Slashdot Mirror
Researchers To Climb Ararat To Seek Noah's Ark
fudgefactor7 writes "CNN/AP has a story about researchers that plan on ascending Mt. Ararat in search of the Ark of Noah. My favorite quote: ''We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it,' McGivern said.' As if pictures can't be doctored and are absolute proof...."
Kangaroos in Australia? Did they just swim there?
I'd rather read an arkful of Chick tracts than be force-fed this kind of tripe from CNN.
I have been pwned because my
But at least it could be carbon dated to determine if it was from the right time. Carbon dating is a little more difficult to doctor than photographs.
I'll wait to see what they turn up rather than discounting any of their finding before they've gone.
Plus, does this mean that Turkey is finally letting people back on Ararat?
clifgriffin > blog
Hrm? I'm ready to believe that there genuinely exists a boat roughly the dimensions specified that the myth was based off of. Now, that this boat was used to ensure the survival of all the creatures of Earth during a giant flood -- maybe not. But that there exists a really damn big boat with an even bigger myth surrounding it? If there's reasonable evidence, I have no trouble with it.
Honestly -- would you have a problem with an expidition set off to find a really old boat if it weren't for that boat being part of Christian mythology?
I love how he assumes that he is going to find a large boat, and he assumes that any large boat he happens to find is going to be the one and only Noah's Ark. In his mind, "It" is Noah's Ark. He isn't looking for evidence that whatever it is on top of Mt. Ararat is Noah's Ark, he is already firmly convinced that it is.
Compare this with an arcaeologist excavating a tomb of someone. Who? I don't know, anyone: "Well, we're going to go inside the tomb, and hopefully we will find stuff. We hope we will find things that can prove who this person was, and what thier daily life was like, and maybe what their beliefs were; and maybe we'll find something really cool."
See the difference? This guy is no archaeologist. He is a christian on a quest for the 21st century holy grail.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
The story as I heard it includes the assertion that the neighboring countries (turkey and one other I believe) were opposed to the idea because of the foreseable influence on their state religions.
Personally - I think there is a good deal about the Bible which is clearly historical. (I belong to the "Jesus save me from your followers" camp of distant believers.) And as I understand it - some story about a flood exists as lore in most cultures.
It would be a great disappointment I think if we were to prove that Noah's ark doesn't exists - as the largest benefit of religions as it applies to this life - are the metaphors and the lessons taken. (I am agnostic on the theory that wars are all religious). I think also that much good has been done in the name of religion - but even that must be seperated from how religion informs our secular thinking today.
Civil rights is based on the presumption (for example) that God created all men - er and women - equal.
AIK
And we will get a picture of a printout of a carbon dating result and some text saying "we did it".
Groovy.
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Ironically, people thought that Troy were just figments of the imagination 150 years ago, and now they have pretty good proof of where it is.
I don't think that everybody should be so closed-minded about such things, just because a religious text mentions it.
If they do find real proof, that's pretty cool. If not, no big deal. I mean, there was and are millions of hours of research that pretty much amount to nothing, yet I wouldn't call that all wasted time. Science should not be afraid to explore, period.
If it was there it would have been found by now. You have millions of christians all over the world who have everything to gain by finding it. Many people have trekked up the mountain and flown around it and nobody has found anything yet.
even if they found it there it would not mean anything. I don't think there is any doubt there was a huge flood in the are. There is geologic evidence for it, every single culture records it, and there is even a pretty solid theory as to how it came about (hint it was not due to 40 days and nights of rain). All it proves is that there was a flood (we already knew that) and that some boat floated in the flood and got lodged somewhere on the mountain.
None of that proves that there was a boat containing two of every single creature on earth and a handful of people who then proceeded to populate the entire earth. That story is ridiculus on the face of it.
evil is as evil does
Like "Why would someone build a boat at this altitiude?"
So it he does find something, its a big deal, for one reason or another. Why not just keep an open mind about it until he gets back? My understanding is that its his buck. No hurry to write the guy off. Maybe he really did see something, be it the ark or no, that bears investigating.
3) It is Noah's ark, we will go on with our regular lives, and the scientists say "Umm... can we have a closer look at that book of yours?"
Umm. No. The scientists will not care any more about that book than they do now. It does not provide anything that helps us do research (otherwise known as science). They may ask to see the boat though, there is stuff to apply science to there.
Science is not some alternative to religion, it's only a tool. I guess the truth scares religous folk, and hence they always see science as some sort of competitor.
I am a little fuzzy on that point - you are saying that if they find something that is definitively identified as The Ark (like a little plaque on it, that says "The Ark"), then the laws of physics will be rewritten to accomodate a literal reading of the bible? Somehow I doubt that is going to happen, even if there is a little plaque.
sic transit gloria mundi
Sea level has never been that high since humans have been around.
What?
consistent with archaeological evidence. Nothing in the Bible has ever been disproven based on ancient findings by any reputable scientific investigation.
/. there is such open hatred for Judeo-Christian beliefs when just about anything else goes? If this were an Egyptian dig, no one here would denigrate it. If this were Mayan or Aztec, or Hindu or ancient Sumerian, it would be taken at face value. Why the hatred, then, for what has been shown time and time again to be the most accurate and most studied ancient historical text in the world?
Supposing that Noah's ark actually exists (which I believe is the case), its sheer size and climatological conditions would suggest that there should be at least some respectable quantity of wood left above the timber line of some mountain in the Ararat range that could be identifiable as being (1) about 4300 years old; (2) quite probably above the timberline; and (3) showing signs of having been worked with tools.
Why is it, therefore, here at
I guess the truth scares religous folk, and hence they always see science as some sort of competitor.
The same could be said about a lot of "scientific folk" that see religion as a competitor. Most religious people I know (including myself) aren't anti-science in any way. It's easy to stereotype any group of people, whether they're religious, into science, white, black, Republican, Democrat, etc. but the simple fact is that stereotypes can't cover every member of a group.
I'm Catholic, I believe in the Bible but I don't think it's 100% fact, there are a lot of stories that are just symbolic, but the basic idea is true. I also believe in evolution (I won't go into exactly what I think about it, it would be a waste of typing and I'm not exactly going to convince anyone of anything they don't already believe).
It's just as easy for religious people to think about those "heathen scientists" as it is for scientists to think about those "religious kooks." The important thing is that most people aren't morons that refuse to think more than one way, though typically the most vocal are.
I'm starting to think this isn't the best place to promote my Anti-Sig Campaign.
>Science should not be afraid to explore, period.
Science doesn't explore; people do. Science is just a method, and sometimes people use it to refer to the body of knowledge that we currently hold to be true that was acquired via the scientific method. Scientists also peer-review each others' work, unless somebody is trying to hide something. That might mean that the researchers know their work won't hold up under scrutiny, or it might mean that the reviewers have an interest in the status quo and are trying to silence the new research. After all, if the work is bogus, it's a lot more powerful to bring it out in the open and point out all of the things that are wrong with it, than to say "nope, can't be true, lalalalalalala." Just because somebody thinks that the expedition won't find anything doesn't stop the people from going, provided somebody is willing to fund it and they can get whatever permits are necessary to go explore their target site.
When things get ugly is when someone claims to have performed an experiment that proves something new, and no respected scientific journals will publish it for whatever reason. Then you get cries of "conspiracy" which may or may not be true (it certainly has been true in the past). Sometimes the experiment is extremely badly designed and obviously can't prove anything, or maybe the researchers are pulling some kind of scam and don't want to subject themselves to scrutiny, but sometimes it's just plain resistance to change on the part of the science establishment.
Better than photos of something they claim to be the ark would be photos plus carbon dating results (and the results from a few other accepted dating techniques) a precise location of what they found. "It's up there somewhere; it was a miracle we found it" doesn't count.
Now that you mention it-
From the story text;
As if pictures can't be doctored and are absolute proof....
