simple question

[_guy sajer]

I just had a big fight with my husband about Noah's Ark. Doesn't that sound crazy? What a dumb thing over which to argue!

My husband believes the story of Noah's Ark is literal and that it occurred exactly as it is recorded in the Old Testament. No matter what scientific evidence I point to which shows the story of Noah's Ark to be pure fantasy, he refuses to even consider that the story may not be true, or at least incorrectly recorded in the Bible. He says God isn't bound by science or physical laws, and besides, none had to be broken for the story of Noah's Ark to be true. I cannot see how he believes such nonsense, but I'm perfectly happy letting him believe it. The problem is he's not perfectly happy with me not believing it.

He doesn't even want me mentioning in front of the children that I don't believe the story of Noah's Ark. But I still do, anyway. They need to know all sides of the argument.

I'm content not to bring it up, but Tom brings the story of Noah's Ark and other Bible tales up incessantly. It's either agree with him, remain silent and let Tom and the children misconstrue my silence as agreement, or disagree and start arguments. ARRRRGGGHHH! I usually ignore his preaching, which is the best policy, but all this Noah's Ark talk on the board has me edgy about it for some reason. Thanks a lot, Tarski and The Dude! ;)

KA

You might try asking him under what conditions is genocide is "moral." This is the oft overlooked dimension to this debate. Put aside the logistical impossibilities of Noah's Ark, if the story is true, Jehovah is guilty of genocide, making him a far worse mass murderer than Hitler and Stalin combined.

Also, I wonder if he agrees with the underlying principle of the Ark story: disobedience to God is a "sin" worthy of death.

Then, what about the millions of innocent children killed? The guy doing the killing was the same one who later said (paraphrasing), "Woe be unto him that harms one of these (child); it would be better for him that a yoke be placed on his neck and him cast into the sea."

Also, what about, "Man will be punished for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions?" If this story is true, then many innocent children will punished precisely for the sins of others.

The whole story is morally abhorrent from every angle you look at it.

Does he think you (being a disobeyer of God's word) are worthy of death too?

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:
Does it strike anyone else as funny that when religionists wish to be dismissive of something, they try to turn it into a religion?



Yes, that does strike me as funny!

KimberlyAnn wrote:
Come on, Beastie, we all know atheism and environmentalism are religions. ;)



As I've said before, if (as the MADites suggest) atheism is a form of religion, then infertility is a form of parenthood.

Maybe this is born out of the frustration of not being able to use the Trump Card: Oh yeah??? Well, prophets in the Bible did horrible stuff, too!!

So it becomes: Oh yeah???? Well, ATHEISM and SCIENTISM are religions, TOO!!!!

[_KimberlyAnn]

I am sorry, please accept my apology.

Of course I accept your apology! Thank you! (You've know that since yesterday, but I thought I'd reply for the benefit of anyone else reading the thread. :))

KA

[_KimberlyAnn]

I just had a big fight with my husband about Noah's Ark. Doesn't that sound crazy? What a dumb thing over which to argue!

My husband believes the story of Noah's Ark is literal and that it occurred exactly as it is recorded in the Old Testament. No matter what scientific evidence I point to which shows the story of Noah's Ark to be pure fantasy, he refuses to even consider that the story may not be true, or at least incorrectly recorded in the Bible. He says God isn't bound by science or physical laws, and besides, none had to be broken for the story of Noah's Ark to be true. I cannot see how he believes such nonsense, but I'm perfectly happy letting him believe it. The problem is he's not perfectly happy with me not believing it.

He doesn't even want me mentioning in front of the children that I don't believe the story of Noah's Ark. But I still do, anyway. They need to know all sides of the argument.

I'm content not to bring it up, but Tom brings the story of Noah's Ark and other Bible tales up incessantly. It's either agree with him, remain silent and let Tom and the children misconstrue my silence as agreement, or disagree and start arguments. ARRRRGGGHHH! I usually ignore his preaching, which is the best policy, but all this Noah's Ark talk on the board has me edgy about it for some reason. Thanks a lot, Tarski and The Dude! ;)

KA

You might try asking him under what conditions is genocide is "moral." This is the oft overlooked dimension to this debate. Put aside the logistical impossibilities of Noah's Ark, if the story is true, Jehovah is guilty of genocide, making him a far worse mass murderer than Hitler and Stalin combined.

