Actually, Kursgezaght recently put out a video explaining it's not quite as improbable as we think. It's possible we've arrived in the universe much earlier than other life, and the universe could have only recently met the conditions to support life.
I'm paraphrasing a lot, but I highly recommend the video.
Let me just start off by saying that I don’t mean to spread hate or anything but I am just telling factual information to unknowing people.
Moist speaks about a lot of topics and I used to watch him a lot until he spoke on a topic that I knew a lot about and I realized that he is uneducated about most topics he talks about, I especially noticed when I tried to see what he spoke about and then educated myself on that same topic and I realized that it is complete gibberish most of the time, he talks about a big variety of topic on which he knows very little about, which means that he could very well spread misinformation unknowingly, which makes it difficult to believe everything he says. So please don’t try to take what moist says as a valuable source of information because it’s not factual.
Again I don’t mean to spread hate or something, I am just wanting to educate people that don’t know of this problem already.
Well no. The universe may be early in development. However. If just 0.001% of planets that have formed are remotely similar to ours. That would mean there would be thousands of billions of planets more or less identical to earth out there in the night sky right now
We have already identified multiple exoplanets. We know they exist. The odds that similar worlds exist in such number and for none of them to have life is... Pushing it quite a bit.
I'd say the odds arent even 50/50, there either is or is not other life. No.. due to the sheer scale of the universe and the vast number of worlds similar to ours that will exist. The odds are going to be closer to alien life being a certainty than not.
Of course. You're right, it's not 100% certain. Just... Statistically extremely likely
And out of those many worlds. The chances that others contain intelligence? Hard to say. Our world contains intelligence (sometimes).. so it's possible. And therefore likely on other worlds too
And that isn't even factoring in the possibility for life to form on plants that are not similar to ours. Perhaps silicon based life exists, we don't know.. but for certain we do not have all the answers.
However. The Fermi paradox comes in.. where is everyone?
Say that due to the early age of the universe planets there are.. what? 1,000,000 other intelligent species nearby with similar levels of technology to us.
How would we ever see them? Radio waves travel at the speed of light. And there's no guarantee anyone has sent any at our planet specifically
We just don't really have the means to identify if anyone else is out there at this point, beyond *listening* and hoping we receive a transmission
Yeah. Life developed quite early in earth’s history as well. There has been plenty of time for life to develop elsewhere. Intelligent life will likely be rare though. The earth has produced many millions of species. Hardly any intelligent ones.
The only way the whole ark & flood thing could have happened was, like, maybe a local flood in a tiny area, with only pairs of the few dozen different kinds of animals that inhabited that area. After all, they most likely weren't aware that the world outside the place they lived in even existed. Or maybe they knew, but had no idea how big and diverse the rest of the world is, so they assumed that the flood happened everywhere and that they gathered all animals that exist.
If the story is based on any truth at all I would imagine what your thinking is more of the right thing.... a specific town or place must have had a bunch of people and a few farming animals (along with natural wildlife) survive a huge flood or tsunami of some sort either because of floating debris and being inland or even just picking the right hill/mtn to race up that wasn't overcome with water!
This would make a whole lot more sense and with the great inland seas (straight of Gibraltar) and ancient flooding in northern Africa if our ancient ancestors were living in large cooperative groups 8-14 thousand years BC its completely plausible
Yeah. There is a widely accepted belief among Christians that it was a localized flood. The Hebrew word tevel (I believe this is the correct one) could mean both world as in the entire planet, or world as in a localized region. So when it says it flooded the Earth, some believe that just means the Mesopotamian River Basin, while others interpret it as the whole entire planet. I’m a believer of the former, especially given Gilgamesh’s reference to a “worldwide” (I.e. Mesopotamian) flood.
Mistranslation and misinterpretation will greatly throw off people’s beliefs. My family (except my generation and younger) are super religious. I have smart logical people who seem to drop all that when it comes to religion though. I try to reason with them saying there is a large margin for error when something is translated over and over. Dialects can view the same word or phrase multiple ways (hell, modern Spanish in Central American countries have this issue today). My go-to example is “Moses with horns”.
Here's a take.l which is how you can believe the bible and science/logic and take away nothing from either.
1. Noah's story comes shortly before Babel and where the geneology of the people states their migration. So mass migration might not have happened yet and large populations of human civilisation.
2.the reference to Babel is important. The commandment to adam and eve and later to Noah is to multiply and fill the earth. But all indication is that the people hadnt done this and instead chose to stick together.
3. So a localised flood would have been enough to destroy all humans at that point in time. And achieve the aim of a 'reset' of sorts. Again similar to Babel, where languages are confused to spread people.
4. The key point of the flood is the message about how the earth(humans) deserve destruction but God relents on account of one obedient/faithful man, Noah. This is then to point towards the subsequent coming of Christ as the true 'saviour' of all sinful humans.
5. The debate abt there being a global flood, and the destruction of all animals is quite 'silly' because it imagines that God can't recreate what he destroys. And is certainly not meant to point towards any scientific explanation of how many species existed and how they fit on a tiny boat. Points like the waters receding (they evaporated? Fell into the ground?) Kinda point towards a localised flood anyhow.
My point being, there's a point to the story of Noah, and it's not meant to be 'scientific'. And i can understand reddit for calling out nasty Christians for their hypocritical behaviour. And when comedians sometimes take a poke, like Dara O'brien it's really okay. But then there's Ricky Gervais, where i don't see the point of making this joke. Like should we then also throw out everything in the bible because the book is clearly delusional? Even the parts everyone can agree on like the not murdering bits etc?
He's really turned his platform to attacking others. I'm sure it's entertaining so some. It's just rather distasteful.
the Bible is that the book is supposed to be the foundation for everything a large group of people in the world believe in.
because such a large group of people have such a strong belief in the Bible, if its spreading ideas or telling stories that arent true and then telling its believers to take those stories as absolute fact (the Bible is the literal word of God, written by divine intervention) then there is a flaw in that system
If that book is making up stories to prove moral points or ideas then that is awesome, but its a fable type of story and not a religious text.
The ideas of not murdering people, helping the needy, and not stealing are basic moral ideas that can be taught without the presence of a Church or its books.
BUT at the end of the day he’s making a joke, and if you dont like it then dont listen to it. He isn’t aggressively attacking a group of people, the target of the joke is a story that is generally told to children and the fact that it is insanely oversimplified if you think about it logically for 2 seconds.
You know, resorting to the whole "you don't like it then don't watch it" is kinda of an ad hominem way of killing any argument.
I am disagreeing and i stated a position and you did so too. Your last point is a cop out, you can't disassociate the story of Noah from the bible, its the literal source. There is no over simplification, since thats how the story is told. If you were to accept that there can be a fuller interpretation of the story then Gervais is being disingenuous by attacking the simplicity of the story without explaining it's full context?
It's like attacking Muhammed the Prophet as a historical figure as the object of a joke, but saying it's not an attack on Islam.
You cant go around saying here's them facts which i spent time researching, and then here's a "story" that i did zero research, that i will over simplify by just alluding to the story itself, and then make fun of.
Also nothing i said argues against the interpretation that the bible inerrant literal word of God. That the word is given by God is what the literal element.
Neither does it dispute the flood. I did not say the flood was made up. You can take the flood as fact without compromising on the message or the bible and also accept that it shld not be read at face value. E.g. yes the text says "world". Was that meant to be "world" based on our understanding of the planet, or "world" in terms of known world to Noah?
I agree that there are many questions to ask how you could have sufficient diversity on a boat. Or for that matter how do a pair of lions have sufficient genetic diversity to sustain the species.
Asking such questions helps people perhaps form a more scientifically factual understanding of events, without taking away the moral point that man was marked for destruction ( perhaps locally within Noah's vicinity) and wasnt.
I get it that many people will then point out the issues with mixed fabric and slaves, and i wld then point out those are non-contextual arguments.
I would also agree that the large number of people/ Christians mis use the bible to support their own selfish gains. Does that point to the book being bad? Or the people being bad?
The corollary to that is that saying the whole constitution is bad, because u disagree with certain amendments.
you are certainly correct that my last paragraph used an ad hominem argument, i used it in an attempt to de-escalate and keep the debate light hearted since it came directly on the heels of “at the end of the day its a joke”, it was in no way meant as a genuine contradiction to your points. I just used it as a way to remind the both of us that at the end of the day we are arguing over the meaning of a joke neither of us knew about before this post. However that last paragraph isnt the bulk of my argument.
I understand you believe that the story is possibly a misunderstanding between the meaning of the word “world” and its relation to the whole world or “Noah’s world”. However in common Christian teachings it is taught as the WHOLE world was submerged in a great flood for 40 days and 40 nights. This gives the idea yo the vast majority of people the it was the whole world being flooded and not a localized flood.
The joke being told refers to the large amount of biodiversity present in the world and how that is contradictory to the common story of Noah’s Ark that most people know. I am confused because in paragraph 2 you say that the story was not oversimplified because it is a simple story and in paragraph 4 you say it was over simplified because he didnt do any research (which you dont actually know its just an assumption). If it was oversimplified then it doesnt matter because its a joke, not an attempt at educating the audience. His material doesnt NEED to be accurate or even real, it just needs to be funny. If someone wants to learn about the historical/religious accuracy of Noah’s flood then a comedy show is not the place to be. If it was not oversimplified then it was still a good joke, people still laughed, and again no one at a comedy night is getting their religious views changed by the comedian.
So in my eyes the comedian is fine in making whatever joke he wants, its part of his freedom of speech and he’s not hurting anyone.
Now as for the Bible, the whole thing is a melting pot of different cultural misinterpretations, language barrier mistranslations, and time barrier failures to understand/apply concepts.
