Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-07-2006, 12:27 PM   #1
postbicameral
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
One of the reasons that we know about things like plate techtonics is that we often find "things" where they shouldn't be. Like tree fossils buried under ocean beds, and clam-shells on mountain tops.

Something that I find personally interesting, but have never seen mentioned anywhere is the following: If we find these things, didn't ancient peoples find them also? If you were some superstitious wanker walking up a mountain 3000 years ago, and you found a shitload of clamshells, what would you think? The only conclusion you could possibly infer from the find is that there was a flood-- a flood so out-of-control that it covered the mountains. And not only that, but people all over the world would be finding clam shells and they would all be reaching the only possible conclusion (in light of their knowledge of the day), that there was a flood.

The next logical thought would be, "Well hell, if a flood covered everything with water (even these mountain tops!) how did we survive?" Obviously there could only be one conclusion: someone put them all on a boat and took care of them until the water receded! From that perspective, there really is no other conclusion that could be reached... we would all be dead otherwise.

The next logical thought after this is then, "If someone knew enough to build a boat, then they must have known in advance what was going to happen." Again, the only possible conclusion you can reach from this is that there is a god, a god that is in control enough to tell someone what is going to happen. And since this god chose to save some people, it must also be choosing to kill everyone else.

*VIOLA* - A flood myth is born.

I know that this explanation may offend many christians because it makes too much sense, but I'm throwing it out there anyway.

I would also be willing to bet that 80% of the bible is the result of people trying to explain dinosaur fossils.


EDIT: my piss-poor typing
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2006, 12:40 PM   #2
DontBeStupid
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Imagine the same superstitious wanker witnessing something like the 2004 tsunami. Unaware that an earthquake even took place, it would appear like the ocean just suddenly rose and destroyed everything! must have been caused by.... you guessed it.... the god
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2006, 12:58 PM   #3
LEToxin
Senior Member
 
LEToxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stardust
Posts: 897
Yeah, I think about this sort of thing all the time, those poor bastards that lived 3000 years ago. Imagine an earthquake destroying your town and there is death and despair everywhere, then, the local religious leader tells you that your creator is ticked off and this is what he does when you don't sacrifice your 1st born.

Luckily jesus came along and now we can smile about how crazy god used to be, but, in all honesty, I'm sure he had a morally sufficient reason to do these msr'ed things.

Ezekiel 23:20 (New Living Translation)
20 She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse.
LEToxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2006, 01:15 PM   #4
Choobus
I Live Here
 
Choobus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
If religons were based solely on fear eventually people would get fed up and start defying god. You earthquake my town again? Mother fucker, let's get a posse together and fuck this divine bastard deep in his godhole. Sadly, people love religon because they need it. It is necessary for them to deal with the big nasty world and to answer all the hard questions with one big fluffy answer: Jeeebuz is love. That's why they are prepared to work so hard to rationalize shit like tsunamis, and that's why they will resist with every fible of thjeir being when you try to tell them that they might be wrong. Can you imagine what a fucking idiot you would feel like it you suddenly realized that the religon you were so into was nothing more than made up anachronistic bullshit? That would be like going to work for weeks and never getting paid until one day you go down to payroll and demand your checks only to be told "sorry mate, but you don't work here." (Like that but a million times worse). You might well finish out the week and then quietly slink away instead of going back to the office and telling everyone what a fool you have been. So, Christians, my message to you is this: go down to payroll dudes, and the sooner the better.

You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
Choobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2006, 02:37 PM   #5
Demigod79
Senior Member
 
Demigod79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 894
Well, at least with our ancestors they had a good reason for believing in gods. They just had no other way of explaining things and needed some way to make sense of the world. This is different in modern times, where we, for the most part, DO know what causes natural disasters and events on earth. I find it truly puzzling why theists continue to believe in their deity to explain things when there are perfectly rational and reasonable natural explanations available.