If that is not a "troll" I do not know what is. What if they do come back with pictures, does that automatically make them liars?
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I would never want to discourage anyone from such an endevour, whether it is about something from the Bible or studying creatures in the Galapagos.
Who knows, maybe they'll find something totally unrelated...oh that's "never" happened.
Incorrect. Borderline psycho tradition depends on the bible being the infallible word of God. Most SANE followers of the bible see it as a collection of stories, some true others myth, that act as a guide.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
I dont think i could agree more.
You're going to have a lot of people bagging it out because its associated with a common religion, and then you're going to have another group of people defending their right to believe what they want.
The wording of the story, and most of the replies i've read have shown me that while most of us want everyone to have free software (as in freedom) we still dont respect people's right to be free to believe what they want, no matter how much we might disagree.
Time for a reality check, do we really want freedom or are we content with a less free life?
Scientists find shit all the time that makes them rethink their view. That's what being a scientist is. To disregard facts is to assrape sans lube everything it means to be a scientist.
Besides that, it was a fucking joke. Lighten up.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
I'd rather they collect hair samples from it. A little monkey, a little giraffe here and there, etc... how does it compare genetically to the animals we have now? If this were indeed the ark then there would be some sort of definitive proof of paternity for every single sample found. Excluding those of the animals which were sacrificed or eaten of course . ;-)
-Don.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
The Bible contains tons of historical fact, and in fact it's well-researched by anthropologist and archeaologists. On the other hand, there's also tons of stuff in the Bible thats totally contradicted by the archaeological evidence, too. It's usefull to science in the same way that any very old text is usefull. One particular find isn't going to change anything.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The Bible of Christ's time, is not the bible of today. In fact, a great portion of it was written after his death.
Nevermind that the Bible in any form doesn't contain *ANYTHING* that purports to be Christ's own words. You take it as "gospel" that Christ though so, through the words of his disciples.
There's a reason Corporations don't let their employees speak for them...
It boggles the mind how anyone can accept the Big Bang as truth. We're even. Your turn.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
> so feel free to mod me down.
Oh man, quit saying that. You are way too passive agressive.
A couple points: You can't have faith-based belief AND a theory. A theory is an explanation based on facts (tests, observations) while faith is complete belief in something without question with NO EVIDENCE. So you either believe this conspiracy of yours or you entertain it as a theory based on pure speculation (which makes for a lousy theory).
>My faith is in the word of the Bible,
You mean that obscene book full or murder, rape, advocating of genocide, slavery, etc?
For kicks take this fun Bible quiz. That's what you believe? Weird.
The Bible is not a science textbook. That said, it isn't inaccurate on scientific matters.
There are plenty of fossils buried in silt deposits in Nevada at altitudes where no river could possibly have been, in areas where the average rainfall is a mere fraction of an inch each year. Geology, right?
The Sphinx in Egypt shows signs of water erosion, again in an area where annual rainfall is negligible. More geology.
Meanwhile, any dead tree matter (read: wood) from an ark that existed 4500 years ago is probably long gone. This expedition will prove nothing.
On another note, I was under the impression that the "four corners of the Earth" referred to compass points. True, compasses haven't been around that long, but the concept of North, South, East, and West have been around for millenia.
Meanwhile, the prophet Isaiah speaks of "One dwelling above the circle of the Earth." The Hebrew word translated as "circle" can also mean "ball" or "sphere". Note that a sphere is the only shape that looks like a circle from any angle. And for all you folks out there that wish to nitpick, yes, the Earth is actually an oblate spheroid, being slightly flattened at the poles. It still looks round from space... and Isaiah didn't need to go there to find that out. Isaiah's writings date back to approximately 800 to 850 B.C.E., by the way.
I don't know where you got that idea from. The mountain is a popular tourist destination and there have been many expeditions to find the ark already.
If somebody found the ark it would be the biggest tourist destination in the world and the Turkish govt would make billions off of it. It's in their interest to find something.
evil is as evil does
Don't you suppose that the money spent on finding the ark might be better spent feeding someone who is starving? Hell, they are going all the way to Turkey. It's just about as far to some starving kids in Africa.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
It was the strawmen, I tell you. *They* said he never existed!
why be so dead-set against religion
Most of what's wrong in this world stems from religions. Not the beliefs that state "be kind/loving/generous to your fellow man", but the zealots who blindly follow, believe, and misinterpret everything that they've been told/read.
I know 100% for a fact this will fail, but that won't stop people from bringing up counter-arguments against it.. and how that these events really took place, yadda yadda.
No, they aren't taking my money, but they're definitely taking someone else's money. Not only that, but I have to live in a world and witness things turn to shit due to religion.
For example, President GWB doesn't want Gay Marriages because... *gasp* religion says it's bad. I'm not gay, but if that isn't some closed minded thinking, I don't know what is. Any extremist (terrorists in particular).. it seems that most of the closed minded events that take place in this world are driven by misinterpreted religions, but religions nonetheless.
Spouting off about it on a "Researchers look for Noah's Ark" is probably not the best of places for it, but I like to speak my mind when given the slightest opportunity to do so.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Mt. Ararat is in historic Armenia. Its funny that the Turkish historians are travelling on Mt. Ararat even though there are probably many more qualified Armenian historians. Mt. Ararat (and Masis, right next to it) is still the subject of famous Armenian poems, songs, and stories. The land was inhabited (and ruled!) by Armenians for thousands of years before the Ottoman Government committed genocide against Armenians in present-day Eastern Turkey in the late 1800's and in 1915.
Ah well. At least we'll find out if the darn ark is there or not!
Not to say that this Bible story is wrong or Evolution is wrong but can you really say that "two of every single creature on earth and a handful of people who then proceeded to populate the entire earth" is less probable than Evolution? Would you also say that Evolution is "ridiculous on the face of it"? Different people find different things ridiculous. Think about other things that you may not find ridiculous that could be to others - possibly with some good, although maybe questionable, reason.
You mean like some crappy books that 'prove' evolution.
People like you piss me off.
No real evolutionists will say that evolution is 'proven' or 'fact' or 'the truth'.
Only religious zealots are after 'the big ultimate one really big greatest bestest truth ever'.
Any evolutionist will tell you that they don't believe that evolution has any truth to it, just that it's a logical probability based off the evidence at hand.
Creationists see evolution as a threat and wrongly assume that evolutionists are after the same 'truth' that they claim to have.
Point is that there is no ultimate proven truth and there never will be. Only possibilities and probabilities.
The 'truth' doesn't exist.
You're right. A god would be able to do this - break all natural laws and put a boat on Ararat. A god could also pull the sun across the sky and shift the waves in the ocean to make tides. The problem is that they don't make good explanations for natural phenomenon. Explaining anything (an event, why the sun rises, why we exist etc..) by inventing a god is a weak answer because anyone can make it up and it shifts the question from 'how did the boat get there?' to 'how do you know that your version of god is correct?' which is a harder question to answer. Fortunately the scientific method is able to do that and has proved itself over and over again with countless examples.
*sigh*
It's pretty hard to reconcile the bible with the abundance of archaeoligcal evidence that shows that dinosaurs ruled the earth for millions of years before the first humans showed up.
Reading and believing in the Bible doesn't require the reader to take it literally. Some random and eclectic examples of people who don't read the Bible literally.
These fairy tales don't fly on slashdot because the people here are educated enough to know better.
No, they really aren't; I read views on Christianity and other religions that are chock full of misconceptions or misunderstandings all the time.
There's a major tendency by various posters on Slashdot to overgeneralize American Protestant fundamentalism into Christian orthodoxy. If you don't know the differences between fundamentalism and orthodoxy, realize that your knowledge of Christianity ranks fairly low. (Which is to say that people can't be experts on everything. Even on Slashdot.)