Also, I wonder if he agrees with the underlying principle of the Ark story: disobedience to God is a "sin" worthy of death.

Then, what about the millions of innocent children killed? The guy doing the killing was the same one who later said (paraphrasing), "Woe be unto him that harms one of these (child); it would be better for him that a yoke be placed on his neck and him cast into the sea."

Also, what about, "Man will be punished for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgressions?" If this story is true, then many innocent children will punished precisely for the sins of others.

The whole story is morally abhorrent from every angle you look at it.

Does he think you (being a disobeyer of God's word) are worthy of death too?

Hello, Guy.

I have asked my husband the above questions. He believes, like many other people, that whatever God does is moral - God is the author of morality and without him no morality exists. He cannot understand how atheists have any morals at all and expects them to sink into utter depravity during their lives and then suffer in hell for eternity.

I've gone over and over the atrocities in the Old Testament and he explains them all as necessary, right and good because they were commanded by God. He thinks I blow the whole thing out of proportion. I asked him why David and Bathsheba's son had to die for David's sins. He replied that I don't understand the ways of God and that I'm blind to the truth.

I don't consider myself an atheist, but, according to Tom (my husband) that's not good enough to save me from hell. I don't think my husband believes I deserve death in this life because I'm a disobeyer of God's word, but he does feel I'm going to hell, which worries him and frustrates and saddens me. Hopefully, he'll eventually see his way clear of his fundamental, literalistic beliefs the way he did Mormonism, but I'm not holding my breath. If only he could hold his tongue things would be a lot more pleasant.

Thanks for the tips, Guy.

Isn't your wife still an active Mormon? Is she content with your non-belief?

KA

[_harmony]

Hopefully, he'll eventually see his way clear of his fundamental, literalistic beliefs the way he did Mormonism, but I'm not holding my breath. If only he could hold his tongue things would be a lot more pleasant

Your husband is an inerrant fundamentalist? I wonder how I missed that. I thought he was a Mormon.

[_guy sajer]

Hello, Guy.

I have asked my husband the above questions. He believes, like many other people, that whatever God does is moral - God is the author of morality and without him no morality exists. He cannot understand how atheists have any morals at all and expects them to sink into utter depravity during their lives and then suffer in hell for eternity.

I've gone over and over the atrocities in the Old Testament and he explains them all as necessary, right and good because they were commanded by God. He thinks I blow the whole thing out of proportion. I asked him why David and Bathsheba's son had to die for David's sins. He replied that I don't understand the ways of God and that I'm blind to the truth.

I don't consider myself an atheist, but, according to Tom (my husband) that's not good enough to save me from hell. I don't think my husband believes I deserve death in this life because I'm a disobeyer of God's word, but he does feel I'm going to hell, which worries him and frustrates and saddens me. Hopefully, he'll eventually see his way clear of his fundamental, literalistic beliefs the way he did Mormonism, but I'm not holding my breath. If only he could hold his tongue things would be a lot more pleasant.

Thanks for the tips, Guy.

Isn't your wife still an active Mormon? Is she content with your non-belief?

KA

It is a curious outcome that the supposedly "moral" believer so breezily rationales away human rights atrocities, while the supposedly "immoral" non-believer finds such atrocities morally abhorrent. It is further curious that they seem to be completely incapable of grasping this irony.

As I've said repeatedly, critical self-reflection is not a hallmark of the believer.

My wife is still active Mormon. She "accepts" my non-belief in that she has no choice and has found a way to accomodate it. (She is a very moderate believer, and common to our apologist buddies, has a hard time understanding that other people are not as moderate as her.)

I am proud that my oldest child-18 year old son--is a confirmed non-believer who thinks Mormonism is "total b***s***." He is on his way to Arizona State to start college this week.

I am worried about my 16-year old daughter, she has the personality of her mother and the same need for belief. But I am working on her.

My 13-year old daughter and 10-year old son are still works in progress. Needless to say that I am doing what I can to counteract the indoctrination they get from church.

One encouraging sign is that despite the fact we live in the heart of Mormonism in Sandy, none of my children's' social circles are Mormon-based. We are raising them pretty liberal (in terms of social and political beliefs) and encouraging critical thinking, so there is hope that they too will find the pure air of intellectual freedom.