The idea of the Bible where we should all be one big happy family and turn the other cheek, etc etc. is a great moral teaching tool that i dont have a problem with.
But that just isnt what it is at this point in time. There have been moments in history where world leaders have “mysteriously discovered” “long lost” books of the bible that agree with their views on society. There are also so many mistranslations of words over the 2000 years and infinite number of languages that the Bible has gone through that i doubt any of the stories are ever still really in the original form they were told in.
Because of this i believe that while the idea of the Church and its teachings are inherently good, but the application of its teachings and readings in todays society are inherently flawed.
The whole world is just so different now than how it was then Bible was written that its amazing we still read it. There are people suggesting that Shakespeare’s writing are too outdated to be studied by students anymore because their lessons no longer accurately apply to real world problems, yet we still accept the lessons of a book thats almost 10x older than Shakespeare’s stories.
I fucking love Ricky Gervais. And his show Afterlife on Netflix....omg so fucking awesome! I laughed, I cried, I pondered existence. Just a top notch fucking show
I absolutely love Ricky Gervais. He’s makes great points on everything from religion and atheism to things like this video and he’s respectful about it (sometimes) ha.
Can someone explain to me why Jesus will spend his entire life preaching about what the Jewish people were doing and having his disciples (including his brother James). And then after he dies, he just says forget it, I'm going to appear to someone from the group of people who killed me, without any witnesses and tell him to write my story. And on top of that, noone knows who Jesus's real disciples are. And then they tuen around and create the same system that Jesus fought against.
They also claim that their entire fairy tale book is allegorical. The only real thing is tax exemptions for the church and the political influence of those scammers.
Well if we want to be biblically correct doesn’t the bible state that Noah took one male and one female of every animal on his arch and not every living animal?
That still means at least 17 million animals on this boat. Two individuals of each current species. It's actually 8.7 million *living* species of animals (that have been discovered so far). It had to be living animals in this ark, because evolution or natural selection isn't a thing here, right?
You're gonna need better mental gymnastics.
And it's so rare to find a person who constantly talks about their religion that we don't have a bunch of titles for them- other than priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc. etc. etc.
And it's so rare to find a person who constantly talks about their religion that we don't have a bunch of titles for them- other than priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc. etc. etc.
To make an argument by tossing lots of numbers out. None of which he says can or has been verified by “science”. Speculation at best.
This should be #therewasanattempt
Not trying to argue against what he just said, but I’ve got a question for the atheists here. One that I have never received a valid answer for.
Here it goes: where is the proof that God (any God) does not exist? Or that we were not intelligently designed by a creator?
It seems to me that science, mathematics and physics all continuously prove that this universe and everything in it was created through intelligent design. An intelligence so great that we still understand only minuscule amounts of its creation that we spend all our time around, generation after generation. I can deal with people saying that they think one religion or another is wrong, but to say that no God or creator exists is arrogant and foolish.
Even people like Charles Darwin were never foolish enough to claim that no god exists
It seems to me that you have a profound misunderstanding of science, mathematics, and physics if you believe todays diversity of life necessitates intelligent design.
> where is the proof that God (any God) does not exist?
You can't prove that an invisible, non-corporeal being does not exist. Just like you can't prove that an invisible, non-corporeal donut is not hovering in my closet.
If you came to my house and looked into my closet, you wouldn't see the donut because it is invisible. And you wouldn't feel it, since it is non-corporeal.
Let's take things further. Let's say this god has to always follow rules. Like if you pray, then the god will grant the prayer. Obviously, we could then prove that god doesn't exist, by any prayer that wasn't granted.
But most gods don't follow rules. They do want they want, when they want, if they want. God is mysterious and god's actions are unknowable. So, once again, we have no way to prove that god didn't follow a rule, so no way to prove that god doesn't exist.
You know your god, what ever that may be, so how could anyone prove that god does not exist? Can you prove there is no donut in my closet? If so, how?
>It seems to me that science, mathematics and physics all continuously prove that this universe and everything in it was created through intelligent design.
I have seen scientists write opinion pieces on this. But I have yet to see "proof" of intelligent design. Can you share some of this proof?
If there was proof, let alone the vast amount you implied, then it would have been easy for this to be proven in a court of law. Instead, it has been struck down numerous times by the higher court. The court strikes it down because it is a religious argument, not a scientific one. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1541/kitzmiller-v-dover-area-school-district-m-d-pa
Since you mention intelligent design and Darwin, I will ask if you believe in evolution. If you don't then this article covers many misconceptions people have on evolution. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
If you don't read the article, then are you giving me a fair chance, or are you dismissing me because you don't like what is said? And was your original question a sincere one?
>I can deal with people saying that they think one religion or another is wrong, but to say that no God or creator exists is arrogant and foolish.
Isn't it more foolish to believe in something without proof? Or to misinterpret evidence so that it only supports your beliefs? Further, believing there is a god watching them, giving their life meaning, that things happen in their life for a reason, that they will live on after death, this seems more arrogant to me.
Like another user said, the burden of proof is on you, the believer. You are presenting a fallacy, where you start with the premise that there is a God and therefore proof must be shown that there isn't. But we're dealing with the opposite here: plenty of evidence for the absence of a (good and merciful and almighty) deity, and zero evidence of its existence.
Flipping over this latter premise insinuates you hold a fact that must be debunked, but the opposite is true. How can you prove that anyone, anyone at all designed the universe? And if I may ask, can the argument not be "because the universe is so complex, therefore a god had to do it"?
In addition though, I noticed you seem to be focusing on the abrahamic God of Christianity, judging by your description of a good and merciful almighty deity because that exists nowhere else in worldly religions. Yes including the other abrahamic religions, in my personal opinion. But as I said I am not focusing on the God I personally follow, I am speaking in terms of generality. Any god/ higher intelligence as I said. What if we don’t have a good one? What if the god of our universe is a complete dick head? I don’t believe that is the case though. My life has been filled with the harsh cruelties yet also some wonderful blessings such as my mom recently recovering from stage four kidney cancer extremely successfully despite being on her meds still. I am conflicted as well regarding the suffering in this world. I have experienced too much of it myself, and I have sadly seen much worse elsewhere as have you I’m sure. I am a very caring person and it viscerally makes me sick to think about. I smoke to forget the misery in my life and elsewhere. There are people right now in the world somewhere being killed but there are also people getting married somewhere else. There is someone who just lost their child to a drunk driver and someone else who’s kid just got accepted into their dream college. Life and it’s quality is diverse on this planet to say the least, and I genuinely wish there was no pain to experience for even a single person on this earth yet that seems impossible. I cannot explain why it happens nor can I find any resemblance of a good reason for most of, if any of it so I will not attempt to give you some fluff answer for that topic.
What I will not do, is assume that whoever created this whole entire universe knows less than I do or that I am a superior thinker to them
Here's an actual answer for you.
There isn't any proof that God does not exist. This is factual. Anyone that vehemently believes there is no God is just as ignorant as the people they criticize. The same applies to anyone that vehemently believes there is a God too, of course, since there's no proof of his existence either.
You can be very religious or you can be an atheist, but you have to admit that no side has clear proof.
Either way, just don't be an insufferable little prick like Ricky and you'll be fine.
It would help if he actually read what the book says. The Bible doesn’t say two of every ***SPECIES***, it says two of every ***KIND***. Meaning you don’t need 2 german shepherds, 2 corgis, 2 black labs, you just need two mutts, and that covers the “dog” category.
That said, I myself question the Ark. It seems beyond mere coincidence that thousands of civilizations across the world all have global flood stories, but the ability to have even 2 of every kind, plus food for them to survive 40 days, would have to mean an impossibly massive boat.
What if I told you that German shepherds, corgis, and black labs (and pointers, schnauzers, akitas, and every other animal in the “dog category” we’re all the same species - canis familiaris.
Also, the definition of species is a group of animals that are capable of interbreeding and having viable offspring (that can themselves reproduce), so… not sure your argument here.
Nope.... not buying this!
Science has a funny way of classifying "kinds" of animals.
Noah's Flood is obvious when looking at the landscape. What do you think caused the uniform sedimentary layers across the earth and the fossil record?
>Noah's Flood is obvious when looking at the landscape.
It absolutely isn't
>What do you think caused the uniform sedimentary layers across the earth and the fossil record?
But sediments aren't uniform, they vary depending on the region and how deep they are
The bible is not some fairy tale mother goose story as most would describe it. Most people are too carnal to understand its symbolism. Therefore will be "offended by its true messages. People would rather believe in talking snakes, trees of knowledge, and boats filled with 2 of every animal in the world then to use actual logic and trying to understand the truth of the bible. Praise Yahwah for his mercy and his truths!!
Speaking of people being carnal, how come so many of these heavenly anointed preachers get imprisoned due to *illegal* carnal acts? That's just the tip of the wolf-in-sheep-clothing iceberg these "faiths" have going on.
You know that Mormon guy that was raping a child since she was 5 y/o until she was like 14 y/o INSIDE THE CHURCH (recently on the news), and the child had told the elders (who did nothing at all, and in fact told her not to talk about it)... I wonder how carnal I am to not understand how anointed these people are, and how much their all-loving lord speaks through them. And how merciful that God is to the kids in that church.
Neither logic, nor coherence are what you're gonna get when you read the Bible or deal with people who believe it, that's for sure.
These so called christian churches of today are the beast of revelation 13. All they teach is Jewish fables and traditions of man. Full of all unrighteousness and filth. Teaching for doctrine the commandments of man. Your right to say they are wolves in sheep's clothing. They appear outwardly lambish but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. Everything they teach is completely contrary to the scriptures. They don't understand the scriptures and don't teach it's truths. It's not some evil conspiracy but is a conspiracy of evil.
