Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Minimalist]

it is not the bad thing we make it out to always be especially for children.

Then kill yourself, moron.

[robvalue]

The trivialising of death is one of the most dangerous things about religion.

[GrandizerII]

The same is true with the ark. Noah did not build the ark out of defiance or out of spite, rather God used Noah's love and expanded the effort to fit the need to save the world. How did the food last? how did the animals not eat each other how did so many fit in such a small place are all logistical questions one would ask a man who defied God... Rather would you ask God if he came down and put everything and every one in his boat? This is literally a case of "God did it."

Oh well, at least you're being honest here, and not pretending that scientists could learn a scientific lesson or two from this passage.

[vulcanlogician]

Oh well, at least you're being honest here, and not pretending that scientists could learn a scientific lesson or two from this passage.

You got me thinking. Assuming that God transmitted the knowledge of Genesis 1 to whomever composed it (according to the text, there were no eye witnesses,), he could have dropped a little science, right? Something to the effect of:

"And God placed the sun 314,700,000,000 cubits from the Earth. He made the sun from many little mottes of dust. Each mote of dust was a pebble, circled by a tiny piece of lightening. And, in the suns depths, the sun combined two of these motes of dust to make another kind of mote made of two pebbles with two pieces of lightening encircling them. And thus was the sun's light shone upon the Earth."

Might not have made sense to the guy writing it, but it would help us in modern times to validate the Bible. I mean some Christians think the Bible contains prophecies of ICBMs. If this is true, then certainly the "inspired" fellow who wrote those prophecies down wouldn't have had any idea what the prophecies were about. So (if that's true) why couldn't God have given us some accurate scientific information like in the example I fashioned above?

[The Grand Nudger]

The same is true with the ark. Noah did not build the ark out of defiance or out of spite, rather God used Noah's love and expanded the effort to fit the need to save the world. How did the food last? how did the animals not eat each other how did so many fit in such a small place are all logistical questions one would ask a man who defied God... Rather would you ask God if he came down and put everything and every one in his boat? This is literally a case of "God did it."

Oh well, at least you're being honest here, and not pretending that scientists could learn a scientific lesson or two from this passage.

-the only recourse being magic. How did he fit his boat together? Not nails, not lashings. The boat was held together by magic. Where did the rain come from, magic. How did the animals get there, magic. How were they sustained, magic.

It's a story about magic from start to finish and if you accept a magical solution than no problem is insurmountable..if you do not, then the fairy tale is trash from floor to ceiling.

[robvalue]

It doesn’t make sense, because it represents an all-powerful god needing help from a man. This can’t be the case. So god must be involving the man out of choice, when he could easily achieve whatever outcome he wanted alone. He made the whole of reality a few pages ago, remember. Now he needs help with population control? This is busywork, or some sort of lesson to the man.

God must have some hidden agenda for the unnecessary involvement of the man, and the unnecessary time it would take. Is this for the benefit of the man himself, and his family? Or is it for the benefit of those eventually hearing this story? It can’t be for the benefit of all the people and animals he’s going to kill. It could only benefit those in the future through hearing of this story, not directly because of the man's actions, which he could have easily done himself.

If it was just for the benefit of this one man and his family, then that leaves us the problem of why it’s in this book at all, as well as why god would bother with this. However, if the benefit is in the telling of the story to future generations, then it crucially makes no difference whether it happened or not. So why do it at all, and not just get the man to write down the story? Perhaps god is just fucking around for his own amusement. Why did he create anything in the first place? There were no problems to solve. Ultimately his own amusement is the only motivation.

My self-congratulatory logic leads us to the conclusion we already know: religions aren’t concerned with facts. They are concerned with what we can learn from stories. In this way, people can consider themselves wise and feel some sort of benefit, regardless of whether they are reading a book of historical accuracy or a fictional tale. Either serves the same religious purpose.

---

PS: this point ties in really nicely with a video I watched yesterday.

[Mystic]

The trivialising of death is one of the most dangerous things about religion.

Agreed.  People who do that, are misrepresenting God and his true representatives.

[Abaddon_ire]

The trivialising of death is one of the most dangerous things about religion.

Agreed.  People who do that, are misrepresenting God and his true representatives.

How do you know that?

[Mystic]

Agreed.  People who do that, are misrepresenting God and his true representatives.

How do you know that?

By signs and proofs and reflecting on them.

[Minimalist]

I mean some Christians think the Bible contains prophecies of ICBMs.

The fucking bible is a Rohrshach test for religitards.  They think they see all sorts of shit in it.