lets quit screwing around and prove or disprove the bible: here is how

Originally posted by Boondock78
let me first say that i am a hardcore atheist and don't believe in the bible or the word at all. not one single iota. that said, i have a thirst for knowledge. i would very much like to KNOW the score here know what i mean.

Well, to disprove anything you'd have to KNOW it first. If you've actually read the Bible thoroughly & understand what it says, then you've taken the first step. Then you'd have to research history...Concentrating on the subject matter. I've got a book in my own personal library (I got it from the Columbia House Book Club some years ago) that was a bit of help, "The Mystery & Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls," by Hershel Shanks. That book describes not only what the Scrolls say, but also explains the history of the region around Jerusalem during a pivotal time...It goes on to explain how Christianity "evolved" from its roots in the Hebrew Judaism.

I don't reccomend that you stop there though...Also look into the history of the most influential Churches that have determined what today's religions are like. If you really see religion as your "enemy" then you need to know your enemy before you can fight it...

Personally, I don't see Religion as an enemy--What I see is that organized religion is the real enemy of personal spiritual awareness. So I ignore the religious dogma & work on my own soul.

[edit on 20-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

midnight, i could do all that but i choose not too. see, i started reading the bible a few times and it just seems like a fantastic tale that was written down. i don't need to research all this crap. it's common knowledge and me reading the bible(the book in question) really won't give me any answers imo...

can't defend the bible with the bible....least i can't.
they pull that ark off that mountain and i will study some more...till then, i want to block it out and debate it on the net...thats it

edit* i know enough of it to know that i want no part of it....even if all the stories were true, i still don't want to follow a god or more specifically, that god.
i think that god is vengeful and such and i don't want to follow that.
i am alive in the here and now and i want to live my life the way i see fit. not the way some dude from thousands of years ago or some supreme diety that we don't even know exists.
well, we know it's just that some do not choose to acknowledge....they fall back on the faith part of it and raound and round we go

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Boondock78]

Well, I found out the hard way (in the Military) that if you want to actually defeat something, you have to know it well enough to counter its every move & nuance...For example, in the Military case I just mentioned:
I never wanted to play any of those dirty "office politics" games because I've got no stomach for brown-nosing (You just wind up stinking as much as what you'd be sniffing ). I tried to just stay out of it & do my job, but guess what?...Those dirty little back-stabbing, brown-nosers will go after you, especially when they've already noticed that you can't handle it!

So, I learned the hard way...I had to see how to identify the back-stabbers, learn how they operate, then figure out how to counter their moves in order to defend myself from them. I still never practiced the game, just did what I could to defend from it. The "Cosmic College of Hard Knocks" way of education.

Before I go any further, I feel that I should point out that I am a religious person, but I personally disdain all organized religions. IMO, that's always been the whole problem because those in Church Heirarchy do play those little political games just to try to gain rank within the organization...And that's true with any organization, not just religion.

In your thread title, you indicated a desire to prove or disprove the Bible (& religion in general)...Before you can go that far, you have to learn about it first. Before you can prove or disprove anything, you have to examine it first...Without a broad & deep knowledge of the subject, you ain't goin' nowhere with it.

[edit on 20-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

MM, since most atheists place their "faith" in science which has a strange way of shifting its dogma based on newly found scientific discoveries or 'revelations', it looks like another form of organized religion to me. Scientist have seminars, teach their beliefs about how the world is supposed to operate yet can't define how the brain interprets 3-dimensional reality. Sounds suspiciously like divine mystery to me. Speaking of supernatural things, anyone who can figure out how to make Windows Vista run smoothly is very much a wizard, spiritual guru or at least in league with Satan to me. You need to join us here at the Church of the SubGenius, Praise Bob!