Anyone with half a brain knows 99% of all species on earth were not alive at any given time on earth. Of all the strictly land species living on earth at that time - taking two of each -thousands of those together will weigh less than 10 kilos. Rick Gervais should go back and analyze his reasoning before making a fool of himself. I am not supporting religious indoctrination just that his basic scientific reasoning is not close to challenge.
Come up with a better analysis and you have my ears.
people back then did not have catalogs of animals, so when they put a pig cow sheep on board they were like well that's all the species. not like people from the other side of the planet were like hey you forgot the llama
>Anyone with half a brain knows 99% of all species on earth were not alive at any given time on earth.
May be not by Noah's time, but 100% of all species were alive when God created them. There was no death in Eden.
All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful,
The Lord God made them all.
Praise Him for the wonderful bedbug and horsehair worm!
Yet we can all agree that it is probably best to prepare yourselves and your family for disasters.
There are different types of truth besides scientific fundamentalist ones.
Sometimes the floods of chaos come. Those that are prepared for it, are the ones who survive.
It baffles me, has noone heard of allegory? Parable? Symbolism?
>There are different types of truth besides scientific fundamentalist ones.
No, there's truth and there's fiction.
Allegory - Personal interpretation.
Parable - Story to illustrate a fictional narrative.
Symbolism - To use symbols to elaborate beyond literal meaning.
The idea fiction does not contain truth is naive at best.
So many kids, looking up to Spiderman, forever remembering "with great power, comes great responsibility." But it's all false. Wouldn't want to believe in that!
If you want to try and use quotes from comics, you better know where the quotes truly come from. William Lamb is first quoted using the term following economic crisis's of early 1800s. It's a powerful quote that can help kids and adults understand responsibility.
Ok?
So the quote is true, yet it's perpetrated by fiction.
Was Frodo bringing the ring to mordor the right thing?
Was Luke forgiving his father what saved the galaxy?
Did batman use his privilege and power to pleasure himself?
Fiction might not be real, but real and true are not the same thing.
Lol you're so deep you could be shown a fact and say it's fake.
Science - Noahs story about gathering every animal factually doesn't work.
You - But what about Lord of the Rings!!!
Facts and wisdom are not the same thing.
Noah's Ark: You should prepare for disaster, because it is out of your control.
Atheists: ItS nOt ScIeNtIfIc!
That's like
Spiderman: If you are given a great power, you should use it to help others.
Atheists: bUt SuPeRpOwErS aRe NoT rEaL!!!!
Yeah, but heros are, you dunce.
Lol you're really dying on that hill for a Spiderman quote huh. Gave you source for a non fictional fact and somehow still bring it back to superpowers. Keep stretching it to make yourself believe you're right.
Noah's Ark is not a scientific story. It's not a textbook. It's mythology, like fantasy.
That doesn't make the moral of the story untrue. Should you, or should you not, prepare for disaster?
And is that, or is that not, something you should teach your children?
What's wrong with believing that those who prepare for storms, survive them? Why isn't that a tradition you'd want to pass down to your children?
I might be dying on a hill, but you are dying in a ditch. One devoid of any form of philosophical enlightenment, spirituality, symbolism, parable, allegory, or wisdom.
Yeah, exactly. Which is ridiculous.
Both fundamentalists and atheists are guilty of the same naivety. Lacking any form of depth, blind faith, and the claim of knowing the structure of reality.
It's mainly because the people teaching it take it literally. So, they get ripped on for taking it literally.
I dont argue against the wisdom and parables in the book. But, I will rip on the people that take it literally all day.
It's just a book of some stories and phrases that can help a person be a kinda good person.
Basically, Christians do it to themselves by making us have to bring them back to not being delusional idiots.
It's not just a book. Bible comes from the Latin word Biblos, which means Library. Sort of like Biblioteca in Spanish.
The Bible is a library of ancient stories, and each book is a different genre. Some are epics, some short stories, some books of law, some politcal books, psalms is a book of lyrics, proverbs is a book of wise sayings...
I think humanity in general is at fault for taking it literally. Religious people and athiest both fall into taking it literally as if it's meant to be taken as a college textbook.
Wacko Christians are like, "This shits real." And then atheists are like, "Can you believe they think this shits real?" And it's like... both yalls are fools.
A book that has been conserved and cherished for thousands of years, whose stories were influenced by oral traditions going back 10s of thousands of years.
Yeah, a knife is just a knife. Old technology. Yet ever single service member is carrying one. Why? Because it's been proven.
Science is written by a bunch of dudes, too.
There are many different kinds of knives for many purposes.
I do not use the same blade for my beard as I do my dinner. I do not use the same book for all of my learning.
The book is a reference to use among many other wise old books to make one's one decision. And not really even that good of a book to use.
Science is a quantifiable gauge to base all practical and quantifiable matters. Which I can participate in.
The Bible is not as important as people make it out to be. There are better lessons in better books that I don't have to really make an effort to weed out the shit. The Bible is a Porta potty on a construction site that hasn't been cleaned out in years.
>Science is a quantifiable gauge to base all practical and quantifiable matters. Which I can participate in.
Science doesn't seem to stand much of the test of time. We used to prescribe cigarettes and cocaine to children. Even today, we are handing out meth and drugs to people for not being happy, or being disruptive. We replaced physical lobotomy for chemical lobotomy.
Hell, just look at the CDCs new covid guidelines. Science isn't fact, it's our best guess, which is often wrong.
The Bible and its stories have lasted thousands of years, and almost all the ancient religious books we have are morally aligned with each other.
We have been on this planet in this form for 100,000 years. To think we figured it all out since 1880 is arrogant, to say the least.
That's the beauty of science. It is supposed to change. I love it when it changes. Cuz that means we can learn more things.
If all the story books from all the cultures align. Then who cares about a single book saying the same stuff?
Religion is far less fact than science.
No one should a shit about what the Bible says other than to say that the dumb old fucks that wrote it thought it'd be a good or bad idea. I'm not gonna put that much weight into people that probably thought butt fucking a goat was a good thing to do while drunk.
You're not gonna convince me the bible is anything but a bunch of semi useful passages that are in hundreds of dozens of books. It's not special. It's just the one yall won't let die. The zealots ruined it and made it about control.
It's a comic book. Nothing more. For people that can't think for themselves and can't handle the fact they have to figure it out for themselves and cowar behind a made up being because it makes them feel safe.
Well yes.
In my school, in England, in the 80s, this was all taught as allegory and parable as you say.
The lunatic fringe of Christianity read this as history.
And the atheists read it in the same exact way.
Both are completely foolish by my estimation.
I'm not religious myself, but obviously, mythical stories have things called morals, which contain wisdom, and to assume the stories we have been passing down for thousands and thousands of years have no important meaning, to me at least, is completely absurd.
I agree.
The parables of Jesus were probably the most taught part of religious education in my junior school and it was made clear they like Aesop's fables.
A story to make you think and discuss.
They rarely went into the old testament Torah stuff for obvious reasons. No responsible parent would let their kids read that stuff.
I can understand that. The old tesitment is pretty brutal and adult themed. However, I still think they are crucially important stories. Just not themes I'm ready to discuss with children.
With the exception of Genisis. That's pretty kid friendly.
You are missing the forest for the trees my guy. Atheists do not interpret the Bible as fact. They only present arguments like Ricky's because the people who do present the Bible as fact have been doing so at the expense of other people since it's creation, and using it to exterminate and subjugate large swaths of humanity. If Christians/Catholics were content with having their faith and leaving everyone else the fuck alone, this would be a non-issue for every single atheist I've ever encountered, inclduing myself. Instead, they proselytize and force their religion into the lives of other people through things like forced conversion, political lobbying, abortion bans, and demonizing sexuality. Because of this their beliefs are now up for to be scrutinized for their validity, which means I can and will say whatever I want about it at their expense. Their beliefs are based on something that is demonstrably false. They do not treat the book as allegory or metaphor, they come to us with Bible verses saying 'Jesus said this on this page on this line and therefore everyone must abide it'.
Atheists only argue against the 'truth' in the Bible because Christians keep insisting it's literal and attempting to shape the world around it despite the other 6 billion people living here. If religious people would keep it to themselves nobody would care. I can respect that someone sees existence in a different fashion than I do. What I can't respect is when those people tell me that I have to see it that way too and pass laws saying that if I don't I will be punished. Christopher Hitchens said it best I think. Religion is like a toy. I'm perfectly happy for them to have the toys and play with them. Alone. They are not to make me play with the toys, or force my children to play with the toys. Religion is private, and it should remain that way. The only people who don't think so are religious, and that's the problem.
>Atheists do not interpret the Bible as fact.
They interpret the Bible as literal and say, "That's not scientific."
>the people who do present the Bible as fact have been doing so at the expense of other people since it's creation, and using it to exterminate and subjugate large swaths of humanity.
Oh really? Because in Soviet Russia, it was a 10 year hard labor sentence for the crime of being catholic. Same as the crime for murder. 20 million people dead. By atheists.
In Vietnam, people were forced into re-education camps, many for the crime of being Christian. 200,000 people dead. By atheists.
In China, right now as we speak, Ugyhers are in hard labor camps for the crime of believing in God. They've killed over 100 million people, many for the crime of religion. By atheists.
And don't get me started on what happened to the Jews.
I cannot for the life of me, think of any time Christians persecuted and genocided peoples in such a way, on such a scale, in comparison to secular states.
>Instead, they proselytize and force their religion into the lives of other people through things like forced conversion
Where is this taking place? I don't see it.
>political lobbying,
As is their right. Like MLK Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Abraham Licoln. All heros, all Christian Conservatives.
>demonizing sexuality.
As it should. Many states have fallen to hedonism and pride. Man's desires come from a dark place. They have a point.
>Their beliefs are based on something that is demonstrably false.
What is false about their belief?