[_wenglund]

It is a curious outcome that the supposedly "moral" believer so breezily rationales away human rights atrocities, while the supposedly "immoral" non-believer finds such atrocities morally abhorrent. It is further curious that they seem to be completely incapable of grasping this irony.

Such things happen when folks on both sides over simplify the argument.

As I've said repeatedly, critical self-reflection is not a hallmark of the believer.

...which brings to mind the saying: "stereotyping is a hallmark of the prejudiced." ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_guy sajer]

It is a curious outcome that the supposedly "moral" believer so breezily rationales away human rights atrocities, while the supposedly "immoral" non-believer finds such atrocities morally abhorrent. It is further curious that they seem to be completely incapable of grasping this irony.

Such things happen when folks on both sides over simplify the argument.

As I've said repeatedly, critical self-reflection is not a hallmark of the believer.

...which brings to mind the saying: "stereotyping is a hallmark of the prejudiced." ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's hardly an oversimplification to say that God committed Genocide. It is stated clearly in the text of the Bible. It appears that you too suffer from some strange inability to recognize and condemn moral atrocity when it involves something for which you have an emotional attachment.

Stereotype, perhaps, but I've met literally thousands of believers, and I believe this to be a broadly accurate generalization. There's a difference between stereotype and broadly accurate generalization.

I assume you heard of something called the "average," which is a broad statement of central tendency. On average, I'd say true believers lack a developed capacity for critical self reflection WITH REGARDS TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Casual empirical analysis based on thousands of data points bears this out.

[_cacheman]

Some of my favorite examples of smart people buying into questionable things, are: 1) the global warming nonsense (see: junkscience.com; and 2) the Embryonic Stem Cell boondogal (see:Science and Technology Magazine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

I'm not someone that is often accused of being smart, but I am someone who believes that global warming is occuring, and that it is likely being accelerated by human actions.

I am familiar with the website that you linked to, and it's history, but I'm not a climate expert. I will admit that I have based many of my beliefs concerning global climate change on other's primary research and not my own, so I would enjoy looking into this deeper with you. I certainly don't want to be misled, and perhaps you have information that I have not been exposed to yet.

I am a scientist in probably one of the more conservative (idealogically) disciplines; agricultural science. I spent 9 years in a land grant institution department that housed the state climate center, with a dozen or so climatologists and biometeorologists. They were unanimous in their belief that global warming was occuring, and that it was likely being accelerated through human activity, despite some broad idealogical differences (several were conservative LDS). The agriscience dept that I'm currently in also appears to be unanimous in this belief. This degree of unanamity between these scientists that I trust, has influenced my own beliefs, but like I said earlier, I haven't put the time in to really investigate the claims of both sides.

I am interested in discussing the global warming issue with you, and seeing what evidence has brought you the level of certainty that you have in your views. If you want to go over and dissect an article from the site that you linked, that might be a good start. I must say that I don't have a lot of confidence in "junk science.com" based on what I know about the site, but I'm open to the fact that I'm in error.

Please let me know if you would like to explore this further.

cacheman

[_Some Schmo]

I was looking at this creationist site and reading some of the desparate pseudo-science when it occured to me to ask this simple question: http://www.creationism.org/

Is there anything detrimental to the public understanding of science in the Occident than biblical literalism?

Here is another one of the most insidious sites on the web:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/


I'll answer the question posed there; Is Noah's Ark a Myth?

YES

I don't remember if I've mentioned this here before, but I told my six your old the story of Noah's Ark in as objective and non-value-laden terms as I could. In other words, I tried to tell it like an unbiased journalist. I embellished it only to make it more interesting and accessible to a six year old, but I was trying very hard to tell it without giving the impression about a belief in it one way or another.

After I told it, I asked her if she liked the story. She said she did. I then asked if she believed it, and she said she didn't. I asked her why not, and she said, "Well how would the guy get two of every animal from all over the world?" (I had never even considered this problem with the story, so needless to say, I was impressed).

My daughter loves her animal documentaries (she tells me she want to be a veterinarian when she grows up), so she knows something about natural habitats. Her first impression of the story conflicted what she already understood about animals, and so she immediately dismissed it as pretend.

I think it's kind of funny that not even a moderately informed six-year-old believes that crap.