My opinion, having been a Slash reader since the site's infancy, is that there's actually a fairly low level of religious knowledge amongst the learned Slashdot crowd. This tends to [unfortunately] manifest itself in haughty arrogance. QED indeed.
Exactly. I've always asked people why they're so all fired up to find Noah's Ark.
Wouldn't it be much easier to just go find Jerusalem?
The finds are exactly equal in their significance.
KFG
No doubt. There's not enough water on the planet to "cover the highest mountains", even if the polar ice caps were to melt. Accepting the great flood mythology at face value is to believe in magic.
Personally, I view the old testament as no more than the accumulated myths, genealogy, and records of an ancient nomadic mid-Eastern tribe. It is interesting from a historical perspective, but no more so than Beowulf, Homer's Odyssey, Nights of Arabia, etc.
In my opinion the "great flood" was perhaps a severe localized flood, something not uncommon to the Tigris and Euphrades river valley. Building a boat in anticipation of flooding certainly shows foresight, but is more suggestive to me of logic than divine intervention.
I agree that good scientists won't say that the Theory of Evolution is anything more than a theory -- of course, plenty poorer scientists do anyway, but that is beside the point.
I do take issue with the above quote, however -- that is precisesly what scientists are also trying to find. It's casually referred to as the TOE (Theory Of Everything), and currently Superstring Theory is a favorite contender. But yeah, science is pretty much about finding the ultimate truth...
Yeah, I wish religious people would do that.
You want an example? How about the story of Onan? Homosexuals get a lot of trouble from that one today. I doubt many of them decide to be homosexuals, they can't help it and the bible says to treat them... the way it says to treat lepers, which is another part that led to tremendous pain on the part of innocents.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
A few reasons. First, these gentlemen, as far as I can tell, are doing this in an attempt to prove Christianity. They are not out to learn anything they do not already know, and if they are, they are not intending to share it with the rest of the world by any verifiable means (pictures, are as the story points out, weak as evidence for anything). Their ultimate purpose is to deliver a conclusion, not facts. Your typical archaelogist visits a location to learn more about an unknown culture, not to offer conclusions, but simply to offer knowledge and let the information speak.
Do you see the subtle distinction here? On one hand, we have the scientist that assumes something to be true then goes looking only for evidence that supports it. On the other hand, we have the scientist that that explores and records only what is observed and lets the facts speak for themselves. Which of these categories is likely to get the most cynical reaction? Which category do you think these guys fall into?
There is also a negative reaction from many rational people to the heavy-weight evangelistic nature of Christianity. Rational people usually want evidence to back up claims, evidence which is often not offered by evangelism. This can put people at odds against an idealogy. Would you dislike it if people of other religions came thumping you with their religious beliefs using threats of punishment and slander? Would it make you uncomfortable? Also, many active religions today (key point to remember with your claim--many ancient religions of noteworthy attention are no longer practiced) use fear and coersion to recruit new members. Fear of eternal suffering or punishment is commen. Religions often do this at great financial benefit to themselves.
I could go on and on, but I digress. Nevertheless, I think when you look at all this, you find that there is a great deal of cause for people to express hostility towards religion. Perhaps you should take these things into consideration before you feel like you or your belief system are being picked on.
Join Tor today!
Yeah... I thought it was cool when I was a Christian too. Seriously! A kind of curse-of-the-ark thing. It poses a difficult question for theologians though: God loves you enough to torture his own son to death, but he's pretty meticulous about sealing off any avenue of empirical verification.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
> They laughed at Galileo, and Copernicus.
No.
"They" censored Galileo and killed Bruno. Copernicus published on his deathbed in fear.
"They" were the Catholic Church.
The good thing is that now that adults are more or less in charge the worst we can do is laugh at them. There is no secular police that will kill these men for being heretics and its thanks to the pioneers, western enlightenment, etc who went AGAINST the grain and fought for human rights that we are allowed to live in a secular state.
>popular thoughts of the society of the day.
What "popular thoughts" are you talking about? Most Americans believe in a creation and in various biblical myths. These people are the status quo defending "popular thoughts" not rugged individualists like the great minds of the past.
5,000 or however many years ago, there wasn't the distinction between freshwater and saltwater fish, but that over the last 5,000 years of natural selection, you ended up with fish that can only survive in fresh water and fish that can only survive in salt water.
Except such a change would almost certainly be enough to ensure that the evolved population would be unable to breed with the original population, if for no other reason than the two would not be able to meet to breed. That would be speciation, and thus macro-evolution. What's more, it wouldn't be as though a new species or two evolved, it would be every water-dwelling species! I would think that this would leave significant genetic evidence.
The argument is that the the seismic activity that led to the breakup of the continents and the formation of the large mountain ranges took place at the end of the flood,
The energies required to move so much of the Earth around in a few days or weeks rather than eons would liquefy the surface. Of course, sticky problems such as this is where creationists will generally invoke another ad-hoc miracle.
I'd like to take small exception to your assumptions about flooding in the area. Non-literialist biblical researchers had long thought that flooding in Mesopotamia led to the story of the Flood, as a major flood is recorded in the Summerian Epic Of Gilgamesh. More recently, a case has been made that the flooding of the Black Sea basin, which previously held a smaller fresh water lake, would have provided the seed for the story.
Compare this localized 1000 foot (300m) flood with the 17000 foot (5000m) global flood posited by the biblical story. Now, before someone lays into me for discounting the power of the Lord, consider how scientific research approaches this.
1. make observations of nature.
2. based on those observations, make an informed guess about why something came to be what was observed.
3. develop series of tests that might support your assertion, tests that other people can make independently.
4. collate data collected from many such tests, and see if the results support the theory.
For a localized Black Sea flood, there is previously collected evidence that due to the end of the last ice age, ice sheet melt flooded the eastern Med area, and what is now the Bosporus strait was breached about 7000 years ago. Salt water added 300m to the level of the Black Sea within a matter of months, drowning hundreds of square miles of land. Recent archeological dives along this now submerged land seem to show paleolithic human settlements. Further research is needed before strong conclusions can be drawn.
For a global 5000m+ flood, the very first thing we need to account for is the lack of suitable debris that would have washed ashore at high elevations as the waters subsided. If the Ark survived, some of the other wood left floating around might be expected to. The next thing would be to account for the volume of the ocean being doubled, and then halved, all in the course of a few months. Where did it come from, and where did it go?
As a biblical literalist, if your answer is basically that the Lord gave, and the Lord took away, then you've provided faith as evidence. While one's faith can be tested, it can't be independently checked and verified. The scientific method of investigating the works of the Lord assumes - baring evidence to the contrary - that the Lord maintains His creation in a consistent state: hot air rises, the sun sets, gravity sucks. If He doesn't, then the method will need to adjust.
So far, however, the method has proved useful at measuring the nature of Nature, such that we can reliably do things based on many of the conclusions we've drawn so far.
Luke, help me take this mask off
I'd expect the wood would have loads of DNA from all the crap and urine.
It'd probably have been saturated.
The difference is that science, by definition, can never claim to have actually *achieved* absolute truth. That's indeed what we're looking for, but science can never claim to have found it.
The best that science can say is "We have this model that, so far, doesn't conflict with any data. If you've got an argument that our model is wrong, we'd love to hear it."
Religions, on the other hand, generally claim absolute certainty about something: "We know the Earth was created 6000 years ago, because this book says so. To question this is heretical."
It's this claim of certainty that pisses off science types. I've got no problem with the idea of a deity, just the "take it on faith that there is a deity with these traits" bit.
IAAP (I am a physicist)
I suppose if they want to go and prove it to themselves, that's one thing. But if they are trying to go and prove it to the world, they are totally messed up about the way human beings really think and this expedition is a waste of time and other resources that could be better spent puruing more productive goals.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I doubt many of them decide to be homosexuals, they can't help it and the bible says to treat them... the way it says to treat lepers, which is another part that led to tremendous pain on the part of innocents.
