Noah’s Ark seems like a myth

[dbasra99]

Hello. I am new here. Trying to find a place to openly discuss my faith issues without being attacked.

I had a total faith deconstruction that led me to severe depression. My faith has been somewhat been rebuilt but I still struggle with many issues.

For example, for many years I have not been able to believe the story of Noah. This is both from science and theology standpoints.

I have listened to many models by numerous apologists but no one brings me closure on this.

I see nothing more than a story of a great natural catastrophe that is blamed on God and is expressed in various ancient religions. However the references in the New Testament trouble me.

I am interested in what others think.

Thanks.

[dbasra99]

[
Many Christians do not believe in Hell.
[/quote]

That may merit a dedicated thread 'Christians, do you believe in Hell? If so, where is the evidence?'

Cue, deep Russian hole in the ground. However, credit to our pal 1213, he (I guess) is the only or one of the few to try to argue for the Flood and Ark, and even he has ended up with no more than denial of the way the evidence and logical reasoning actually points, with a dose of faithbased science - denial.
[/quote]


I accept that there may be no afterlife. However, I also can not explain corroborated NDEs and after death communications as well as some past life experiences.

I certainly do not believe in eternal torment. Lee Strobel did some research on this topic and says that conditional immortality is fast becoming the dominant Christian position. Basically non believers cease to exist.

Many also believe in Universalism or some for some sort of separation similar to CS Lewis in “ The Great Divorce”.

I am a theistic evolutionists and fall in line with Francis Collins and Biologos.

[dbasra99]

[
Many Christians do not believe in Hell.
[/quote]

That may merit a dedicated thread 'Christians, do you believe in Hell? If so, where is the evidence?'

Cue, deep Russian hole in the ground. However, credit to our pal 1213, he (I guess) is the only or one of the few to try to argue for the Flood and Ark, and even he has ended up with no more than denial of the way the evidence and logical reasoning actually points, with a dose of faithbased science - denial.
[/quote]


I accept that there may be no afterlife. However, I also can not explain corroborated NDEs and after death communications as well as some past life experiences.

I certainly do not believe in eternal torment. Lee Strobel did some research on this topic and says that conditional immortality is fast becoming the dominant Christian position. Basically non believers cease to exist.

Many also believe in Universalism or some for some sort of separation similar to CS Lewis in “ The Great Divorce”.

I am a theistic evolutionists and fall in line with Francis Collins and Biologos.

[TRANSPONDER]

Many Christians do not believe in Hell.

That may merit a dedicated thread 'Christians, do you believe in Hell? If so, where is the evidence?'

Cue, deep Russian hole in the ground. However, credit to our pal 1213, he (I guess) is the only or one of the few to try to argue for the Flood and Ark, and even he has ended up with no more than denial of the way the evidence and logical reasoning actually points, with a dose of faithbased science - denial.

I accept that there may be no afterlife. However, I also can not explain corroborated NDEs and after death communications as well as some past life experiences.

I certainly do not believe in eternal torment. Lee Strobel did some research on this topic and says that conditional immortality is fast becoming the dominant Christian position. Basically non believers cease to exist.

Many also believe in Universalism or some for some sort of separation similar to CS Lewis in “ The Great Divorce”.

I am a theistic evolutionists and fall in line with Francis Collins and Biologos.

Thank you. We goddless hellspawn can do business with Christian evolutionists, especially those who question, or even reject hellthreat. With or without the carrot of Heaven, give or take the stick of hellthreat. The thing is that anything where Not getting to God is seen as a body blow, it is effectively hellthreat, even if Hell is no more than being saddled on the naughty step for eternity.

If Oblivion is the alternative to union with God...well, as a former Buddhist, for me, that is Nirvana without even having to work for it. Tempting as an afterlife might be (as I'd have to tick a few boxes before i bought in) I think I'd have to opt for oblivion in the end.

I am not swayed by fear of death, so long as it wasn't too bad an ordeal, so desire for eternal life just because of an instinctive fear of death (evolved survival instinct that even geckoes have) carries no truth even if it carries instinctive effect.

Now, as to NDE's and the like, I don't think a mental effect can be ruled out. They can take various forms, and that suggests that the individual mind produces the experience, not travels there, so to speak. In that respect. is it quite like other supernatural experiences and messages from God, which suggests the effect of the brain, not contact with a real thing.

Rather the same with former life experiences. Aside that the ones I have read look rather suspect to me, people can get delusions or led into false memories, notably those who experience ET alien abduction, and that has been shown to at least credibly be explainable as a mental effect rather than a real experience.

So, while the familiar 'here, explain this anecdotal claim and prove it or the supernatural claim stands' is invalid for the supernatural, religious, miraculous or afterlife experiences, nor indeed the unexplained (which we do have) as for UFO claims, These don't add up to good or persuasive evidence, even if the door to the credibility department has to be left ajar.

[dbasra99]

Many Christians do not believe in Hell.

Now, as to NDE's and the like, I don't think a mental effect can be ruled out. They can take various forms, and that suggests that the individual mind produces the experience, not travels there, so to speak. In that respect. is it quite like other supernatural experiences and messages from God, which suggests the effect of the brain, not contact with a real thing.

Rather the same with former life experiences. Aside that the ones I have read look rather suspect to me, people can get delusions or led into false memories, notably those who experience ET alien abduction, and that has been shown to at least credibly be explainable as a mental effect rather than a real experience.

So, while the familiar 'here, explain this anecdotal claim and prove it or the supernatural claim stands' is invalid for the supernatural, religious, miraculous or afterlife experiences, nor indeed the unexplained (which we do have) as for UFO claims, These don't add up to good or persuasive evidence, even if the door to the credibility department has to be left ajar.

