclusions, which I find delusional - as long as you don't bother me with it - I won't go and seek you out in order to disillusion you about it - or lets say very rarely, if something really irks me. If I come across it outside of the beyond - I might - depending on my interest, mood, background-knowledge and the weather. No hard feelings!