Bruce, check out the second half of the Bible. There is this one guy who hangs out with lepers, prostitutes and even tax collectors (much worse than homosexuals, in my book). He had this funny habit of loving everyone despite their sins or social status. Of course, the powers that be kill him for this but it all works out in the end.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Disclaimer: Staunch athei-ostic (I don't believe in religion).
"If one believes in God, Christ, and The Holy Spirit then one has to believe that The Bible is the Word of God."
Now this is an obvious logical fallacy. Even working from an assumption that God, Christ, et al are true deities there is no assertion that they have ensured the validity of the bible.
I think the standard response by believers is "do you know the mind of God?". Implying that God could have written a pile of crap as a test or some-such...
Q.
Insert Signature Here
You're missing the point. It's not a troll. The burden of proof lies on them. What would make others believe that it is truthful? Pictures can be doctored easily and even video clips. So how would one prove it? I can think of a few things. For one, bring back DNA samples (as someone else already mentioned) and bring back part -- or better yet, all -- of the boat (eventually).
Amen to that. People should act according to their beliefs. If you believe in Christ, why do you act the opposite?
Yes, I am Christian, specifically Catholic. I am tolerant of other views, and am one of the few "true believers"* that doesn't believe you all are going to hell for being of a different religion.
* True believers (for my definition) believe that Jesus is The Way, the Truth and the Light, meaning the way to heaven is through Him. There is much argument as to whether that means you have to partake of the eucharist to be "through Him" or if that phrase is meant as if your actions follow his teachings (more or less, at least, in the case of other religions).
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
All the Old Testement requires for it all to fall into place is one step of faith, that God is who he says he is.
If you are waiting for the absolute proof please don't hold your breathe.
As for the Big Bang theory, it is at best a conceptual model that present day analysis may one day fit (while disregarding data that doesn't), and at worst a fairy-tale that cannot be proven. Funny how scientific attacks on spiritual beliefs can be turned.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
Any system of logic starts with axioms. At a metalogical level, if you don't accept certain principles of logic, then yes, religion becomes a tangible alternative to modern western philosophical thought. On the other hand, if you do accept the basic framework of logic, then religion becomes an entity independent of science, though the underlying principles of logic place restrictions on the form religion can take. In summery:
- You can be a literalist religious person and not believe in modern logic and science. This is a perfectly self-consistent set of beliefs.
- You can be a scientist, and not believe in religion, this is also consistent.
- You can be a scientist, and believe in God, but not many elements of literal religion, and still be consistent.
- You cannot be a literalist religious person and embrace modern logic and science at the same time without rejecting the principles of consistency.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
At least the expansion of the universe is something that is observable, unlike, say, a flood that killed everything on earth 4000 years ago - yet left behind absolutely no evidence. No aberration in the Antarctic ice cores, no strange worldwide sediments, no disturbance of the 30,000-year-old cave paintings in France.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Serial killers are not divine in nature. How can a mortal question the author of his existence? We acknowledge that horrible things happen. Explaining why is something few have much hope of attaining.
Merely saying that a serial killer may use an argument does not in and of itself make the argument invalid. This is a straw man. Why don't you think of a valid rebuttal? Surely, you would acknowledge that madmen such as Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were great orators, extremely skilled in the art of pursuasion. If I happen to use one of their arguments, it may reflect well on me as being skilled in rhetoric. Not that when analyzed calmly, one cannot find the error of their messages. That is hard to do, especially when you have an emotional attachment to one side or the other.
But also - remember the quote "Extraodinary claims require extraodinary proof".
I've seen no proof, even ordinary "proof" for the existance of a god, therefore I'm disinclined to believe in it.
How do the terrestrial plants survive the flood? Did Noah plant a forest on his ark?
Lots of the comments revolve around a few themes
:)
1. the bible is all made up
2. there's no way $situation could happen
3. this wont prove anything
To which i have a few short responses. Please give them some consideration before flaming me
1. This is a hard argument to make. The bible talks about lots of different things. Some of these things have been verified via archalogical evidence. Insofar as a recording of ancient history, the bible is surprisingly accurate in all of the things it depicts which are verifiable
Note that this is sort of the same as me writing a book with 100 pages, and on 3 randomly distributed pages, i describe newtonian physics, and the other 97 pages contain stuff that doesn't make sense to anybody, and can't be proven or disproven using any known technique
From a scientific perspective, my book isn't very interesting.
Until somebody figure's out page 4. And then in another 50 years, maybe someone figures out what page 5 means. And so on.
There's lots of stuff described in the bible that has been shown to be historically consistant. Much more than has shown to be historically inconsistant.
2. This won't be a very satisfying answer, but here goes.
the bible is sort of axiomatic. If you beleive
- that god is all powerful
- always does what is right
- is smarter than you
- the bible is the inerrant word of god as transcribed via people divinely inspired to do so
then a lot of what happens in the bible can be swallowed. Still, some things are hard to beleive. It's hard to beleive that somebody could part a body of water so that people could walk through it unharmed. It's hard to beleive because we've never seen anything like it, and because we cant explain how it would work.
There are lots of things in the bible that we have a hard time buying for those reasons - we've never experienced it, and we can't understand/explain how it would work.
The first "Reason" isn't a reason at all. We never experienced the creation of planet earth, but we know it happened. None of us were alive when president lincoln was shot, but most of us know it happened. The issue of never experiencing something personaly is really not an effective argument against unbeleivable things depicted in the bible.
The more interesting and common argument is the second one - there's no way that could happen. This usually revolves around some scientific argument, or rather, some lack of a scientific explanation for how it _could_ have happened. Parting seas, turning water into blood, feeding thousands with just a little food, healing blindless/leprosy/etc.
This is where the axiomatic nature of things comes into play.
If you buy that God is all powerful, then god can do whatever he wants to, certainly any of the above mentioned things.
The part is what people _Really_ dont like to hear. Just because _you_ cant explain something, doesn't mean god doesn't know how it works. Your inability to come up with a thoery or explanation for how something could have happened isn't standing in the way of an all powerful smarter-than-you god in the slightest.
So, if you buy the basic axioms of god, the rest sort of comes out in the wash. It's nice when science or achaeology catches up with what the bible has already described, but its not necessary.
3. Of course not. The point isn't to prove god exists. You either think he does or you don't. If it was factually obvious that god existed then you having a choice in the matter of wether to beleive or not wouldn't be very useful, now would it ?
I'm frankly not sure what the point of this trip is, but it won't prove god does or doesn't exist. People that refuse to beleive in god will read the results of this journey how they want to. People that refuse to beleive in anyting but god will read the results of this journey how they want to.
But there's the ever important swing vote.
W
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Researchers To Explore North Pole In Search Of Santa Claus.
I'm going to safely assume you are not a zoologist or botanist.
What do you think is the first thing the lions would do when they left the ark?
EAT THE MEASLEY TWO GAZELLES. Oops, no more gazelles.
You can argue it all you want, but the gestation period of any 3 generations of gazelles, zebras, or whatever required to even begin feeding the a single generation of lions or other carnivores would mean a lot of carnivores would go hungry if everyone started with a PAIR at the same time.
You can't just "start up" the food chain like that. Ever do a "rabbit and foxes" related rates problem in diff eq? The stable state is impossible to achieve with a deficit of prey in the initial conditions.
A little thought is dangerous.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
When will the "gappers" stand-down and not take some ancient script as fact, but as interpration of events through the eyes of highly religious and uneducated peoples?
You forgot the part about the stories being past from generation to generation by oral tradition for hundreds of years before ever being written down. (No tall tales there.)
Wrong. For anything younger than 20,000 years old we know the ratio of C12 to C14 from direct measurements of tree rings or lake sediment samples. You just use the amount of C12 currently in the sample to figure out how much C14 was in the sample when it stopped respirating.