Originally posted by crgintx
MM, since most atheists place their "faith" in science which has a strange way of shifting its dogma based on newly found scientific discoveries or 'revelations', it looks like another form of organized religion to me.

first, midnight i will make it short. i don't care at this point in my life what the bible says. i know what it says about homosexuality and other social/moral issues and i don't agree with it and i will not follow a structure like that...i believe in human rights, not different rights for different people based on if they're gey or a polygamist or whatever.
as long as they are not effecting my life, i don't care what they do and i will not follow a god that spews this crap.
just won't do it. send me to hell or let me rot in the ground. i am alive NOW and will life MY life MY way.

crg, you spin your words in a strange way.


crg, there is no dogma about it. it keeps shifting and changing cause new data comes in and *gasp* we learn and we attmept to toss out the truth. people have a right to the truth.
i can't see how people look at the changing theories as a bad thing.

thats how we have figured out all that we have....we form theories, test things, make mistakes, fix them, test em again, new theory.
it is a learning process.

not like opening up a science book and saying "ope.....this is what the book says so no need to test it for ourselves. it's in the book so it MUST be true."

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
I believe someone already went to Mt. Ararat, claimed he found the ark, and it was a fraud he'd made up himself.

I looked it up just now, the guy is Ron Wyatt. He claims to have found all the following

The trurh is not in this POSTER, Ron Wyatt does NOT think the Ark is on Ararat.. Bottom line what he posted is FALSE as usual.

EDIT - Let me tell you why he is wrong so it doesn't look like an attack.

There are 3 suppossed ark finds, one is on Ararat which Ron Wyatt disagrees with. One of the finds is of course on Ararat and several people claim this one, there is Ron Wyatt's discovery which the turkish Government accepts and has even put up a Noah's Ark welcome center and Turkey claims it is the Ark, and last but not least there is the iranian Ark find, I forget this guys name but he claims the Ark rests in Iran.

I don't know if any of them are the ark or not there is so much one could logically thnk about to deiscredit it.

1. Would wood last for 4400 years or decompose? So the ark may be gone.

2. When Noah got off the ark there would have been no trees to build with and maybe Noah took the ark apart for the wood for guilding. Meaning no ark can be found.

3. They just haven't found it yet.

Of the three Ark sites the scientists that think they have the real ark all believe the others are wrong an they are correct, of course. But we do know that the only site recognized by any government is ron Wyatt's site and it is in the VALLEY of the ararat mountains not on the mount like some have stated. Ron wyatt's discovery also contains the Drogue(sp?) stones which the otehrs do not, and scientists believe these 12 stones came from Noah's ark and they all rest around the Wyatt discovery not the others.

I also think that even if we proved 100% that Noah's Ark was found people would still claim that the Bible is false and they do that for the reasons GOD said they would in 2nd Peter..

In later days they will be WILLINGLY IGNORANT AS TO THE FLOOD out of their own lusts of the flesh and mind. What this means is that if these people believed that the Bible was true that would mean there is a GOD and a CREATOR and that there is LAWS. Many people prefer to live the life they want and according to the rules they want, and a God and a system of right and wrong goes against their LUSTS OF THE FLESH, tehrefore they can not believe in GOD or they would have to change their way of living and treating each other.

[edit on 7/21/2007 by theindependentjournal]

Originally posted by crgintx
MM, since most atheists place their "faith" in science which has a strange way of shifting its dogma based on newly found scientific discoveries or 'revelations', it looks like another form of organized religion to me. Scientist have seminars, teach their beliefs about how the world is supposed to operate yet can't define how the brain interprets 3-dimensional reality. Sounds suspiciously like divine mystery to me. Speaking of supernatural things, anyone who can figure out how to make Windows Vista run smoothly is very much a wizard, spiritual guru or at least in league with Satan to me. You need to join us here at the Church of the SubGenius, Praise Bob!

Heheh...hilarious analogy! Love it. The major difference, if I may say, is that science is comprised of thousands of schools of thought and practice, new ideas and concepts are constantly tested to refine and understand the natrual world, and an open mind is a successfull one. Whereas religion teaches compartmentalism (well, to be fair, so does science), complete and utter trust in the 'accepted' truth, castigates any who contradict the leaders, and pushes many of it's followers into poverty, ignorance and death.

Other than that - yes, there are similarities

J.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
I believe someone already went to Mt. Ararat, claimed he found the ark, and it was a fraud he'd made up himself.

I looked it up just now, the guy is Ron Wyatt. He claims to have found all the following

The trurh is not in this POSTER, Ron Wyatt does NOT think the Ark is on Ararat.. Bottom line what he posted is FALSE as usual.

EDIT - Let me tell you why he is wrong so it doesn't look like an attack.

There are 3 suppossed ark finds, one is on Ararat which Ron Wyatt disagrees with. One of the finds is of course on Ararat and several people claim this one, there is Ron Wyatt's discovery which the turkish Government accepts and has even put up a Noah's Ark welcome center and Turkey claims it is the Ark, and last but not least there is the iranian Ark find, I forget this guys name but he claims the Ark rests in Iran.

I don't know if any of them are the ark or not there is so much one could logically thnk about to deiscredit it.

1. Would wood last for 4400 years or decompose? So the ark may be gone.

2. When Noah got off the ark there would have been no trees to build with and maybe Noah took the ark apart for the wood for guilding. Meaning no ark can be found.

3. They just haven't found it yet.

Of the three Ark sites the scientists that think they have the real ark all believe the others are wrong an they are correct, of course. But we do know that the only site recognized by any government is ron Wyatt's site and it is in the VALLEY of the ararat mountains not on the mount like some have stated. Ron wyatt's discovery also contains the Drogue(sp?) stones which the otehrs do not, and scientists believe these 12 stones came from Noah's ark and they all rest around the Wyatt discovery not the others.

I also think that even if we proved 100% that Noah's Ark was found people would still claim that the Bible is false and they do that for the reasons GOD said they would in 2nd Peter..

In later days they will be WILLINGLY IGNORANT AS TO THE FLOOD out of their own lusts of the flesh and mind. What this means is that if these people believed that the Bible was true that would mean there is a GOD and a CREATOR and that there is LAWS. Many people prefer to live the life they want and according to the rules they want, and a God and a system of right and wrong goes against their LUSTS OF THE FLESH, tehrefore they can not believe in GOD or they would have to change their way of living and treating each other.

[edit on 7/21/2007 by theindependentjournal]

Errmm...there IS one simple reason why the Arc myth can be proven to be definitively false - and it's undeniable. According to myth, Noah took two (2) of every animal/beast/creature in the world in order to re-establish them again after the flood. In oder to accomodate these millions of creatures he'd have needed an 'Arc' the size of Manhatten!! Case closed I'm afraid...

J.

When hearing about Noah i always ask myself how the Koala bears from australia made it to the ark and back to australia without eucalypt leaves?

This is the only food source for them and these trees that they prefer are only in australia.

And when at it how did the south american sloth make it in time to the ark?
question after question and nonone will be able to give me a plausible answer

Here is a great site that asks alot of questions that creationists cannot answer in regards to the flood

Yes ... good point.

Likewise with the pandas and the bamboo.

Did Noah have vivariums for the animals that need salt marsh? Mangrove swamp? Desert conditions? How did he keep the lions fed for 40 days without the zebras being used up?

I have too many questions ...

animals had to be fed
animals had to expel waste
animals had to be kept under control
i mean, if those animals from all over the world then surely there would be fighting and such.

it is just not a logical situation

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
1. Would wood last for 4400 years or decompose? So the ark may be gone.

Let's see...Wood has been known to petrify, but I couldn't say that the conditions in the area would cause that to happen.
Hmmm...The Egyptians have a continuous written history that goes back to about 3150 BC or so, and the Mesopotamians even longer by about 200 years or so. No one has found any breaks or disturbances in their records that would indicate such a massive flood...Continuous, unbroken flow of history recorded from before, during & after the time period you've mentioned.
Then again, maybe either no one has yet unearthed any direct evidence of a flood at that time...And then these two very ancient civilizations just picked up where they left off after the flood receeded & wrote anything about it? Or maybe use of the number of 4400 isn't accurate. Anybody here able to read the Hebrew Cuneform & get access to the original manuscripts?