NDEs are all over the place. However, the ones that intrigue me are the ones where a person leaves their body and can see or hear things that in other locations that can be corroborated and was not possible without leaving their body. I cannot dismiss that these might be explained by natural causes sometime in the future.

[otseng]

Calling the historical documentation found in the Bible "myths," are for lazy people who are unwilling to do any background check and are fully comfortable with what they were told by nonbelievers generally while in a public institution, usually, school or college.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making generalizations of others.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TRANSPONDER]

Calling the historical documentation found in the Bible "myths," are for lazy people who are unwilling to do any background check and are fully comfortable with what they were told by nonbelievers generally while in a public institution, usually, school or college.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making generalizations of others.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Thank you. However, such dismissive generalisations about atheists, Bible skeptics and the like are pretty common in apologetics, and atheists , skeptics and the ungodly can also be tempted into dismissive generalisations. ut I must agree that such generalised dismissals linked to a reversed conspiracy theory (we want to teach Genesis literalism in all public institutions, so we of course think that Other side is controlling education to teach satanic things like science instead of taking the Bible as the text book.

'Myth' (aside semantic quibbles about myth, legend, historic spin, and the ancient habit of writing long speeches the author though reflected what an historic figure might have said - e.g the speech Tacitus puts into Boadicea's mouth which is almost certainly made up), covers a lot of ground. The Ark and Flood can be argues as myth and derived from Babylon, too, while the su standing still is not a myth as such but an unbelievable claim. I can't recall a Bible apologists even addressing that one even with blanket dismissal like the notorious recent one about God doing a cosmic light of some kind before the sun was made, when the Bible clearly says 'day and night'. The fact is, that when a person is found to be making claims that no reasonable person will believe, then the critical eye falls on everything they claim or argue.

[TRANSPONDER]

Many Christians do not believe in Hell.

Now, as to NDE's and the like, I don't think a mental effect can be ruled out. They can take various forms, and that suggests that the individual mind produces the experience, not travels there, so to speak. In that respect. is it quite like other supernatural experiences and messages from God, which suggests the effect of the brain, not contact with a real thing.

Rather the same with former life experiences. Aside that the ones I have read look rather suspect to me, people can get delusions or led into false memories, notably those who experience ET alien abduction, and that has been shown to at least credibly be explainable as a mental effect rather than a real experience.

So, while the familiar 'here, explain this anecdotal claim and prove it or the supernatural claim stands' is invalid for the supernatural, religious, miraculous or afterlife experiences, nor indeed the unexplained (which we do have) as for UFO claims, These don't add up to good or persuasive evidence, even if the door to the credibility department has to be left ajar.

NDEs are all over the place. However, the ones that intrigue me are the ones where a person leaves their body and can see or hear things that in other locations that can be corroborated and was not possible without leaving their body. I cannot dismiss that these might be explained by natural causes sometime in the future.

Yes. They are interesting. The problem is that they seem to be anecdotal. We get the oft - repeated story about some person after an OOB or OBE saw some digitalized figures that couldn't be seen from the bed so the story must be true. But I never saw this followed up or verified and it appears to remain an anecdotal claim. In short, it could be a story made up to prove OBEs and no more than that. The following being a notoriously often repeated anecdotal atheists-stumper proving the healing power of prayer.

"My mutha, she was dyin 'o cancer and the doctors say she ain't gonna last the night, so we all pray to Jesus and in the morning she dancin' an' singin' and praising God and........
...... The doctors Had No Explanation!!!"

One version posted on a former forum, began with the story about a friend's mutha....sorry, mother///ad then changed to his own mother. Same with the reworked 'obnoxious person in the next seat demanded that (some victim -figure) be removed, and the stewardess instead moved the victim to the first class and everyone clapped. Point is, these claim -proving anecdotal stories - especially of extraordinary, not to say supernatural, events need better support and verification than just posting them.

I recall there were persons named in that OOB story but I was never able to get verification or follow up. Anyone can add to it it would be good. But bottom line here - even if this is true, it is unexplained. and that does not mean ...axiomatically.... that the particular supernatural claim made has to be true until 'The doctors have an explanation'.

That is classic cultic, conspiracy theory alternative history and inverted logic apologetic. Point to something unexplained, claim it it flying saucer pilots, ley lines, ghosts or gods doing it and the claim must be true until the scientists explain it. Which they often do. Morality long being a favorite Unexplained which proved God. Now biology explains it better with DNA as the mechanism of instinct. Cosmic origins is one that is still very much Unexplained, but 'we don't know' is the position, not 'a creator (name your own) did it'.

So while OOB's./OBE's (cult -think so often tries to score virtue points by screaming the correct term must be used) are an interesting mental phenomenon, even if the claims are true, the cause is unexplained, and the claim of a floating soul is not the default explanation, much as the believers would like it to be. And even if it was, the soul is not proof of any particular religion. In fact, like many of these supernatural claims, IF they were scientifically proven, they would become science, (Like morality) and cease to be an argument for any religion.

Sorry for the Length (as the bishop said to the actress) but this 'anecdotal claim proves a soul/afterlife, god, religion and the Bible' apologetic fails, because appeal to unknowns is a classic fallacy but is the stock in trade of Faithbasd claims

And I have to repost two classic vids on claiming the unexplained as evidence of the supernatural, and why logically they are invalid as evidence.



and the old classic 'venomfang fallacy'.



Other mustwatch ids Rev James Huber's 'kissing Hank's///' and Tracie Harriss 'religious family values'. Anything of the the 'Straw Vulcan' kind is worth a watch, too.