I don't understand why anyone would find the fact that most cultures have some sort of flood myth unusual. Humans tend to collect themselves around bodies of water for various reasons having to do with commerce, agriculture, transportation, etc. People that live near bodies of water occasionally experience floods. Flood stories tend to be dramatic because people have to make heroic efforts to make it through the tough times that ensue. It's not surprising that these flood stories make it into their mythology.
Four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still. -C. Coolidge
The new testaments were originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. From there they were translated into Latin and remained so for many centuries. The English King James had a group of scholars translate it into English (one of them reputedly Shakespeare - good arguments both for and against). The KJV is the translation that's used across much of the english speaking Christian world.
Both biblical Greek and Hebrew are very expressive (someone studying them would say vague) languages, written passages can be vastly open to interpretation (much like Arabic). That's why many biblical scholars study the biblical languages, so they can look up their favourite passages and translate them themselves.
So for the purest stream of the testaments, you must read them in their original language. The Greek(Attic), Latin, and English translations are simpler expressions of the original. That's not heretical - go to any seminary or serious bible college and you'll see that's what's what biblical research is all about. The original poster was still being particially correct when he sarcastically called it an interpretation, because it IS an interpretation, of a relative few translators who were highly religious, though probably very educated for their time.
I'd say there's no need to rush out and buy the "First Hebrew Primer" grammar book or anything. It mostly checks out to the KJV with some notable exceptions. But I had to study Biblical Hebrew for my majors and can say it's not very hard to learn. The first year basically just teaches some pronunciation, aleph-bet(alphabet), grammar, and how to use a dictionary. That's all anyone needs to read the Hebrew Bible.
The Old Testament is simply the history of God's interaction with man. Like any history book, it contains some ugly episodes. Just because they exist does not mean that the author of the book (God) condones the behavior. Many senseless things have been done in God's name.
Where the Bible lists objectionable actions, there are a couple possibilities:
1. The action was influenced by Satan, not God. The Bible says much about spiritual warfare. God is not the only supernatural being. He IS the most powerful, but His nature requires for all creation (humans and angelic beings) to choose Him for themselves. Satan is described as one who comes to "steal, kill, and destroy." That to me fits fairly well with much of the violence, both in the Bible and in modern times.
2. The action was actually initiated by God, as a way of carrying out His justice. That is, I believe, why God led the Israelites to slaughter all the tribes living in Canaan. The Bible makes it fairly clear that they were allowed to do that because the wickedness in that area was so great. That does NOT mean we as humans should be following their example. It IS evidence that God can use nations to accomplish His will and justice.
How is he anti-catholic? Are you claiming catholics have never repressed non-catholics? Certainly non-catholics have opressed catholics too.
I'd put it this way: a lot of people have opressed a lot of people. Differences in religion have been one of the more popular excuses for doing so.
"And yes, religion can provide peace, but I can tell you right away you will have none of it until you see for yourself and take that leap of faith. Else you're little more than dust in eternity."
Got news for you: you're little more than dust in eternity whether you beleive in santa or not.
I, and as far as I can tell the grandparent poster, do not hate the religious; we don't spread a doctrine of lies. We just think you're a little silly to spend so much energy and attribute so much of your own goddness and acomplishments to what as far as I can tell is an imaginary friend.
But you're free to spend your energies how you want, it's none of my business. I will get annoyed when you say that christianity is the only answer for "the people in Iraq", and that we should base our foreign policy on your beleifs. Saying things like that is not exactly helpful in selling the "this war is not against Islam" concept, see.
Right, slashdotters aren't talking about what most christians believe, just a minority. It's not "us" who are nutbags, it's those fundamentalists over there. No matter how it comes accross to you, what people are criticizing is belief in the supernatural. Without the supernatural, you are making the agnostics argument. Belief in god is not just a philosophy, even to non-fundamentalist. I doubt most people would care one way or the other if christians just felt that the Bible should be read as philosophy. That, however, is not the case.
Here is a quote from one of your links:
"There is something about people who are in touch with the sacred that can be felt by those around them; it evokes awe and amazement and impresses people with the feeling of another world."
What does that mean? I don't find it to be true, I find people "in touch with the sacred" to be either annoying or in need of help. Define "in touch with the sacred". Describe how you measure how someone is "in touch with the sacred". The point of course is that "being in touch with the sacred" is a fairy tale no different than the fundamentalist fairy tales. From my experience, religious "scholars" avoid discussion through meta-argument, that is, arguing about arguing. The issue isn't literal vs non-literal, it's that you ascribe anything to the bible at all other than a collection of stories. If you bother to respond, explain please what value you think one should get from a specific quote from the bible and why one needs to read the bible and have a christian viewpoint in order to hold that value.
plurvert
It boggles the mind how anybody can accept anything as truth.
Yes, it seems to escape some people that we (yes, even scientists!) call it the big bang theory. Maybe some day that will sink into their minds.
There was a bright guy who said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". I wish more people would agree about that, and keeping both eyes open instead of closing them. I'm more at the "science" side, but even I cannot rule out that there's something else. Right now I look at the bible as a fairy tale to enforce laws, raise childrens, etc, but who knows what I'll believe in when I'm on my death bed?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Do you people realize you are acting like religious zealots, in dismissing the findings of an expedition that hasn't started yet?
Mount Ararat is named in the Bible as the resting place of the Ark. That section of the Bible was written more than 2000 years ago. Scientific principles absolutely demand that someone must go up there and search for it.
If they find what looks like the remnants of a big wooden ship then whoopee, we get to debate what it really is and launch further expeditions and employ other technology and analysis to see if this is true.
If they find nothing, Someone will claim that they looked in the wrong place and try again. (Ararat is a big mountain)
If they die trying; tough luck. That happens sometimes to people trying to test an important theory.
At the very least searching for the Arc on Ararat is more important than going back to the Moon or climbing Everest again. It is roughly on par with searching for signs of life on Mars and the SETI program. I.e. Published and authenticated success would revolutionize thinking.
For the record There were many attempts to launch such an expedition in the 20th century, They all suffered political trauma. I.e. Ararat, sat on a border between enemies. The political climate has changed and former enemies are now tolerant neighbors.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Anyone who believes that there was a major rise in ocean levels anytime in the past 10,000 years does not know the first thing about coastal glaciation patterns.
If there was any evidence at all that such a flood occured in the recent glacier movements, the creationists would be all over it.
Accepting the plain-as-day proof of Geology is the first step to seeing Genesis as either the religious metaphor or myth that it is.
With a statement like that, it will be highly unlikely you'll ever get lasting peace.
This is definitely my second or third post on Slashdot. After not commenting for a long time, I think I'll step in for a bit. So what is this tolerance stuff that I keep hearing about? As in, tolerate gay marriage. Tolerate all religions. Tolerate points of view that are different from your own. And yet when I come on Slashdot and read this article, and all the (I read at +4) comments, my face turns sour because of the horrendous amount of crap that I see from people here. Look, you don't believe Christianity, fine. You think the ark idea is crap, and that science proves yadda yadda yadda, fine. At least have the guts to refrain from bashing those who do. It takes a mature individual to let people have their say without exploding in anger or cracking up in laughter. You have to understand that most people have developed for themselves a framework for how they view life. Most /. readers, I'm guessing, are scientifically minded. So they believe in all the things that science has accomplished. Good work. Hooray for you. Then there are those who believe that a God exists and has made everything we see, and created laws that science is discovering and utilizing. Good work, hooray for you. If you were really tolerant, and if you were really following what you believe you should be doing, then you'd have a solid discussion with them based on the facts, based on what you've seen, etc. etc. But... no. All we see are lousy jokes and other definitive statements - "the Bible is crap," "the Bible has contradictions," etc. etc.
I just don't understand how some /. readers can force Christians onto a pedestal ("You have to be perfect, you Christian moron, and aren't you supposed to LOVE everybody?!") and cannot subject themselves to any sort of standards.
