Confronting Friends and Family

[Hovik]

Viable is the wrong word.

It is not less anything, Hovik. It is meant to be used within the scope of your science. You realize that other scientists use a less exclusive definition? A biologist is much less likely to go all, "We're going to apply all of these criteria to language that only apply to humans, thus making it an exclusively human behavior." Animals communicate using sounds and gestures that are specific to their species' or even their own groups. That is good enough for me and quite a few others. By necessity, you have to make more of language than the average bear or you would be out an educational endeavor, would you not? Well, the truth of the matter is that a doctor may look at a liver and see all of the things it does and is made up of, while a layman looks at it and sees a bloody wad of tissue. Both are right.

Language is an exclusively human behavior, though. Animals communicate using sounds and gestures, but sounds and gestures alone do not make up a language, only a system of communication. The very point is that the word language only ever applies to humans because language is, by its own definition, a human concept. I accept that there is a layman's definition of language that broadly includes all forms of communication between two livings things, but it's not what language is.

that isn't found in any other system of communication.

How do you know that? That is my point and a number of other people's points. Can you understand monkey? I've always found that it takes quite a bit of hubris to assume human superiority in any endeavor. Frankly, you're the first atheist I have ever seen cough up this argument. I thought it was strictly a creationist boast.

We know that it's not found in other systems of communication through empirical observation. Some linguists, biologists, and perhaps some anthropologists actually are capable of forming tests to ascertain exactly what volume and content of information is being communicated between two animals. We can analyze the frequency and distribution of sounds and gestures just like we do in languages we've never previously encountered or translated to determine whether or not they're being used in a complex fashion. The end result is typically, no, they are not being used in a fashion that would meet the criteria of language.

By the way, there's nothing creationist to say that humans are better than other animals at certain things. Other animals are certainly better than us at plenty of things. It's not hubris to recognize that we're the best endurance walkers and runners on the planet. It's definitely not hubris to recognize that humans are cognitively more advanced than other animals in many respects, and that also includes our communication system--our language. Note, however, that "more advanced" doesn't necessitate "better," it simply means that it's better adapted for its function. Other animals don't need to communicate in the same way humans do; therefore, they don't.

[Brakeman]

The flood is only ridiculous if you make it ridiculous. The Ararat range spans a massive area complete with the basins required for the flood of Biblical proportions (you only need ONE basin by the way). Thus the area which flooded, although we don't know the exact area, could have indeed flooded as the Bible states and had the Ark end up upon one of the Mountains (as opposed to having the Ark drift the other way).

If it was a localized flood, what would be the point in the saving of the animals? Why would the story describe a bird unable to find a resting area despite being able to fly among the moon and stars as the bible claims. Why would god's wrath have been upon a localized people when we know that mankind is so fundamentally similar regardless of which continent they live on.

No, the flood story in context could not have been referring to a localized flood, it was referring to a dream by a drunk, dung covered goat herder in the ancient middle east.

[Aractus]

If it was a localized flood, what would be the point in the saving of the animals? Why would the story describe a bird unable to find a resting area despite being able to fly among the moon and stars as the bible claims. Why would god's wrath have been upon a localized people when we know that mankind is so fundamentally similar regardless of which continent they live on.

Noah had no idea the world was round. His worldview itself was localized.

[Kirbmarc]

Noah had no idea the world was round. His worldview itself was localized.

The alleged god, however, should have known that.

[Brakeman]

Noah had no idea the world was round. His worldview itself was localized.

The alleged god, however, should have known that.

And the "supposedly" spirit inspired bible writer should have been told to correct that in his much later writings. Why didn't god correct Noah's supposed mental failings when he had his word to mankind penned?

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps this god knew that, by and large, his followers would not question what they had read? Just throwing that out there. Why put any effort into accuracy or correction when the people for whom this narrative is important don't actually give a shit about either?

[Brakeman]

[quote='Rhythm' pid='363937' dateline='1353171107']
Perhaps this god knew that, by and large, his followers would not question what they had read? Just throwing that out there. Why put any effort into accuracy or correction when the people for whom this narrative is important don't actually give a shit about either?

Yes, but supposedly god loves all of us, not just the easily deluded. If he knew that later smarter men would roam the earth, he would have to not care for them.

Of course, there is a good argument to be made that god is the "patron saint" for the stupid.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, I don't know that this omission has anything to say about the love of a god. I would probably question how much "effort" could possibly be involved in these corrections for such a being..but love? Meh. I fail to correctly explain a great many things to my children, doesn't mean I love them any more, or any less, doesn't really have anything to do with love (for me anyway). Plenty of "smart" believers in the world...why we imagine that they are any more questioning of their narrative-of-faith as the ones who aren't "smart" is beyond me. Being smart, having a functioning brain, or a phd is no defense against religious bullshit. It's been refined over the millenia to appeal to us from every possible angle....the good, the bad, and the ugly. May as well add the smart and the stupid to that list.

[Brakeman]

My point was that if god loved the smart and skeptical as much as the dullards he would write with enough truth and accuracy to give us a fair chance from being condemned to hell's fiery flames.

This raises another point. If Madison Avenue can convince a woman to buy silly stuff she doesn't need, imagine how well a truely omnipotent god could write a message to his loved ones to entice them to become faithful followers.
The bible is proved to be non god inspired by its failure to be a perfect motivator.

[The Grand Nudger]

One might imagine so, if this hell business is as terrible as the faithful claim. On the other hand, why one imagines anything about something so utterly alien to us as a god -in this case- it's "love" (and the implication that it's love might be something like ours..or lead it to motivations like our own) is similarly beyond me to explain. Here we see the faithfuls bullshit sneaking it's way in to begin with. They desire love (and conceptualize it in a transparently human way).... they imagine a god (and conceptualize it in a transparently human way).... they connect the two for reasons entirely indescribable or un-compelling. Why should I even entertain the notion of a gods love as a criticism of the same?