Classical

When an atheist or agnostic wants to make the claim that the Bible is not to be trusted, is there any better place to start than the Noah's Ark story?

Let's start with this Latin maxim: "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus."
In other words, if a document or testimony is false in one point, then the entire contents become suspect, even though there may be truth elsewhere within that document or testimony.

I can think of no better place to begin than the Noah's Ark story. When one picks up the bible and reads the account in genesis, the claims are very clear. One is very rightfully entitled to ask: "could this have really happened as stated in the bible?"

The answer is an absolute no.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is either:
a.) a believer who just accepts the bible as true without thinking about it
b.) a believer who has only read the detailed arguments of how it could have literally happened.
c.) an person ignorant of both sides of the argument - hence someone who has not studied the issue and the many arguments for and against this event
d.) an idiot who stubbornly refuses to accepts facts, even having read most of what there is written about the subject.

Now I personally do not think it is possible to study the question of whether or not the Noah's Ark story as laid out in the book of genesis is true or false without coming to a very strong conclusion that it is demonstratably false.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the famous Noah's Ark story is the very best place to begin to debunk the bible and the christian religion.

Who agrees and who disagrees?

Xezlec

Bear in mind that to many believers, the Bible is the fundamental truth and all other things must conform to fit it. If there is anything we "think" is physically impossible in the Bible (such as the entire world filling up with water, or millions of species fitting in a boat), then there's something we just don't know or understand (such as that God made extra water back then, and then made it disappear afterward, or that God temporarily reduced the number of animal species so that Noah could carry them all, and then brought back the other ones afterward). A common expression used by fundies is "all things are possible with God" (meaning: "Everything I say is right, no matter how absurd, because God said so and he can make any ludicrous thing happen, so there").

And also, many modern Christians reject the Old Testament (which contains the story about the Ark), saying either that it is the "old law" or "not the part I draw my faith from" or "it's just a parable", whichever is most convenient at any given time. The world of the faithful is incredibly flexible. They will bend, twist, mutilate, spindle, crumple, and squeeze their "reality" into whatever shape they need it in for a given argument (or part of an argument) and when the argument is over it all springs back into shape like a Rubbermaid trash can.

"Never argue with an idiot. They'll bring you down to their level and beat you from experience!" (as some of you may remember, I often misattribute quotes so I won't even try on this one. Who said this?)

Porky Pine

Does this belong in S&S?

PoodleLovinPessimist

The answer is no only if the bible is both considered factually and scientifically accurate. However, the story might be either allegory or god might have made the ark possible miraculously.

BioBeing

No.

Question is, where to send it? Lets try GRD!

BioBeing
S&S Moderator

funinspace

Classical, I would agree that it's a great place to start. However, few to none, fundamentalists are willing to engage such a conversation. Even when it's limited to discussions of Ge 5:32,11:10-26 and how it relates to their views of inerrancy and their not believing in the Flood happening in the 3rd millennium BC. See http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=109223. They will poohah engaging in any discussion citing things like "not willing to bang their head against the secularist world view wall yet again..." The modern liberal Xian renders much that is nonsensical to being allegorical, like the Flood. So there's not much to debate there either. So you have one sect refusing to engage in a serious discussion, and another sect that basically agrees with the plausibility of such an argument as yours/ours.

Ponzi

Well, I don't think that exactly applies to the entire Bible, since it's a compilation of many documents from different authors writing in different periods of time. You can only apply it to a single book at a time (in this case, Genesis).

Classical

That may make sense to you and me - but the fundamentalists believe every single word in the bible is the literal word of god divinely transmitted in ancient times past. Therefore if one letter is out of place it would spell trouble.

Dean Anderson

Don't forget that what we think of as "the book" of Genesis was almost certainly not a single work, but a collection of works from different authors and different time periods.

The book and chapter designations in the Bible are a comparatively recent invention - the writers did not divide up the work in the same way that we do (with the obvious exception of some of the New Testament books).

lunchblaze

how about the bit where the animal looks at a spotted fence while pregnant and as a result gives birth to spotted offspring?

sorry, can't remember chapter/verse (it has to do with someone getting out of some cattle/goat bargain he made with someone else or something)

demonstrably false science all the same.