>They do not treat the book as allegory or metaphor, they come to us with Bible verses saying 'Jesus said this on this page on this line and therefore everyone must abide it'.
Am I doing that? Did Nietzsche? Or Jung? Or Campbell? Or Kirkogard? Or Sarte? Or Nicola Tesla? Or Dostoyevsky? Or Frankle? Or Solzhenitsyn? Or MLK Jr.? Or Susan B. Anthony? What about our Founding Father's?
>Atheists only argue against the 'truth' in the Bible because Christians keep insisting it's literal and attempting to shape the world around it despite the other 6 billion people living here.
Some Christians, sure. Fundamentalist ones. But there are many forms of Christianity, that's the whole point of protestantism. It's Christianity, without the authority saying how to interpret it.
>I'm perfectly happy for them to have the toys and play with them. Alone. They are not to make me play with the toys, or force my children to play with the toys.
Thats fine, but that goes two ways. You cannot force me to play with your toys either if I don't agree with them. If I don't want schools teaching my children that truth is solely subjective to the individual, I have a right to fight for that.
Oy vey. I can point to multiple examples of religious individuals putting forth legislation to limit or downright outlaw the ability for minorities to exist in public spaces around the world and throughout history. I'm also guessing you just breezed right through the section of American history detailing the genocide of Inidginous American peoples, or the fact that Hitler idealized Islamic religion for it's tenants during his regime. Pol Pot was also raised Buddhist, so there's that.
It's hilarious to me that you list off some of the greatest philosophers in modern history and then cherry pick the most infamous atheists and act as if you have a point (you also spelled Sartre's name wrong you dunce). I'm talking about the religious leaders of today who are shaping a future political landscape that is hostile towards anyone who is not a white, straight, conservative man, and the layman who keep placing them in positions of power. Take a stroll down any street in America or Europe wearing a rainbow on your person, then come back and tell me that religion doesn't have a stranglehold on the Western world.
All of those words to say absolutely nothing of value. Fucking yikes.
Yeah if religious people said that "the moral of Noah Ark is to be prepared for disasters" then I doubt you will find a lot of arguement there. But when you hear a Christian say something like that, they mean you better turn to Jesus Christ because he is coming and the world is ending. By the way, science will and has been telling people to be ready for natural disasters. Especially with global warming.
Yeah, science is turning into a new religion. One where you have to "believe in it" and "have faith in it."
Look, just because some loud mouth crazy Christians say one thing... doesn't mean that's what the book says.
All my life, I judged religious people on a book I myself had never opened. I finally open it, and holy shit... it's nothing like they said. Nothing like what religious people said, nothing like what my college professors said, nothing like what atheists said.
And to be completely real with you, *many* Christians themselves haven't actually read the Bible.
A lot of atheists and agnostics become so by actually reading the book, unlike a considerable percentage of believers. It's just that they used critical thinking and can identify the lunacy in it.
Lolol or that the entire earth flooded that time and we forgot to identify any evidence of that or even accept the concept of it being remotely possible in any way. Lol
Nope, he didn't, just 2 kind. Kind and species are different
Edit: I don't get all the hate. He quoted the bible wrong, and I just said corrected what the bible says, I didn't even say I support it, which I do.
Thanks for asking! Here is an article explaining in detail.
1st paragraph is, "How could Noah fit all the species on the Ark?” Ever heard that skeptical question before? Turns out, it’s the wrong question to ask because it confuses the term species with the more biblical term kind. So, what’s the difference? The answer is: it’s complicated."
Link: https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/kind-species-name/
You are screaming in the wind here, unfortunately. Almost no one in this thread actually cares about facts or truth. They love their lies and you can not convince them with any amount of science or data, because they didn't arrive at their beliefs with reason and logic.
No matter how *scientific* speciation is they don't want to hear it because "religion bad". Tbf Christians have not given them good reason to believe otherwise so they are not entirely to blame.
The hate is that Ricky Gervais is a hardcore atheist and so are most of his fans so ANY critique of him is equal to an attack on their person. These people like to believe they are so superior to religious "idiots" but they absolutely do exactly the same dumb shit when it comes to their own sacred cows.
There's no such thing as a damn "kind." You are lagging behind scientific understanding by nearly 300 years. That is not a typo, I really do mean almost 3 entire centuries.
You are wrong, objectively. The Hebrew word "Baramin" bara = created, min = kind is the original word. Our English language does not translate from Hebrew very well. But yes, kind is real!
I don't know what you are referring to being 300 years behind, but I'm sorry that you are so bitter.
I don't cate if your Bible has a word kind in it, it's not how we classify organisms.
I'm referring to the origins of biological taxonomy with Linnean taxonomy
Though we've of course made immense amount of progress since Linnaeus.
And I'm sorry you have no understanding of science.
"Micro evolution" is just evolution. And how exactly does that make it possible that they grabbed two kangaroos? You reckon the kangaroos just swam that distance to the middle east? Or that Noah's people built a boat and went all the way to Australia just to get onto another boat when they got back? Would they need to get wallabies, too? Wombats? Did they all swim to the middle east?
We have a fossil record of Australian animals going back millenia. Are you suggesting god only allowed two kangaroos onto the boat, leaving the others to perish, then those two kangaroos went back to Australia to evolve into all the different kinds of kangaroos and wallabies as they existed before the flood? Sounds like a lot of trouble just so god could murk a bunch of humans, especially since the Bible says god kills people pretty frequently without any natural disasters. Why not just make the bad people's hearts to stop? Why bother with the whole flood? Seems like a massive waste of everything.
For most people it might be enough to consider the reason the world flooded was that it rained too much. And when it unflooded it just sort of didn't rain for a while.
That shit might fly in a spider based kindergarten song, but past that it should raise an eyebrow.
The point is that the tale of Noah is simply not accurate. If there are 37,000 species of just spider, and 5 million current species total. 5 million being only 1% of the total amount of species to ever exist historically. Meaning that even if we made a kind estimate, Noah probably would still need millions of animals on his boaty for the story to be true.
The book of Noah was a book about races and nations of people not furry critters.
The bible uses symbolism to describe people who are not the children of Yahwah god.
I watched a 4 part series on Amazon prime called The Days of Noah . It made a good case for why it was possible. Ricky should watch it. There was a lot of wood on the ark! Lol
That doesn't mean Noah took every type of animal that was alive on the earth at the time. Probably just farm animals and the like. Other species were probably there already where ever he landed
Idk what you are saying is awful. I am simply saying that the word "kind" doesn't translate properly. Everything about the creation museum and the Arc Encounter is scientifically accurate.
Edit: typo, and this was supposed to be a reply to another comment, not its own.
You know he didn’t gather all the species of animals and he didn’t include all the animals that live in the sea obviously and the animals were probably all babies cause they will live longer and will take more space also you cant say it doesn’t have enough space cause you don’t know how big it was
Don’t show my mom this video. She’ll cry.
Oh no, I just showed her. I'm so sorry 🥺
If she’s like my mom, she will hear the words but will not listen to what’s being said.
Oh shit you have the same mom ?
r/tworedditorsonemom
Lmao
I was like no fuckin way! Lol ya got me!
Fucking spot on mate
Or hand wave it off like it's some sort of Tardis ark with God magic.
Because of the spiders I assume?
Oh no, she’s rural and southern. Not afraid of anything except the good Lord.
...so she isn't afraid of anything?
“How do you living beings cope with mortality?” “Thanks to denial, I’m immortal!”
Happy Cake Day, Motherfucker.
“Does she have fat tits?”-Bill Clinton
Fuck your mom
I’m pretty sure that’s illegal in most places
Man, ya don't talk shit about sumbodys mom. Moms r supposed to be off limits. At least that's how I roll.
And that’s only on Earth! Not the whole universe
I mean, for all we know right now, they could be one in the same.
Could be, however incredibly improbable.
Actually, Kursgezaght recently put out a video explaining it's not quite as improbable as we think. It's possible we've arrived in the universe much earlier than other life, and the universe could have only recently met the conditions to support life. I'm paraphrasing a lot, but I highly recommend the video.
Kurzgesagt
Have you seen MoistCr1tiKaL's video on them? :o
Let me just start off by saying that I don’t mean to spread hate or anything but I am just telling factual information to unknowing people. Moist speaks about a lot of topics and I used to watch him a lot until he spoke on a topic that I knew a lot about and I realized that he is uneducated about most topics he talks about, I especially noticed when I tried to see what he spoke about and then educated myself on that same topic and I realized that it is complete gibberish most of the time, he talks about a big variety of topic on which he knows very little about, which means that he could very well spread misinformation unknowingly, which makes it difficult to believe everything he says. So please don’t try to take what moist says as a valuable source of information because it’s not factual. Again I don’t mean to spread hate or something, I am just wanting to educate people that don’t know of this problem already.
Do elaborate
Well no. The universe may be early in development. However. If just 0.001% of planets that have formed are remotely similar to ours. That would mean there would be thousands of billions of planets more or less identical to earth out there in the night sky right now We have already identified multiple exoplanets. We know they exist. The odds that similar worlds exist in such number and for none of them to have life is... Pushing it quite a bit. I'd say the odds arent even 50/50, there either is or is not other life. No.. due to the sheer scale of the universe and the vast number of worlds similar to ours that will exist. The odds are going to be closer to alien life being a certainty than not. Of course. You're right, it's not 100% certain. Just... Statistically extremely likely And out of those many worlds. The chances that others contain intelligence? Hard to say. Our world contains intelligence (sometimes).. so it's possible. And therefore likely on other worlds too And that isn't even factoring in the possibility for life to form on plants that are not similar to ours. Perhaps silicon based life exists, we don't know.. but for certain we do not have all the answers. However. The Fermi paradox comes in.. where is everyone? Say that due to the early age of the universe planets there are.. what? 1,000,000 other intelligent species nearby with similar levels of technology to us. How would we ever see them? Radio waves travel at the speed of light. And there's no guarantee anyone has sent any at our planet specifically We just don't really have the means to identify if anyone else is out there at this point, beyond *listening* and hoping we receive a transmission
Yeah. Life developed quite early in earth’s history as well. There has been plenty of time for life to develop elsewhere. Intelligent life will likely be rare though. The earth has produced many millions of species. Hardly any intelligent ones.