Hey Boondock...See what I mean about having to learn history? This is documented, tangible archeological/anthropological evidence I've been talking here...

[edit on 21-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

I once believed in science until I worked as a research assistant over a summer in college. It's not about increasing the whole of human knowledge, it's about funding grants and proving to everyone else that you're right and they're wrong. Even if you have to fudge the data. Best example I can see of this EL Bore's , An Inconvenient Truth. Total Horse Puckey. Ask any decent decent statistician to look over the methodology over the data gathering and they'll rip the pro- Global Warming nuts a new one. The whole of the 'green' movement has been taken over by luddites and elitists.

IMHO most scientist are every bit as narrow-minded as any Biblical Liturgist, especially in their own devoted field of study.

You attack the Bible as being a book of false history but you've failed to mention that it certainly did record some events with a fair bit of historical accuracy. All of Western law(especially the Bill of Rights) has its roots firmly planted in the Bible especially the human rights laws. The Fundies get in a tizzie over gay rights but they generally forget about what Jesus spoke about forgiveness of sin. I know a gay Christian and when he's confronted by the Fundies, he always asks them to forgive his human weakness and he reminds them that it isn't the actual sex act that is the sin but the lustful thoughts drive it. They usually turn purple at that point and storm off.

I suggest that you open your mind to the possibility that most written human history is at best fragmentary and extremely subjective. With the spread of human knowledge through the internet, the cracks and gaps in what mainstream history has presented us are starting to show and academia is getting very nervous about it.

Historical fact is an oxymoron.

In my previous post, do you see me use the word "fact" anywhere? No?
Would you like me to tell you why I didn't use the word fact? Well, like it or not, I'm going to say it anyway...

After I posted the evidence from my own researches, did you notice that I followed that up with questions?
For anyone to learn & grow, start with gathering up whatever information you can (& you may notice that I used the available evidence from both science & religion), then think about it. The universe viewed through the eyes of both religion & science is so complex that every answer you find leads to more questions. It's the finding of more answers that leads towards understanding; That's the only way to learn.

This is what torques me off when the extreme sides start butting heads...Neither one is willing to examine the other side without trying to batter 'em down into submission. This is the cause of most of humanity's suffering...The intolerant attitudes that refuses to look & learn. By refusing to learn anything that may be useful, both sides lose.

No, I haven't missed what you said about your stint with organized science. But those same little "office politicking" games show up in organized religion too--If you were to try religion as your profession you'll find out that I'm talking truth.

When I do my researching, I don't try to make a professional career of it...I do it for my own curiosity & self-enlightenment. That way, I can put the "politic games" out of my way so I can actually learn something.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

MD, my last post was directed at the OP.

I'm a retired USAF Ammo troop. You're preaching to the choir about office politics. Since retirement I've specifically avoided applying for gov't jobs because of my utter contempt for the bureaucracy and politicians that run it. In my career field, golden kneepads were the only way your were going to make the top 2 enlisted ranks.

Finally to quote that master of parable, Obi Wan Kenobi, truth depends greatly on your point of view and the facts usually have little to do with it.

i am well aware of documented floods.

example....if the bible said there was a huge flood and thats it, well, that would be one thing..lots of other accounts of a 'global' flood.(did they even know how big the globe was back then? anyway)

the bible however mentions the great flood and then goes off into fairy tale mode and tells about how this supreme being tapped one dude to make the largest wooden boat ever made, in a fairly short amount of time, and if that were not fantastic enough, he also was tapped to take TWO of every species on this fantastic boat....

even if it was 2 of every species they knew of back then, i'm thinking that was still a lot.
species from different parts of the world......meh


then, it just comes to rest on ararat and it will forever be there cause nobody can look..

i already said i don't doubt there is SOME truth to the bible. i don't doubt there was a dude named jesus. i don't doubt he made tables and chairs and wore hippie sandals....i do however doubt the water into wine thing. the whole ressurection deal, and on and on and on...