If you're going to argue that the Bible has bad teachings, or that it has contradictions, read the Bible yourself before you make a decision. Actually, don't do just that - be a real student and go and find commentaries from Christian writers. Find commentaries from non-Christian writers. (Why commentaries? Have you ever really been able to explore a book without seeing what lots of people thought about it?) Read it with an unbiased eye. If you think you've found a contradiction, then see what the other side has to say. Read it for yourself. If you end up unconvinced the Bible is true, then great. If you don't find contradictions, then great too. Decide for yourself what you want to believe.
What astounds me is how FEW people actually take that offer. Personally, I don't know of anyone who has. Why? Because they're lazy. Too lazy to go and find out things for themselves. In the meantime, they (non-Christians AND Christians) rely on a few lousy articles and information (which are debunked by different people, depending on who you ask), and then post knowingly uninformed, uneducated entries on /. to the approval (and subsequent positive moderation) of their knowingly uninformed, uneducated peers.
Watch people read this comment and ask, "Is the author of this comment a Christian?" If the answer is yes, they immediately go and trash it because suddenly none of my arguments and comments make any sense. "Those moronic Christians, what a bunch of idiots, they must not believe in science..." right?
So maybe I am, or maybe I'm not. I will say that I HAVE taken up my own challenge. That should be enough for you.
Why are you going to such great lengths to explain how the world could have flooded? Don't you think God could just make more water appear out of nowhere? He willed the entire universe into existence apparently.
Personally, I think it would have been easier to make the water appear and then make it disappear, than to re-shape the entire surface area of the planet. And if you think the Rocky mountains could have been formed by 40 days or 40,000 years of continuous rain erosion, I question the value of this conversation.
- HOORAY!
Once he'd and his mates had accomplished this amazing feat of nautical engineering never to be equalled before or since, he then went around the world rounding up 2 of every type of animal and loaded them on this Ark, and somehow it didn't sink? Whats more, Noah was able to identify the sexes of hundreds of different species, and even identify those that reproduced asexually thousands of years before the enlightenment.
Then you believe that somehow it rained so much, that the entire earth was covered, something which would involve the melting and evaporation of the entire polar ice caps.
Now, once this boat of his was afloat, you seriously believe he managed to survive for 40 days and 40 nights on what food could be stored in the ship, as well as keeping his mates and all the animals alive durinmg this period.
Then you believe that the flood waters receeded leaving no trace of this world covering flood.
Even the most die hard christian fundamentalists would have a job believing so much patent bullcrap. Please, if you want to be christian then at least be one of the ones that whines "well, you ren't supposed to take it all litterally" every time you are challenged.
Christianity relies on the accuracy of the Bible. If you start doubting certain passages and disregarding others, the entire deck of cards comes crashing down. How can the word of God be inaccurate? If you can ignore certain parts, why not all of it?
This is what drove Thomas Paine to write The Age of Reason, a thorough debunking of this have-your-cake-and-eat-it approach to religion.
The only religious positions that have *any* solid philosophical or logical foundations are deism, atheism and agnosticism. Everything else has as much credulity as me saying "last night while I was watching TV an angel appeared and told me the word of God!!!!!!! Check out my rough draft of what it said on my AOL homepage!! Praise Ungdor who died for us while orbiting the moon bathed in the blood of his enemies!!"
- HOORAY!
Okay then, how do you reconcile the claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old with the preponderance of scientific evidence to the contrary? The way I see it, religious zealots' faith that the earth absolutely must be only 6,000 years old is absolutely mutually exclusive with science, which has easily proven this wrong.
That claim is pure absurdity and I patently dismiss it. :)
However, I have heard claims that made a lot more sense. Consider that Man, at the level of development at which he wrote the first parts of the bible (the parts generally used for dating the earth) was very primitive, and likely wasn't yet capable of understanding a great many things, such as the entire concept of a millenia, let alone eons and so forth. So he wrote it in terms that he could understand. That doesn't mean it happened in those terms. So, what we wind up with is something along these lines: "At some point while the earth was heaving and hoeing, at great odds against it, three proteins combined into a self-replicating molecule called DNA, the successor of RNA (or whatever it is, I'm not a geneticist). When the Bible says that God created Man and animals and so forth, what God really said was 'I caused the three proteins to combine, because otherwise it wouldn't have happened'." I've also heard explanations that make God into Energy, all the energy of the universe, in fact, and that the big bang was God banging out in all His Glory, creating the heavens. Then he created the Earth. The bible does say "God is the light" or something, and primitive man wrote in terms the he could understand, because he couldn't understand what He was really saying.
As for dismissing believers, what's wrong with that? If someone believes something with absolutely no rational basis for this belief, and this belief flies in the face of a large amount of evidence to the contrary, then why shouldn't that person be dismissed as a crackpot? These days, if some guy starts telling people he's communicating with aliens, he usually gets locked up in the funny farm. Why are religious people given any more respect?
"Because it's my religion, and you have to respect it." Blah, stupid is stupid. I'm with you on this one, believe me. Take it on faith, if you have to. ;)
Like what I said? You might like my music
Different ark, indy found a box, not a ship.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Another possibility: a tribesman climbed a mountain way back in the past, found (like Darwin did) fossils of fish and seashells on top of the mountain, and made the (correct) inductive leap that the mountain was covered with water at some point in history. Unfortunately, the tribesman wasn't aware that mountains can actually grow due to tectonic movements, and that this particular mountain might have started out at the bottom of a sea. He came back from the mountain to his tribe with the story that obviously the entire earth was flooded at some point. A few generations down the line it was God's wrath that flooded the earth, and obviously some guy survived the flood by building a big boat. Without the guy, there's no explanation how anyone but the fish could have survived the experience. And another myth is born.
something which doesn't exist can't have a sense of humour, dumbass.
To take it as face value is being blindly lead by all those people.
Why do some people keep on saying it's all 100% accurate? It's hard to find a book printed in the last 5 years that's 100% accurate, let alone one "written" 5,000 years ago. Maybe, instead of "mountains", they meant "biggest 7-11". It's not as if everything else in the bible is spot on.
It makes the mind boggle. Sheesh. It's the 21st century. Sure - take the bible and use it as inspiration to live a better life. It's great for that - Jesus is a cool guy. Don't, however, take it as an accurate record of the zeitgeist of the biblical ages. Like you wouldn't think of it as the Zagat survey of falafel shacks in Arabia c.-4000. I could go on for hours about how it's supposed to inspire, not instruct, but it usually annoys people.
It's a myth. There's a larger truth going on that trancends geological proofs. You either believe it or you don't.
It's scientifically impossible for someone to turn water into wine or raise the dead, but you don't see people spouting off technical explanations about why it can't be done. Everyone agrees it's impossible. It has to be -- shit, if the bible said "Noah then took his dog Patches and went to the beach for 40 minutes," what would be the sense in that?
Yes, it's impossible. Obviously. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
c-hack.com |
The wording of the story, and most of the replies i've read have shown me that while most of us want everyone to have free software (as in freedom) we still dont respect people's right to be free to believe what they want, no matter how much we might disagree.
Sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference between respecting someone's right to hold a stupid belief and not respecting the belief itself. See, I can respect people's right to believe whatever religious tripe they want. But the religion would have to be pretty damn, well, I don't know what word would describe it, but pretty damn not-stupid before I could respect the belief itself. Somewhere along the lines people started saying that the right to believe whatever stupid thing they wanted meant we had to respect it, too, and that's just not true. We have to respect the right, but not the belief.
Like what I said? You might like my music
I think that's listed under "Reasons you don't get to worship anyone else." I suppose that's easily explained by revisions and mistranslations, but it's a little odd.
So God allows suffering because it causes us to turn to him? That's really not a healthy relationship, not even in a parent-child context. That's like secretly burning your kid's homework at the last minute so he has to beg you for help.