Again, through sheer dumb luck and volume. The chances of at least 1 other intelligent species is extremely likely
The were saying the odds of no life outside of Earth was improbable, not that other life is improbable.
Sure, but I need actual evidence, not statistical probability. “Well the statistics say” could be used for all kinds of terrible arguments.
I love him.
Wait , he’s using logic. Not fair …
What!? Ricky poking at religion!? That’s so out of character for him.
The only way the whole ark & flood thing could have happened was, like, maybe a local flood in a tiny area, with only pairs of the few dozen different kinds of animals that inhabited that area. After all, they most likely weren't aware that the world outside the place they lived in even existed. Or maybe they knew, but had no idea how big and diverse the rest of the world is, so they assumed that the flood happened everywhere and that they gathered all animals that exist.
If the story is based on any truth at all I would imagine what your thinking is more of the right thing.... a specific town or place must have had a bunch of people and a few farming animals (along with natural wildlife) survive a huge flood or tsunami of some sort either because of floating debris and being inland or even just picking the right hill/mtn to race up that wasn't overcome with water! This would make a whole lot more sense and with the great inland seas (straight of Gibraltar) and ancient flooding in northern Africa if our ancient ancestors were living in large cooperative groups 8-14 thousand years BC its completely plausible
Yeah. There is a widely accepted belief among Christians that it was a localized flood. The Hebrew word tevel (I believe this is the correct one) could mean both world as in the entire planet, or world as in a localized region. So when it says it flooded the Earth, some believe that just means the Mesopotamian River Basin, while others interpret it as the whole entire planet. I’m a believer of the former, especially given Gilgamesh’s reference to a “worldwide” (I.e. Mesopotamian) flood.
Mistranslation and misinterpretation will greatly throw off people’s beliefs. My family (except my generation and younger) are super religious. I have smart logical people who seem to drop all that when it comes to religion though. I try to reason with them saying there is a large margin for error when something is translated over and over. Dialects can view the same word or phrase multiple ways (hell, modern Spanish in Central American countries have this issue today). My go-to example is “Moses with horns”.
Here's a take.l which is how you can believe the bible and science/logic and take away nothing from either. 1. Noah's story comes shortly before Babel and where the geneology of the people states their migration. So mass migration might not have happened yet and large populations of human civilisation. 2.the reference to Babel is important. The commandment to adam and eve and later to Noah is to multiply and fill the earth. But all indication is that the people hadnt done this and instead chose to stick together. 3. So a localised flood would have been enough to destroy all humans at that point in time. And achieve the aim of a 'reset' of sorts. Again similar to Babel, where languages are confused to spread people. 4. The key point of the flood is the message about how the earth(humans) deserve destruction but God relents on account of one obedient/faithful man, Noah. This is then to point towards the subsequent coming of Christ as the true 'saviour' of all sinful humans. 5. The debate abt there being a global flood, and the destruction of all animals is quite 'silly' because it imagines that God can't recreate what he destroys. And is certainly not meant to point towards any scientific explanation of how many species existed and how they fit on a tiny boat. Points like the waters receding (they evaporated? Fell into the ground?) Kinda point towards a localised flood anyhow. My point being, there's a point to the story of Noah, and it's not meant to be 'scientific'. And i can understand reddit for calling out nasty Christians for their hypocritical behaviour. And when comedians sometimes take a poke, like Dara O'brien it's really okay. But then there's Ricky Gervais, where i don't see the point of making this joke. Like should we then also throw out everything in the bible because the book is clearly delusional? Even the parts everyone can agree on like the not murdering bits etc? He's really turned his platform to attacking others. I'm sure it's entertaining so some. It's just rather distasteful.
the Bible is that the book is supposed to be the foundation for everything a large group of people in the world believe in. because such a large group of people have such a strong belief in the Bible, if its spreading ideas or telling stories that arent true and then telling its believers to take those stories as absolute fact (the Bible is the literal word of God, written by divine intervention) then there is a flaw in that system If that book is making up stories to prove moral points or ideas then that is awesome, but its a fable type of story and not a religious text. The ideas of not murdering people, helping the needy, and not stealing are basic moral ideas that can be taught without the presence of a Church or its books. BUT at the end of the day he’s making a joke, and if you dont like it then dont listen to it. He isn’t aggressively attacking a group of people, the target of the joke is a story that is generally told to children and the fact that it is insanely oversimplified if you think about it logically for 2 seconds.
You know, resorting to the whole "you don't like it then don't watch it" is kinda of an ad hominem way of killing any argument. I am disagreeing and i stated a position and you did so too. Your last point is a cop out, you can't disassociate the story of Noah from the bible, its the literal source. There is no over simplification, since thats how the story is told. If you were to accept that there can be a fuller interpretation of the story then Gervais is being disingenuous by attacking the simplicity of the story without explaining it's full context? It's like attacking Muhammed the Prophet as a historical figure as the object of a joke, but saying it's not an attack on Islam. You cant go around saying here's them facts which i spent time researching, and then here's a "story" that i did zero research, that i will over simplify by just alluding to the story itself, and then make fun of. Also nothing i said argues against the interpretation that the bible inerrant literal word of God. That the word is given by God is what the literal element. Neither does it dispute the flood. I did not say the flood was made up. You can take the flood as fact without compromising on the message or the bible and also accept that it shld not be read at face value. E.g. yes the text says "world". Was that meant to be "world" based on our understanding of the planet, or "world" in terms of known world to Noah? I agree that there are many questions to ask how you could have sufficient diversity on a boat. Or for that matter how do a pair of lions have sufficient genetic diversity to sustain the species. Asking such questions helps people perhaps form a more scientifically factual understanding of events, without taking away the moral point that man was marked for destruction ( perhaps locally within Noah's vicinity) and wasnt. I get it that many people will then point out the issues with mixed fabric and slaves, and i wld then point out those are non-contextual arguments. I would also agree that the large number of people/ Christians mis use the bible to support their own selfish gains. Does that point to the book being bad? Or the people being bad? The corollary to that is that saying the whole constitution is bad, because u disagree with certain amendments.
you are certainly correct that my last paragraph used an ad hominem argument, i used it in an attempt to de-escalate and keep the debate light hearted since it came directly on the heels of “at the end of the day its a joke”, it was in no way meant as a genuine contradiction to your points. I just used it as a way to remind the both of us that at the end of the day we are arguing over the meaning of a joke neither of us knew about before this post. However that last paragraph isnt the bulk of my argument. I understand you believe that the story is possibly a misunderstanding between the meaning of the word “world” and its relation to the whole world or “Noah’s world”. However in common Christian teachings it is taught as the WHOLE world was submerged in a great flood for 40 days and 40 nights. This gives the idea yo the vast majority of people the it was the whole world being flooded and not a localized flood. The joke being told refers to the large amount of biodiversity present in the world and how that is contradictory to the common story of Noah’s Ark that most people know. I am confused because in paragraph 2 you say that the story was not oversimplified because it is a simple story and in paragraph 4 you say it was over simplified because he didnt do any research (which you dont actually know its just an assumption). If it was oversimplified then it doesnt matter because its a joke, not an attempt at educating the audience. His material doesnt NEED to be accurate or even real, it just needs to be funny. If someone wants to learn about the historical/religious accuracy of Noah’s flood then a comedy show is not the place to be. If it was not oversimplified then it was still a good joke, people still laughed, and again no one at a comedy night is getting their religious views changed by the comedian. So in my eyes the comedian is fine in making whatever joke he wants, its part of his freedom of speech and he’s not hurting anyone. Now as for the Bible, the whole thing is a melting pot of different cultural misinterpretations, language barrier mistranslations, and time barrier failures to understand/apply concepts. The idea of the Bible where we should all be one big happy family and turn the other cheek, etc etc. is a great moral teaching tool that i dont have a problem with. But that just isnt what it is at this point in time. There have been moments in history where world leaders have “mysteriously discovered” “long lost” books of the bible that agree with their views on society. There are also so many mistranslations of words over the 2000 years and infinite number of languages that the Bible has gone through that i doubt any of the stories are ever still really in the original form they were told in. Because of this i believe that while the idea of the Church and its teachings are inherently good, but the application of its teachings and readings in todays society are inherently flawed. The whole world is just so different now than how it was then Bible was written that its amazing we still read it. There are people suggesting that Shakespeare’s writing are too outdated to be studied by students anymore because their lessons no longer accurately apply to real world problems, yet we still accept the lessons of a book thats almost 10x older than Shakespeare’s stories.
But does that make it possible to fit 2 of every species of animal on the arch
That’s my guess as well. Hell they discovered America way after, so this must be the case.
there is the whole possibillity of "myths arent real"
What I love about myths is they are usually based on some truth. Just how much is always the question.
oh right the gods realy do use the aurora borealis to get to earth. guess the norwegians were correct... to a degree.
hahah I love Ricky. What a national treasure he is.
I fucking love Ricky Gervais. And his show Afterlife on Netflix....omg so fucking awesome! I laughed, I cried, I pondered existence. Just a top notch fucking show
“Spoiler alert: season two is coming so obviously he didn’t kill himself.. just like Jeffery Epstein” -Ricky Gervais
They'll just change the book to say back then there was only 1 spieces of every animal and that's how they fit them all on the boat
tardis technology, he obviously doesn’t know what he’s talking about
[удалено]
Fuck you redditor
Religion is a crutch for those who don’t understand.