Ok, first of all, to deal with the OP's point, there is no way for a wooden ship to petrify on top of a mountain, the conditions that create petrification simply are not there (deep mud to shield the wood from rot, salt which preserves the wood long for, thirdly, the huge pressure to act on it).

Secondly I would like to question Noah's construction methods. Building a wooden ship over 400 feet long sounds easy enough, but the forces acting on the hull are squared as the size increases. So a 400 foot ship has four times the pressure on the hull planking as a 200 foot ship. I have read the passage in the Bible regarding God's orders to Noah regarding the construction of the Ark, and nowhere does he mention whether it is to be cold-moulded, carvel, clinker or double-diagonal. The frames in the illustration that Defcon linked to are laughable, there is no way you could skin those frames, even cold-moulding, and expect the thing not to be crushed. The frames would have to be something like a foot apart and a foot thick, and then the increase in weight increases the pressure on the hull and you are back to square one. Another problem is "hogging".
Read this:

Until the 1920's a large percentage of the world's shipping consisted of large wooden ships and their plague, after plain old rot, was "hog". A ship floating quietly in still water is subjected to external forces. These are the weight of the vessel on its cargo (downwards) and the buoyancy force (upwards). Archimedes showed us that for a floating vessel, these two forces must be equal in magnitude. For a floating rectangular piece of wood, they are also equal in distribution. For most normally shaped ships, the distribution is not equal. For example, when an empty ship has more weight (relatively heavy structure, engines and equipment) in the ends, and more buoyancy in the middle. This "excess" of buoyancy in the middle cause the middle to rise up and the ends to bend down -- a hog in profile. The opposite condition is sagging. For old wooden ships, this resulted in a long term, plastic deformation. The total curvature could be a meter or more in larger vessels. Some vessels like the Wapama hogged so much that they nearly broke in two. Hogging is no longer the problem it was in the 1920's when it threatened the nation's merchant fleet -- because those ships have sunk!

From:www.tricoastal.com...

So unless Noah had access to a mind-boggling amount of cypress wood and the best (Chinese) boat builders of his age, there is no way a wooden ship was built over 400 feet long. The largest barges ever built were probably the Roman ones, over 300 ft, but that was 3000 years later.

So, who would be mad enough to fund an expedition to dig through 300 feet of snow on mount Ararat to look for a ship that couldn't have been built, and couldn't have survived even if it had

Originally posted by Boondock78
IF the ark is ever found that would basically prove that all that bible rambling really happened.

No, it would prove that a big boat was found on a mountain. That's all it would prove.

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

Originally posted by Boondock78
IF the ark is ever found that would basically prove that all that bible rambling really happened.

No, it would prove that a big boat was found on a mountain. That's all it would prove.

i have since explained myself better
sorry

Originally posted by Boondock78
(did they even know how big the globe was back then? anyway)

I think they did have a least an awareness about how big the world was, even if only vaguely. In another thread, I pointed out that, at least as early as 3120 BC, Egypt was conducting fromal trade relations with Mesopotamia (The earliest use of heiroglyphs found to date were put to use for labeling trade goods & the Egyptian name for Mesopotamia was tagged on trade goods). Plus, Egypt was always sending out expeditions to discover new resources to use.

There's also some quasi-mathematic theory in circulation that the (nearly) precise dimensions of the Earth was "coded into" the engineering of the Great Pyramid...But that was built during the 4th Dynasty, after the time proposed for the Flood. I don't put a lot of stock in that because, if you mess around with numbers long enough, they'll fit whatever theory you want them to fit.

Even the (admittedly scant) evidence of Moses in Egypt indicates that he showed up in Egypt during the 18th Dynasty...Literally centuries after the Pyramids at Giza were built. Yes, there is a link to Moses in Egyptian history, but it's a bit sketchy & inconclusive; According to that little bit of evidence, Moses would have been growing up in Egypt about the time of Pharoah Ahkenaten (the famous "Heretic Pharoah") & probably had the Exodus during the reign of Seti I.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]