And why do we need to turn to him? Because believing in him is the only way to stay out of Hell. Why is Hell there? He allowed it to be there, and apprently he tossed some asshole in to be the DM, so he must have a reason for it. Whoever this devil fellow is, he seems to get a kick out of his job, so it doesn't sound like much of a punishment. But maybe it is, what do I know. The result is that a God who claims to love us and can run the show just about any way he wants to was directly involved in the creation of a place of such evil, pain, and eternal horror that it would be morally wrong of him NOT to fill the world with cancer, man-eating tigers, and asteroids that crush dogs, just so we have to to pray to him for mercy.
Why does disbelief in God warrant eternal suffering? Because he's smarter than me, and I wouldn't understand? You know, I consider myself to be more loving and merciful than most, but I'm certainly not up there with any God worth praying to for any but the most selfish and calculated reasons, and -I- think that's fucking extreme. He's God. If he REALLY wants to keep someone from crashing Heaven's parties and spiking the bunch, he's got Ultimate RBL power. As a last resort, just erase the poor bastards.
When a rottweiler eats a child, you don't put it on life support and torture it for ten years, you put it to sleep.
And you don't let a rottweiler eat a child now and then just so the rest have to beg you to keep them leashed.
I would hope they are careful not to disturb the footprints of all the animals disembarking 2 by 2. They may not be very fresh after 5000 years, but it would be a shame to loose that important scientific evidence forever.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
But which is the God you worship? The "true" one, or the one you believe in, of which you hold the idea in your mind?
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Some take the bible
For what it's worth
When it says that the meek
Shall inherit the Earth
Well, I heard that some sheik
Has bought New Jersey last week
'N you suckers ain't gettin' nothin'
Is Hare Rama really wrong ...
If you wander around
With a napkin on
With a bell on a stick
An' your hair is all gone
(The geek shall inherit nothin')
You say yer life's a bum deal ...
'N yer up against the wall
Well, people, you ain't even got no kinda
Deal at all
'Cause what they do
In Washington
They just takes care of NUMBER ONE
An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU
You ain't even NUMBER TWO
Those Jesus Freaks ...
Well, they're friendly but
The shit they believe
Has got their minds all shut
An' they don't even care
When the church takes a cut
Ain't it bleak when you got so much nothin'
(So whaddya do? Hey!)
Eat that pork
Eat that ham
Laugh till ya choke
On Billy Graham
Moses, Aaron 'n Abraham
They're all a waste of time
'N it's your ass that's on the line
(IT'S YOUR ASS THAT'S ON THE LINE)
Do what you wanna ... ...
Do what you will
Just don't mess up
Your neighbor's thrill
'N when you pay the bill
Kindly leave a little tip
And help the next poor sucker
On his one way trip
SOME TAKE THE BIBLE
(Aw gimme a half a dozen for the hotel room!)
Religion is fine until people insist there is a basis in reality. If I asked you to believe in a computer program that speeds up dialup connections 1000x what would you say? "Show me the code". Yet way, way too many accept religion with zero physical proof. Guess what kids: they won't find Noah's Ark because there is no Noah's Ark.
Look at what religion has done to the the US: Bush has wrapped himself in the bible and the flag and see what mess he's gotten us in. Without his money, flag and bible he'd be washing dishes at Dennys. I'll die fighting to support one's right to pray to whatever God or Gods they wish but please don't try to make me believe in your shared hallucinations.
And remember to kindly leave a little tip to help that next poor sucker on his one way trip ...
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
If you are interested or curious you can find out a LOT of interesting information at my Uncle's site. He has a country place that no one knows about!
Here
Uncle B has been on several expeditions to "the mountains of Ararat" and has co-authored a book on the subject.
Many of the "facts" that have been presented on Slashdot are... well... this is Slashdot!
For open minded individuals, the abusive distortion of facts by ANY dogmatic belief (creation, evolution, humanism, christianity, islam, ufos, atheism, whatever!) is pathetic.
Facts are facts. The problem is always interpretation. As Rush said, "you can twist perceptions, reality won't budge." The problem is that many people accept the interpretation of data as FACT and that's just as dogmatic and foolish as someone who doesn't question the beliefs (or total lack thereof) that were imparted to them.
I find it interesting that the most "open minded" people turn out to be the most zealously dogmatic when confronted with something that is contrary to their opinion and beliefs, because let's face it: it is all a system of belief. Every factual interpretation is based on assumptions. Those assumptions probably seemed reasonable at the time. But they were wrong. It turns out that the Earth orbits the Sun, not the other way around!
As a Christian, I'm classified by a lot of people as ignorant or simple. The truth is that I choose to believe in Christ for one simple reason: if you want to know what it is, you can read my reply to this message. If you don't want to know, I won't proselytize. I give you the choice to read it or not.
The written history of the Jews (which Christians call the Old Testament) was compiled during their exile in Babylon, with the intent of solidifying the Jewish identity against absorbtion by the Babylonians. As such, it made many exagerated claims about Israel's military prowess, to instill a sense of nationalistic pride. But no one has ever found any evidence of great wars or the exodus. In this case, lack of evidence is evidence--as one Biblical archeologist put it, "If it had actually happened, we would have found something." So the vast conquests probably amounted to a few tribal skirmishes. But hell, the Trojan war was a tribal skirmish. The rest is myth. We do know that the Jewish tribes probably originated in Egypt (though probably not as slaves), because most of the myths in the Old Testament are almost exact copies of older Egyptian myths (as is Christianity.)
Judaism is not and never has been a triumphalist religion. It does not proseletize and has no interest in converting others unless they become affiliated by marriage. It is first and formost a tribal religion providing an ancestral memory. To this end, it has been wildly successful, and has avoided most of the excesses of the triumphalist religions, Islam and Christianity.
As for Noah's Ark, this too is a much older myth predating Judaism (Atlantis is one version of it.) The story of the flood may have a historical basis; at the end of the last ice age, the melting of European glaciers flooded the Mediterranean Sea until a natural barrier collapsed. The water flooded the Black Sea in a massive rush, with water levels rising hundreds of feet in a matter of months. There is evidence that this displaced a lot of people living on the shores of the Black Sea. The flood myth may have originated with this event.
"''We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it,' McGivern said.' As if pictures can't be doctored and are absolute proof...."
They're certain they're going to see it; you're certain they're not. You're both two sides of the same irrational coin. Me? I'm a real scientist. I believe anything is possible, and, realizing many ancient stories are based upon a real, however romanticized, person or event, I try not to have presuppositions. And when I may have a presupposition, I don't gloat it as a source of pride.
Since the Bible is a book of religion and not a history book, and since some of the stories like "Adam and Eve" and "Noah and the Ark" could have been handed down for eons before they were ever transcribed to writing, these early Bible stories may be hundreds of thousands of years older than recorded history. The actual water depth, and mountain height could be wrong, and even the name of the mountain could be wrong. However, a flood event is recorded in many cultures other than just the bible. So, perhaps something happened that is not outside the laws of nature, but still is within the events of the Bible as a book of religion. There may be an ark on some mountain, and there may be an "Ark of the Covenant" somewhere. The existance or non-existance of either will not explain nor disprove any parts of a "book of religion". Discovery of something, like the remnants of an ark, will give historians and scientists something to talk about. Being able to date parts of a boat back to about 1-5 million years would really give some credulance to the flood story, regardless of how it happened, yet it would not change the "miracle" event as recorded in the Bible. It's easy to believe in science. It's hard to believe in miracles.
Other posters have noted that because a large flood is such a catastrophic event, one is surely to find recorded evidence of one in many cultures. It doesn't mean that the flood was global.
[javac] 100 errors
"I'll take this baboons head that I find over here....and place it on this humans body I find over heeeeeeeeere....and BEHOLD... HOMO SHAQULLIS!! Notice the primate sinus cavities!"
there are many well known _objections_ to some things in the bible, but i'm not aware of anything that is universally understood to be simply incorrect. are you ?