Religion - it gives people hope in a world torn apart by religion.
Demigod79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2006, 03:03 PM   #6
Kath-a-leen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Choobus wrote
If religons were based solely on fear eventually people would get fed up and start defying god.
OR they just get even more religious. They assume that the flood/natural disaster state of things is the actual baseline state of nature and that it's the periods of calm which are occurring only due to the god's intervention. If they start seeing an increase in catastrophic events then it must be because they have relaxed or lapsed in prayer vigilance. Like saying Katrina happened not because the people of N'awlins were evil but because there has been a decline in church attendance across the US. They don't blame the god for when the bad stuff happens, they just give him credit for when it doesn't. So the fear works either way you look at it and the god gets credit either way. It's a good way to build a meme.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2006, 05:21 PM   #7
baconeatingatheistjew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Those moral religion founders weren't just happy with one story of incest starting mankind, they had to kill most of the early incest line off, and start a brand new incest line when God got pissed off at how the first incest line was behaving.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2006, 05:36 PM   #8
Zarathustra
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I think its more reasonable to say that there was a flood of narrower scope that destroyed a single village. That the survivors caried on the story of it but kept exagerating it. And that the whole thing eventually got twisted around and found its way into Hebrew mythology. Why would they invent a whole bogus account of a flood based on a few sea-shells? The people who wrote the bible weren't scientiests after all. I call into question their deductive capabilities.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2006, 09:40 AM   #9
PanAtheist
Obsessed Member
 
PanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
Pepes - I like the kinda inevitability of each stage of idea-arriving-at!

Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are
salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they
parasitize teams).
PanAtheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2006, 01:22 PM   #10
skribb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Choobus wrote
If religons were based solely on fear eventually people would get fed up and start defying god.
If we choose to go by old man Poe's words, religion is:
simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2006, 02:07 AM   #11
Marquis de Sade
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Its more akin to nationalism really, except the concept of faith is like a turn-off switch for rational challenge, making religion worse than any other kind of nationalism.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2006, 05:04 AM   #12
There Is
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Choobus wrote
If religons were based solely on fear eventually people would get fed up and start defying god. You earthquake my town again? Mother fucker, let's get a posse together and fuck this divine bastard deep in his godhole. Sadly, people love religon because they need it. It is necessary for them to deal with the big nasty world and to answer all the hard questions with one big fluffy answer: Jeeebuz is love. That's why they are prepared to work so hard to rationalize shit like tsunamis, and that's why they will resist with every fible of thjeir being when you try to tell them that they might be wrong. Can you imagine what a fucking idiot you would feel like it you suddenly realized that the religon you were so into was nothing more than made up anachronistic bullshit? That would be like going to work for weeks and never getting paid until one day you go down to payroll and demand your checks only to be told "sorry mate, but you don't work here." (Like that but a million times worse). You might well finish out the week and then quietly slink away instead of going back to the office and telling everyone what a fool you have been. So, Christians, my message to you is this: go down to payroll dudes, and the sooner the better.
:lol::lol::lol:

Seriously, please, consider writing a comedic book on this quoted subject. Is there a forum room listing Choob's greatest hits?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2006, 05:52 PM   #13
thenormalyears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
fuck this divine bastard deep in his godhole
tehe
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2006, 06:30 AM   #14
postbicameral
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
John Galt wrote
I think its more reasonable to say that there was a flood of narrower scope that destroyed a single village. That the survivors caried on the story of it but kept exagerating it. And that the whole thing eventually got twisted around and found its way into Hebrew mythology. Why would they invent a whole bogus account of a flood based on a few sea-shells? The people who wrote the bible weren't scientiests after all. I call into question their deductive capabilities.
I'm of the school of thought that people 2 or 3 thousand years ago were just as capable of deductive reasoning as we are today, and that they just had a smaller base of knowledge to draw from. And true, if this just were "a few sea-shells", than yes they may not have paid attention. But it's not; it's an entire layer of sedimentary rock, full of sea fossils, that would be exposed as massive outcroppings, occuring at nonsensical altitudes.

I really don't think that ancient people were too stupid to realize that sea-shells aren't usually on top of a mountain.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2006, 08:15 AM   #15
Rocketman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There is a really interesting bit of archeology done on the Black Sea. ALthough the timelines don't jibe with the noah story--and there is a debate as to exactly how fast the flood occurred--the ecvidence seems to show that the strait between turkey and macedonia opened due to an earthquake--or erosion to allow the medditerranean to flood the black sea basin--triggering a massiv exodus of folk and expanding a previous smallish frshwater lake into the black sea.

At least when i last looked at the stuff.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:18 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational