A few questions for fellow atheists

[Master Zen]

How do we know the flood actually occurred? At least on such a scale? I mean please, 2000 years later and no catastrophic biblical-size natural disaster having taken place makes doubt it really happened.

[Ben Kenobi]

Master Zen:

That's off-topic. We are discussing the qualities of the Christian God, and to do so we need to cite the Bible as an accurate source. Assuming that the flood actually happened, what does this say about God?

[Master Zen]

But then we're basing arguments on pure assumptions not on facts, and that leads to nowhere. How can I know what something that "supposedly" happened say about a God that from that PoV "supposedly" exists?

[St Leo]

Yawn. There is no geological evidence for a flood.

Assuming that the flood actually happened, what does this say about God?

That it's a paranoid bugger who covers up its own tracks very well.

Just look at what Master Zen said: a violation of the laws of physics demonstrates an inadequacy in our current laws of physics.

Uh huh. When Mercury's orbit wasn't matching Newton's predictions exactly, it was not a message from the gods but rather an inadequacy fixed by Einstein's General Relativity.

When medieval alchemists were failing to convert lead into gold, it was not a message from the gods but rather a lack of a theoretical distinction between compounds and elements.

When Ptolemy had to add ever more epicycles to match the movement of celestial bodies, it was not a message from the gods but rather a bloodyminded insistence to stick the Earth in the centre.

When Darwin didn't really have a decent explanation for the excessive antlers of male elk, it wasn't an indication of failure but rather Victorian unwillingness to contemplate sexual selection.

Proper scientific methods have a history of working. Praying to the gods has a history of being a placebo.

Well, I ignored the thread, expecting a quiet little atheist gathering to compare various brands of atheism and agnosticism.

Instead what do I get? SO many questions about the Christian God.

I am ashamed of them.

[Ben Kenobi]

But then we're basing arguments on pure assumptions not on facts, and that leads to nowhere.

Master Zen:

We make assumptions all the time before starting arguments. The point was not, does the flood exist, but whether the flood can be used as an example of how God cares for his people.

Do you have a point regarding the actual question at hand, or do you accept what I have said?


St. Leo:

Yawn. There is no geological evidence for a flood.

Assuming that the flood actually happened, what does this say about God?

That it's a paranoid bugger who covers up its own tracks very well.

Covers his tracks? He leaves lots of clues... It's a matter of whether you choose to ignore them or not.

[Master Zen]

Well then, If the flood DOESN'T EXIST, is that an example of how little god cares for his people?

[Rogan Josh]

If you want to try and understand the nature of the Christian God, read Corinthians 13.

[curtsibling]

I undestand the nature of this religion.

Hence why I reject it, and it's followers.

[MRT144]

even me?

[Ben Kenobi]

Rogan:

Do you mean 1 Cor 13?

Master Zen:

Well then, If the flood DOESN'T EXIST, is that an example of how little god cares for his people?

This is problematic because this position forces you to accept some parts of Genesis and not others.

Genesis 6:5-7

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."

If God were to not summon the flood, he resigns humanity, including Noah to complete destruction.

However, you cannot understand humanity's plight without citing Genesis as evidence of humanity's fallenness. This requires you to trust one part of Genesis as valid, while rejecting the Flood account.

A better argument would be to say that the flood is unnecessary, but you have not made that point.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Obiwan:

I'm not sure where you're going with this. We regard the whole package as fiction (albeit with factual elements embedded in it: the walled city of Jericho existed etc). For some parts, such as six-day creation and the Flood, we can go further and say that these events definitely could not have happened without an active, miraculous coverup: in terms of the sheer power required, this miracle dwarfs such trivialities as the parting of the Red Sea and the resurrection of Jesus, but it is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

Therefore, if we assume for the sake of argument that the Flood happened, we are discussing what this reveals about the fictional character of God. It reveals what we already knew from the Bible, that this fictional character had not yet been granted the "omnimax" attributes by his authors (just as the original Superman could not fly).

This is God's excuse for much of the Old Testament: he lacks the wisdom, power, inclination and competence to do a better job.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is God's excuse for much of the Old Testament: he lacks the wisdom, power, inclination and competence to do a better job.

I'm trying to show you why God does some of the things he does, at least to the best of our understanding.

I'm not sure what do you mean by a better job. How could God have done better?

For some parts, such as six-day creation and the Flood, we can go further and say that these events definitely could not have happened without an active, miraculous coverup:

Six day creation was a huge stumbling block for me since I was in Physics for my first few years in University. The explanation (by no means the only one), that I like is that six 'creation days' are a period of indefinite length of time.

So the only miracle needed is the start of the whole process, creating something from void.

As for the Flood, a miracle for sure but a coverup?

Jack do you believe that science rules out the existence of a spiritual domain?

[Rogan Josh]

Do you mean 1 Cor 13?

err... I think so.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I'm trying to show you why God does some of the things he does, at least to the best of our understanding.

I'm not sure what do you mean by a better job. How could God have done better?

Don't let A&E eat the forbidden fruit. If this interferes with "free will", then at least protect their kids from the consequences of "original sin".

Don't let "evil" get so bad that only a single family is free of it.

Don't drown the innocent (newborn babies and young kids are certainly innocent). If you're going to kill the parents anyhow, then that's obviously obliterating their "free will", so you might as well do that humanely and mindzap them into becoming good parents for those kids.

Same applies to other acts of genocide by God and his followers.

Don't drown all the animals.

Don't kill the innocent Egyptian firstborn.

Provide better laws.

I could go on...

As for the Flood, a miracle for sure but a coverup?

Yes. No mass-extinction in recent history, written records from ancient peoples unaffected by the Flood, no geological evidence.

Jack do you believe that science rules out the existence of a spiritual domain?

No, but neither does it support it. But, for the bible to be literally true, you need much more than a "spiritual domain"!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by obiwan18
AFAIK this is part of the original, it's just a way of describing Lex Talionis.

If the original text does not have any reference to this Lex Talionis, as demonstrated by various other translations, why would it be in the NIV?

There are two possibilities. All other editions are messed up, or the NIV is. Since it is a lot less likely for the former to occur, I conclude that the NIV is a messed up translation.