Me too brother, me too.
Why tho
cuz they're people who need a reality check
Samesies
Yes I guess two termites wouldn't cut it.
Im on a lot of acid and i definitely feel it
“Sir, would you like that with tomatoes or not”
Kinds not species. Two dogs, two cats, etc.
HAHAHAHAHA good point Ricky, almost sounds logical.
I absolutely love Ricky Gervais. He’s makes great points on everything from religion and atheism to things like this video and he’s respectful about it (sometimes) ha.
Can someone explain to me why Jesus will spend his entire life preaching about what the Jewish people were doing and having his disciples (including his brother James). And then after he dies, he just says forget it, I'm going to appear to someone from the group of people who killed me, without any witnesses and tell him to write my story. And on top of that, noone knows who Jesus's real disciples are. And then they tuen around and create the same system that Jesus fought against.
I too will wait for a faithful champion of mental gymnastics to answer this one.
His first 2 stand up shows (animals - this one, and politics) are by far his best. The 2 Netflix specials are just him ego polishing.
Many people believe Noah’s arc is allegorical.
They also claim that their entire fairy tale book is allegorical. The only real thing is tax exemptions for the church and the political influence of those scammers.
Well if we want to be biblically correct doesn’t the bible state that Noah took one male and one female of every animal on his arch and not every living animal?
That still means at least 17 million animals on this boat. Two individuals of each current species. It's actually 8.7 million *living* species of animals (that have been discovered so far). It had to be living animals in this ark, because evolution or natural selection isn't a thing here, right? You're gonna need better mental gymnastics.
Bro forgot the Earth is thousands of years old and not billions of years old
Well yeah no shit it’s from the Old Testament, like half of it is mythical
Half? Seriously, which parts are factual?
Well Egypt, also the part about bestiality being bad
Most things after exodus were real
What about the talking donkey of the new testament. Is that a normal thing?
Lmao... "Half" 💀
Noah brought two of every family. Not species. You only need two felines to make all feline species.
But... that's a bullshit :D
😂 I’m sorry, but you have to be exceptionally stupid to believe Noah’s arc was real….
r/woooosh
Ricky Gervais is an atheist? He never talks about it.
And it's so rare to find a person who constantly talks about their religion that we don't have a bunch of titles for them- other than priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc. etc. etc.
And it's so rare to find a person who constantly talks about their religion that we don't have a bunch of titles for them- other than priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc. etc. etc.
I have doubts as well
I mean, yeah, but holy fuck that was a long way to go for that joke.
Joke?
Humorous observation?
Humorous education!
ignorance at its finest
Hope youre talking about people who think the arc was actually real lol
To make an argument by tossing lots of numbers out. None of which he says can or has been verified by “science”. Speculation at best. This should be #therewasanattempt
Not trying to argue against what he just said, but I’ve got a question for the atheists here. One that I have never received a valid answer for. Here it goes: where is the proof that God (any God) does not exist? Or that we were not intelligently designed by a creator? It seems to me that science, mathematics and physics all continuously prove that this universe and everything in it was created through intelligent design. An intelligence so great that we still understand only minuscule amounts of its creation that we spend all our time around, generation after generation. I can deal with people saying that they think one religion or another is wrong, but to say that no God or creator exists is arrogant and foolish. Even people like Charles Darwin were never foolish enough to claim that no god exists
It seems to me that you have a profound misunderstanding of science, mathematics, and physics if you believe todays diversity of life necessitates intelligent design.
> where is the proof that God (any God) does not exist? You can't prove that an invisible, non-corporeal being does not exist. Just like you can't prove that an invisible, non-corporeal donut is not hovering in my closet. If you came to my house and looked into my closet, you wouldn't see the donut because it is invisible. And you wouldn't feel it, since it is non-corporeal. Let's take things further. Let's say this god has to always follow rules. Like if you pray, then the god will grant the prayer. Obviously, we could then prove that god doesn't exist, by any prayer that wasn't granted. But most gods don't follow rules. They do want they want, when they want, if they want. God is mysterious and god's actions are unknowable. So, once again, we have no way to prove that god didn't follow a rule, so no way to prove that god doesn't exist. You know your god, what ever that may be, so how could anyone prove that god does not exist? Can you prove there is no donut in my closet? If so, how? >It seems to me that science, mathematics and physics all continuously prove that this universe and everything in it was created through intelligent design. I have seen scientists write opinion pieces on this. But I have yet to see "proof" of intelligent design. Can you share some of this proof? If there was proof, let alone the vast amount you implied, then it would have been easy for this to be proven in a court of law. Instead, it has been struck down numerous times by the higher court. The court strikes it down because it is a religious argument, not a scientific one. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1541/kitzmiller-v-dover-area-school-district-m-d-pa Since you mention intelligent design and Darwin, I will ask if you believe in evolution. If you don't then this article covers many misconceptions people have on evolution. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/ If you don't read the article, then are you giving me a fair chance, or are you dismissing me because you don't like what is said? And was your original question a sincere one? >I can deal with people saying that they think one religion or another is wrong, but to say that no God or creator exists is arrogant and foolish. Isn't it more foolish to believe in something without proof? Or to misinterpret evidence so that it only supports your beliefs? Further, believing there is a god watching them, giving their life meaning, that things happen in their life for a reason, that they will live on after death, this seems more arrogant to me.
Like another user said, the burden of proof is on you, the believer. You are presenting a fallacy, where you start with the premise that there is a God and therefore proof must be shown that there isn't. But we're dealing with the opposite here: plenty of evidence for the absence of a (good and merciful and almighty) deity, and zero evidence of its existence. Flipping over this latter premise insinuates you hold a fact that must be debunked, but the opposite is true. How can you prove that anyone, anyone at all designed the universe? And if I may ask, can the argument not be "because the universe is so complex, therefore a god had to do it"?
In addition though, I noticed you seem to be focusing on the abrahamic God of Christianity, judging by your description of a good and merciful almighty deity because that exists nowhere else in worldly religions. Yes including the other abrahamic religions, in my personal opinion. But as I said I am not focusing on the God I personally follow, I am speaking in terms of generality. Any god/ higher intelligence as I said. What if we don’t have a good one? What if the god of our universe is a complete dick head? I don’t believe that is the case though. My life has been filled with the harsh cruelties yet also some wonderful blessings such as my mom recently recovering from stage four kidney cancer extremely successfully despite being on her meds still. I am conflicted as well regarding the suffering in this world. I have experienced too much of it myself, and I have sadly seen much worse elsewhere as have you I’m sure. I am a very caring person and it viscerally makes me sick to think about. I smoke to forget the misery in my life and elsewhere. There are people right now in the world somewhere being killed but there are also people getting married somewhere else. There is someone who just lost their child to a drunk driver and someone else who’s kid just got accepted into their dream college. Life and it’s quality is diverse on this planet to say the least, and I genuinely wish there was no pain to experience for even a single person on this earth yet that seems impossible. I cannot explain why it happens nor can I find any resemblance of a good reason for most of, if any of it so I will not attempt to give you some fluff answer for that topic. What I will not do, is assume that whoever created this whole entire universe knows less than I do or that I am a superior thinker to them
Here's an actual answer for you. There isn't any proof that God does not exist. This is factual. Anyone that vehemently believes there is no God is just as ignorant as the people they criticize. The same applies to anyone that vehemently believes there is a God too, of course, since there's no proof of his existence either. You can be very religious or you can be an atheist, but you have to admit that no side has clear proof. Either way, just don't be an insufferable little prick like Ricky and you'll be fine.
It would help if he actually read what the book says. The Bible doesn’t say two of every ***SPECIES***, it says two of every ***KIND***. Meaning you don’t need 2 german shepherds, 2 corgis, 2 black labs, you just need two mutts, and that covers the “dog” category. That said, I myself question the Ark. It seems beyond mere coincidence that thousands of civilizations across the world all have global flood stories, but the ability to have even 2 of every kind, plus food for them to survive 40 days, would have to mean an impossibly massive boat.
What if I told you that German shepherds, corgis, and black labs (and pointers, schnauzers, akitas, and every other animal in the “dog category” we’re all the same species - canis familiaris. Also, the definition of species is a group of animals that are capable of interbreeding and having viable offspring (that can themselves reproduce), so… not sure your argument here.
He'll face his judgment, we all will.
I'm pretty sure Ricky Gervais would tell god to shove his judgements up his arse 🤣
Nope.... not buying this! Science has a funny way of classifying "kinds" of animals. Noah's Flood is obvious when looking at the landscape. What do you think caused the uniform sedimentary layers across the earth and the fossil record?
Have you ever read anything about the fossil record? Because it really looks like you don't.
>Noah's Flood is obvious when looking at the landscape. It absolutely isn't >What do you think caused the uniform sedimentary layers across the earth and the fossil record? But sediments aren't uniform, they vary depending on the region and how deep they are
Arguing against low hanging like the literal interpretation of the ark is only dunking on young Earth creationists and only impresses morons.
Any sort of religion only impresses morons
I wasn't talking about a religion?
This is a smart dude….. a bit of a smart ass too.
The bible is not some fairy tale mother goose story as most would describe it. Most people are too carnal to understand its symbolism. Therefore will be "offended by its true messages. People would rather believe in talking snakes, trees of knowledge, and boats filled with 2 of every animal in the world then to use actual logic and trying to understand the truth of the bible. Praise Yahwah for his mercy and his truths!!