No I'm not aware of anything universally understood, yet alone of anything universally understood to be incorrect. :-) So once you set the bar that high I have to stop arguing with you - you'll always find at least one person (apart from yourself) which will disagree. If the validity of their position does not matter, I have no chance
in convincing you.
if there was anything in the bible that was uncontestably false, nobody would believe in the bible anymore.
Well you can contest anything, even if your objection has no observable merit. In the case of the cited post you could just say "what do archeologists know?". However if you use any archeological evidence to support the claim that parts of the bible can be proven to be correct, then the archeological evidence showing that other parts of the bible can be proven to be incorrect need to be considered, too. You need to use the same criteria to decide which archeological evidence is credible, no matter whether it proves or disproves.
So you'll need to retract "part of the bible can be proven" or you'll need to accept "part of the bible can be disproven" - or you need to show that the archeological investigations pointing to the latter are somehow flawed. And showing these flaws you need to use the same standards for both kinds of archeological investigations.
Did those same creation scientists bother to mention the list of animals that did contain all the DNA needed to produce the offspring we have now? Please explain to me how only a pair of dogs is able to father the complete dog genus as we know it now, and make sure you take into account the age of the Noah story being ~6000 years ago.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Let's try that again..
You either trust man and what he says about what God said about creation, or you trust man and what he says of it.
The difference is only one concerning which person or group you trust to be more honest.I don't know about you, but I like the honesty that's integral to science.
This will be technically offtopic, but so is almost half of the postings here (not that I mind - lots of fun to be found).
Here's some gristle for you religionists out there -- I'm not calling you Christians, for its rather silly to give southern American fundamentists the impression that they represent THE Christianity.
Here we have the story of das Boot that survived the wrath of god about a dozen generations after the earth was created.
Apparently god, a supernatural superpowerful spirit that refers to itself in the plural, decides that the entire world, except for this one family, was too "evil". He decides to kill every last thing on the plate (not planet - its flat), while Noah races against time before the god kills him along with everything else before the deadline. Fair's fair; if Noah is too slow, EVERYTHING dies. The god is a bit of a sportsman here. Move it or lose it, human!
Now, here's the thing. This god apparently wants more than anything else to be flattered. To be begged, cajoled, importuned, deferred to,have animals sliced up and charcoaled (a bit of a Texan). People just aren't properly on their knees (both meanings intended).
The angry god kills everyone. Noah and his terrified and emotionally destroyed brood find dry land and tell the god that they will do what he wants, please don't hurt us.
The now appeased god promises never to do it again.
Now, what is the difference between a Luciferian embodiment of all evil and this murdering psychotic all-powerful spirit?
If I lived in a world controlled by such a lunatic power, I'd deny its divinity and work to take the motherfucker DOWN every minute of my life!
The true measure of a god is to compare its actions with that of a good man.
What kind of man would murder a plate of people and animals because they weren't paying attention to him?
A man who ain't no god, that for sure. And I expect better behavior from all-powerful Yahweh -- or it's just an evil demonic power, to be opposed at all costs.
The Great Flood was inspired by the creation of the Black Sea. Before 5600BC, it used to be a much, much smaller lake below sea level. In short order, the Mediterranean broke through and flooded vast amounts of farmland. This is the kind of event that could trigger enough content for an epic. Unfortunately, the best reference I can find on this at the moment is this amazon link.
There have been similar studies done on other events, such as how Moses parted the Red Sea. It was on Discover or one of those shows, where some university was attempting to explain how a specific combination of high winds and tidal forces combined with the shape of the bottom of the Red Sea could have possibly temporarily cleared a wide channel/sandbar across the way. Sounds a bit more tenuous, and I can't find an online reference, but it seems plausible that someone with mastery of astronomical calendaring back then could have predicted an extremely low tide and used to to pull off such a feat.
The Bible was certainly written over interesting times... back when books were made by hand of expensive materials (vellum doesn't come cheap, back at a time when wealth was expressed in livestock). Having something written down in a book laborously by monks was just as well as having it carved in stone -- it had enough proofreading and checking to have been taken as the ultimate truth. There was a time when judges used to literally carry around The Book of The Law, and pass judgements based strictly on what was written.
After inventions like the Gutenberg press made books, journals, and newspapers a commodity, did people realize that what was written was not always true, and begin to look at such things critically as they should.
For some reason, the religious communities have managed to shield their sacred texts from the same sort of transformation in the way we deal with sources of information. But it's doing what they're good at, aligning and organizing people along some lines of belief to accomplish some goal that they probably wouldn't have attained on their own or if they were liberals :P
I like the way Neal Stephenson presents this kind of idea in Snow Crash. A bit exaggerated and fantastical, but altogether tangible and chilling.
rounding up 2 of every type of animal
:)
I take exception to that statement. The Bible states that two of every living thing and seven of every clean beast and two of every unclean beast were taken aboard. Most people just think it was two of everything.
Even the most die hard christian fundamentalists would have a job believing so much patent bullcrap. Please, if you want to be christian then at least be one of the ones that whines "well, you ren't supposed to take it all litterally" every time you are challenged.
I am a die-hard Christian fundamentalist. I believe the Bible to be inerrant and I take the Bible very literally. If you read it you can see when the writer is speaking figuratively or literally. So I won't whine about not taking it literally if you challenge me.
thousands of years before the enlightenment.
The who?
Noah was able to identify the sexes of hundreds of different species, and even identify those that reproduced asexually
Noah didn't. God did.
Putting this into context, god commanded the Ark to be 300 cubits in length, which is roughly 140 metres, whereas at the battle of Trafalgar Nelson's flagship was about 65 metres in length.
Amazing, isn't it? Of course, there's always been God around that created the heavens and the earth. He did that before ANYONE even thought about building anything.
You seriously believe that thousands of years before the industrial revolution, god commanded Noah and his nearest and dearest to build a boat entirely of wood, that would be larger than any later wooden battleships.
He had 120 years to build it. Remember that God told Noah that man's days were numbered to 120. Noah was the only person found righteous in the eyes of the Lord so he and his family were told to build the ark.
I'll defend my faith until the day I die.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
Especially since science is not at all about finding an absolute truth and is forever seeking to discredit its own work as a means to either strengthen the position, or destroy it by replacing it with a new, stronger idea. After all, at one time, Ether was a good explanation for the gap between heavenly bodies. Now, we know better. But, we have things like dark matter that are just kind of stop gap solutions to problems we haven't solved yet. It's a pretty good bet that will be debunked eventually and replaced with a better explanation for extra gravity.
Science doesn't require anymore faith than you have in humanity anyway. The fact is, any goober with a degree in some "scientific" field can come out with a wild theory. That's why other scientists set out to discredit it. If they can't discredit it, you have a pretty good reason to believe it... for now.
The difference between real science and psuedo-science or religion, of course, is that those two things require you to simply have faith in the "truth" that an individual is speaking. Whereas science says, "here, I believe this and I can back it up! Come and get me!", religion says "Uh... here... I believe this, but you just have to believe me, because there's no way to prove what I'm saying".
Big difference in the type of faith science requires and the type of faith religion requires.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Assuming something is true for practical purposes, or hoping that something is true because it seems like it *should* be true, are not the same as being absolutely convinced that it is true. We must always remain skeptical of even the most well tested theories, not to mention the ones that don't even have any evidence!
No, I am not sure that my brain doesn't communicate with others via some undiscovered phenomenon. However, it would be stupid of me to assume that it *does* do so, without a good explanation.
As you say, there are lots we don't know and cannot explain. The point of science is to know and explain as much as we can. We shouldn't expect to be able to explain everything, and we also shouldn't go around believing in things that don't have an explanation.
[javac] 100 errors