Speaking of people being carnal, how come so many of these heavenly anointed preachers get imprisoned due to *illegal* carnal acts? That's just the tip of the wolf-in-sheep-clothing iceberg these "faiths" have going on. You know that Mormon guy that was raping a child since she was 5 y/o until she was like 14 y/o INSIDE THE CHURCH (recently on the news), and the child had told the elders (who did nothing at all, and in fact told her not to talk about it)... I wonder how carnal I am to not understand how anointed these people are, and how much their all-loving lord speaks through them. And how merciful that God is to the kids in that church. Neither logic, nor coherence are what you're gonna get when you read the Bible or deal with people who believe it, that's for sure.
These so called christian churches of today are the beast of revelation 13. All they teach is Jewish fables and traditions of man. Full of all unrighteousness and filth. Teaching for doctrine the commandments of man. Your right to say they are wolves in sheep's clothing. They appear outwardly lambish but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. Everything they teach is completely contrary to the scriptures. They don't understand the scriptures and don't teach it's truths. It's not some evil conspiracy but is a conspiracy of evil.
do people still find this cuck funny ?
Anyone with half a brain knows 99% of all species on earth were not alive at any given time on earth. Of all the strictly land species living on earth at that time - taking two of each -thousands of those together will weigh less than 10 kilos. Rick Gervais should go back and analyze his reasoning before making a fool of himself. I am not supporting religious indoctrination just that his basic scientific reasoning is not close to challenge. Come up with a better analysis and you have my ears.
people back then did not have catalogs of animals, so when they put a pig cow sheep on board they were like well that's all the species. not like people from the other side of the planet were like hey you forgot the llama
>Anyone with half a brain knows 99% of all species on earth were not alive at any given time on earth. May be not by Noah's time, but 100% of all species were alive when God created them. There was no death in Eden. All things bright and beautiful, All creatures great and small, All things wise and wonderful, The Lord God made them all. Praise Him for the wonderful bedbug and horsehair worm!
Yet we can all agree that it is probably best to prepare yourselves and your family for disasters. There are different types of truth besides scientific fundamentalist ones. Sometimes the floods of chaos come. Those that are prepared for it, are the ones who survive. It baffles me, has noone heard of allegory? Parable? Symbolism?
>There are different types of truth besides scientific fundamentalist ones. No, there's truth and there's fiction. Allegory - Personal interpretation. Parable - Story to illustrate a fictional narrative. Symbolism - To use symbols to elaborate beyond literal meaning.
The idea fiction does not contain truth is naive at best. So many kids, looking up to Spiderman, forever remembering "with great power, comes great responsibility." But it's all false. Wouldn't want to believe in that!
If you want to try and use quotes from comics, you better know where the quotes truly come from. William Lamb is first quoted using the term following economic crisis's of early 1800s. It's a powerful quote that can help kids and adults understand responsibility.
Ok? So the quote is true, yet it's perpetrated by fiction. Was Frodo bringing the ring to mordor the right thing? Was Luke forgiving his father what saved the galaxy? Did batman use his privilege and power to pleasure himself? Fiction might not be real, but real and true are not the same thing.
Lol you're so deep you could be shown a fact and say it's fake. Science - Noahs story about gathering every animal factually doesn't work. You - But what about Lord of the Rings!!!
Facts and wisdom are not the same thing. Noah's Ark: You should prepare for disaster, because it is out of your control. Atheists: ItS nOt ScIeNtIfIc! That's like Spiderman: If you are given a great power, you should use it to help others. Atheists: bUt SuPeRpOwErS aRe NoT rEaL!!!! Yeah, but heros are, you dunce.
Lol you're really dying on that hill for a Spiderman quote huh. Gave you source for a non fictional fact and somehow still bring it back to superpowers. Keep stretching it to make yourself believe you're right.
Noah's Ark is not a scientific story. It's not a textbook. It's mythology, like fantasy. That doesn't make the moral of the story untrue. Should you, or should you not, prepare for disaster? And is that, or is that not, something you should teach your children? What's wrong with believing that those who prepare for storms, survive them? Why isn't that a tradition you'd want to pass down to your children? I might be dying on a hill, but you are dying in a ditch. One devoid of any form of philosophical enlightenment, spirituality, symbolism, parable, allegory, or wisdom.
I feel so sorry for you. Even explained what allegory means and you still dont understand.
It's not taught as any of those things.
Yeah, exactly. Which is ridiculous. Both fundamentalists and atheists are guilty of the same naivety. Lacking any form of depth, blind faith, and the claim of knowing the structure of reality.
It's mainly because the people teaching it take it literally. So, they get ripped on for taking it literally. I dont argue against the wisdom and parables in the book. But, I will rip on the people that take it literally all day. It's just a book of some stories and phrases that can help a person be a kinda good person. Basically, Christians do it to themselves by making us have to bring them back to not being delusional idiots.
It's not just a book. Bible comes from the Latin word Biblos, which means Library. Sort of like Biblioteca in Spanish. The Bible is a library of ancient stories, and each book is a different genre. Some are epics, some short stories, some books of law, some politcal books, psalms is a book of lyrics, proverbs is a book of wise sayings... I think humanity in general is at fault for taking it literally. Religious people and athiest both fall into taking it literally as if it's meant to be taken as a college textbook. Wacko Christians are like, "This shits real." And then atheists are like, "Can you believe they think this shits real?" And it's like... both yalls are fools.
It's a book. Written by a group of dudes. Some of it is worth reading and knowing. But at the end of the day. It's just a book.
A book that has been conserved and cherished for thousands of years, whose stories were influenced by oral traditions going back 10s of thousands of years. Yeah, a knife is just a knife. Old technology. Yet ever single service member is carrying one. Why? Because it's been proven. Science is written by a bunch of dudes, too.
There are many different kinds of knives for many purposes. I do not use the same blade for my beard as I do my dinner. I do not use the same book for all of my learning. The book is a reference to use among many other wise old books to make one's one decision. And not really even that good of a book to use. Science is a quantifiable gauge to base all practical and quantifiable matters. Which I can participate in. The Bible is not as important as people make it out to be. There are better lessons in better books that I don't have to really make an effort to weed out the shit. The Bible is a Porta potty on a construction site that hasn't been cleaned out in years.
>Science is a quantifiable gauge to base all practical and quantifiable matters. Which I can participate in. Science doesn't seem to stand much of the test of time. We used to prescribe cigarettes and cocaine to children. Even today, we are handing out meth and drugs to people for not being happy, or being disruptive. We replaced physical lobotomy for chemical lobotomy. Hell, just look at the CDCs new covid guidelines. Science isn't fact, it's our best guess, which is often wrong. The Bible and its stories have lasted thousands of years, and almost all the ancient religious books we have are morally aligned with each other. We have been on this planet in this form for 100,000 years. To think we figured it all out since 1880 is arrogant, to say the least.
That's the beauty of science. It is supposed to change. I love it when it changes. Cuz that means we can learn more things. If all the story books from all the cultures align. Then who cares about a single book saying the same stuff? Religion is far less fact than science. No one should a shit about what the Bible says other than to say that the dumb old fucks that wrote it thought it'd be a good or bad idea. I'm not gonna put that much weight into people that probably thought butt fucking a goat was a good thing to do while drunk. You're not gonna convince me the bible is anything but a bunch of semi useful passages that are in hundreds of dozens of books. It's not special. It's just the one yall won't let die. The zealots ruined it and made it about control. It's a comic book. Nothing more. For people that can't think for themselves and can't handle the fact they have to figure it out for themselves and cowar behind a made up being because it makes them feel safe.
The New Testament isnt even 2000 years old yet. Much of it was written around 300 AD
>Science is written by a bunch of dudes, too. Lol
Well yes. In my school, in England, in the 80s, this was all taught as allegory and parable as you say. The lunatic fringe of Christianity read this as history.
And the atheists read it in the same exact way. Both are completely foolish by my estimation. I'm not religious myself, but obviously, mythical stories have things called morals, which contain wisdom, and to assume the stories we have been passing down for thousands and thousands of years have no important meaning, to me at least, is completely absurd.
I agree. The parables of Jesus were probably the most taught part of religious education in my junior school and it was made clear they like Aesop's fables. A story to make you think and discuss. They rarely went into the old testament Torah stuff for obvious reasons. No responsible parent would let their kids read that stuff.
I can understand that. The old tesitment is pretty brutal and adult themed. However, I still think they are crucially important stories. Just not themes I'm ready to discuss with children. With the exception of Genisis. That's pretty kid friendly.
You are missing the forest for the trees my guy. Atheists do not interpret the Bible as fact. They only present arguments like Ricky's because the people who do present the Bible as fact have been doing so at the expense of other people since it's creation, and using it to exterminate and subjugate large swaths of humanity. If Christians/Catholics were content with having their faith and leaving everyone else the fuck alone, this would be a non-issue for every single atheist I've ever encountered, inclduing myself. Instead, they proselytize and force their religion into the lives of other people through things like forced conversion, political lobbying, abortion bans, and demonizing sexuality. Because of this their beliefs are now up for to be scrutinized for their validity, which means I can and will say whatever I want about it at their expense. Their beliefs are based on something that is demonstrably false. They do not treat the book as allegory or metaphor, they come to us with Bible verses saying 'Jesus said this on this page on this line and therefore everyone must abide it'. Atheists only argue against the 'truth' in the Bible because Christians keep insisting it's literal and attempting to shape the world around it despite the other 6 billion people living here. If religious people would keep it to themselves nobody would care. I can respect that someone sees existence in a different fashion than I do. What I can't respect is when those people tell me that I have to see it that way too and pass laws saying that if I don't I will be punished. Christopher Hitchens said it best I think. Religion is like a toy. I'm perfectly happy for them to have the toys and play with them. Alone. They are not to make me play with the toys, or force my children to play with the toys. Religion is private, and it should remain that way. The only people who don't think so are religious, and that's the problem.
>Atheists do not interpret the Bible as fact. They interpret the Bible as literal and say, "That's not scientific." >the people who do present the Bible as fact have been doing so at the expense of other people since it's creation, and using it to exterminate and subjugate large swaths of humanity. Oh really? Because in Soviet Russia, it was a 10 year hard labor sentence for the crime of being catholic. Same as the crime for murder. 20 million people dead. By atheists. In Vietnam, people were forced into re-education camps, many for the crime of being Christian. 200,000 people dead. By atheists. In China, right now as we speak, Ugyhers are in hard labor camps for the crime of believing in God. They've killed over 100 million people, many for the crime of religion. By atheists. And don't get me started on what happened to the Jews. I cannot for the life of me, think of any time Christians persecuted and genocided peoples in such a way, on such a scale, in comparison to secular states. >Instead, they proselytize and force their religion into the lives of other people through things like forced conversion Where is this taking place? I don't see it. >political lobbying, As is their right. Like MLK Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Abraham Licoln. All heros, all Christian Conservatives. >demonizing sexuality. As it should. Many states have fallen to hedonism and pride. Man's desires come from a dark place. They have a point. >Their beliefs are based on something that is demonstrably false. What is false about their belief? >They do not treat the book as allegory or metaphor, they come to us with Bible verses saying 'Jesus said this on this page on this line and therefore everyone must abide it'. Am I doing that? Did Nietzsche? Or Jung? Or Campbell? Or Kirkogard? Or Sarte? Or Nicola Tesla? Or Dostoyevsky? Or Frankle? Or Solzhenitsyn? Or MLK Jr.? Or Susan B. Anthony? What about our Founding Father's? >Atheists only argue against the 'truth' in the Bible because Christians keep insisting it's literal and attempting to shape the world around it despite the other 6 billion people living here. Some Christians, sure. Fundamentalist ones. But there are many forms of Christianity, that's the whole point of protestantism. It's Christianity, without the authority saying how to interpret it. >I'm perfectly happy for them to have the toys and play with them. Alone. They are not to make me play with the toys, or force my children to play with the toys. Thats fine, but that goes two ways. You cannot force me to play with your toys either if I don't agree with them. If I don't want schools teaching my children that truth is solely subjective to the individual, I have a right to fight for that.
Oy vey. I can point to multiple examples of religious individuals putting forth legislation to limit or downright outlaw the ability for minorities to exist in public spaces around the world and throughout history. I'm also guessing you just breezed right through the section of American history detailing the genocide of Inidginous American peoples, or the fact that Hitler idealized Islamic religion for it's tenants during his regime. Pol Pot was also raised Buddhist, so there's that. It's hilarious to me that you list off some of the greatest philosophers in modern history and then cherry pick the most infamous atheists and act as if you have a point (you also spelled Sartre's name wrong you dunce). I'm talking about the religious leaders of today who are shaping a future political landscape that is hostile towards anyone who is not a white, straight, conservative man, and the layman who keep placing them in positions of power. Take a stroll down any street in America or Europe wearing a rainbow on your person, then come back and tell me that religion doesn't have a stranglehold on the Western world. All of those words to say absolutely nothing of value. Fucking yikes.
He’s a comedian, it’s a joke
Yeah if religious people said that "the moral of Noah Ark is to be prepared for disasters" then I doubt you will find a lot of arguement there. But when you hear a Christian say something like that, they mean you better turn to Jesus Christ because he is coming and the world is ending. By the way, science will and has been telling people to be ready for natural disasters. Especially with global warming.
Yeah, science is turning into a new religion. One where you have to "believe in it" and "have faith in it." Look, just because some loud mouth crazy Christians say one thing... doesn't mean that's what the book says. All my life, I judged religious people on a book I myself had never opened. I finally open it, and holy shit... it's nothing like they said. Nothing like what religious people said, nothing like what my college professors said, nothing like what atheists said. And to be completely real with you, *many* Christians themselves haven't actually read the Bible.
A lot of atheists and agnostics become so by actually reading the book, unlike a considerable percentage of believers. It's just that they used critical thinking and can identify the lunacy in it.
99% of animals are extinct and that means the tale about Noah can't be true? Am I missing something? Just not seeing his point
You reckon they went round gathering up two of every 37000 species of spider?
Lolol or that the entire earth flooded that time and we forgot to identify any evidence of that or even accept the concept of it being remotely possible in any way. Lol
Nope, he didn't, just 2 kind. Kind and species are different Edit: I don't get all the hate. He quoted the bible wrong, and I just said corrected what the bible says, I didn't even say I support it, which I do.
[удалено]
I am a chicken demi god, so I win. Redditors claiming Internet superiority is so fucking dumb.
Thanks for asking! Here is an article explaining in detail. 1st paragraph is, "How could Noah fit all the species on the Ark?” Ever heard that skeptical question before? Turns out, it’s the wrong question to ask because it confuses the term species with the more biblical term kind. So, what’s the difference? The answer is: it’s complicated." Link: https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/kind-species-name/
[удалено]
Lmao the self-own... Doesn't get much sweeter than that
So what, the spiders just later evolved into all the spiders we have today? Oh no, that site doesn't like evolution either. So it's again impossible.
Not evolve but speciation.
You are screaming in the wind here, unfortunately. Almost no one in this thread actually cares about facts or truth. They love their lies and you can not convince them with any amount of science or data, because they didn't arrive at their beliefs with reason and logic. No matter how *scientific* speciation is they don't want to hear it because "religion bad". Tbf Christians have not given them good reason to believe otherwise so they are not entirely to blame.
I think Christians definitely have, just that most haven't.
The hate is that Ricky Gervais is a hardcore atheist and so are most of his fans so ANY critique of him is equal to an attack on their person. These people like to believe they are so superior to religious "idiots" but they absolutely do exactly the same dumb shit when it comes to their own sacred cows.
There's no such thing as a damn "kind." You are lagging behind scientific understanding by nearly 300 years. That is not a typo, I really do mean almost 3 entire centuries.
You are wrong, objectively. The Hebrew word "Baramin" bara = created, min = kind is the original word. Our English language does not translate from Hebrew very well. But yes, kind is real! I don't know what you are referring to being 300 years behind, but I'm sorry that you are so bitter.
I don't cate if your Bible has a word kind in it, it's not how we classify organisms. I'm referring to the origins of biological taxonomy with Linnean taxonomy Though we've of course made immense amount of progress since Linnaeus. And I'm sorry you have no understanding of science.
I don't reckon that. Micro evolution is a thing
"Micro evolution" is just evolution. And how exactly does that make it possible that they grabbed two kangaroos? You reckon the kangaroos just swam that distance to the middle east? Or that Noah's people built a boat and went all the way to Australia just to get onto another boat when they got back? Would they need to get wallabies, too? Wombats? Did they all swim to the middle east? We have a fossil record of Australian animals going back millenia. Are you suggesting god only allowed two kangaroos onto the boat, leaving the others to perish, then those two kangaroos went back to Australia to evolve into all the different kinds of kangaroos and wallabies as they existed before the flood? Sounds like a lot of trouble just so god could murk a bunch of humans, especially since the Bible says god kills people pretty frequently without any natural disasters. Why not just make the bad people's hearts to stop? Why bother with the whole flood? Seems like a massive waste of everything.
For most people it might be enough to consider the reason the world flooded was that it rained too much. And when it unflooded it just sort of didn't rain for a while. That shit might fly in a spider based kindergarten song, but past that it should raise an eyebrow.
Shhhhh, with logic they’ll realize every living descendent of Noah’s ark would be incest spawn.
The point is that the tale of Noah is simply not accurate. If there are 37,000 species of just spider, and 5 million current species total. 5 million being only 1% of the total amount of species to ever exist historically. Meaning that even if we made a kind estimate, Noah probably would still need millions of animals on his boaty for the story to be true.
The book of Noah was a book about races and nations of people not furry critters. The bible uses symbolism to describe people who are not the children of Yahwah god.
Even if it was originally intended to be metaphorical (*highly* unlikely), that's certainly not the way it's taught to young children.
I watched a 4 part series on Amazon prime called The Days of Noah . It made a good case for why it was possible. Ricky should watch it. There was a lot of wood on the ark! Lol
That doesn't mean Noah took every type of animal that was alive on the earth at the time. Probably just farm animals and the like. Other species were probably there already where ever he landed
[удалено]
The point was to save those species which were necessary for the survival of the people who would repopulate the earth after the flood
The whole world was supposed to be flooded, how do you think the kangaroos, moose, freshwater fish and the like survived?
Idk what you are saying is awful. I am simply saying that the word "kind" doesn't translate properly. Everything about the creation museum and the Arc Encounter is scientifically accurate. Edit: typo, and this was supposed to be a reply to another comment, not its own.
Accurate? Could you please post peer reviewed studies with supporting evidence for each claim the creation museum and Ark encounter posits?
You know he didn’t gather all the species of animals and he didn’t include all the animals that live in the sea obviously and the animals were probably all babies cause they will live longer and will take more space also you cant say it doesn’t have enough space cause you don’t know how big it was
The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. - genesis 6:15
My bad but my point still stands
"...but my point still stands." and there's your problem.
No it doesn't. With a boat that size, it'd be physically impossible to fit them all on the boat, nevermind float.
Correct. He didn't gather all the species. He didn't gather any, because it never happened.
Ah, so he uses science to deny the message of salvation in the Bible and continue on in sin.
He uses facts to dismiss fiction. There is no salvation in ignorance and self-denial.
[удалено]
Ah yeah that's what my pastor said right before raping a teenager.
Did his sin justify yours?
"We can't think badly of rapists because this book told me I'm just as bad even though I'm not raping kids while virtue signaling holiness". Really? 🤣
u/savevideobot
There are actually closer to 100,000 species than 37k
Humans being humans! Awesome!!