Posted by:
bona dea
(
)
Date: September 18, 2010 10:57PM
Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bona dea Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So? Most of us already were aware that it is a
> > myth and so are many religious people. Seems
> like
> > he could find better use of his time. Those who
> > believe it aren't going to listen to him
> anyway
> > and it is old news to the rest of us. Yawn.
>
> Not sure who "us" is that already knew. I know a
> lot of EVs and as far as I am aware, they are
> "Bible-believing", which I am given to understand
> means they take the Bible literally. That would
> include believing in the Noah account, as well as
> the wine and the water and etc.
>
> I think it is possible, and demonstrable even,
> that many believers do listen and reflect on
> contrary views. That is how many
> fundamentalist-types become believers of a
> different sort, either moving to non-literalism or
> even, in many cases as we know, becoming
> non-believers. That would seem to make dialogue on
> these matters worthwhile. If nothing else, the
> subject matter is interesting to a large crowd, it
> would seem.
>
> Anything we know and see discussed often is "old
> news" to _us_ but there are always newbies coming
> along to whom it is all new. That is why the same
> topics can recycle over and over and still find
> new eyes and ears.
>
> As for Noah and his ark, at this point the only
> tenable position I see is that it is _believed_ by
> some to be literal and by some to be "myth". I
> don't see how things like this can be completely
> and absolutely positively debunked. Even if there
> was no mountain, no boat, no world-wide flood, no
> Noah even, and no pairs of animals, and even if to
> some eyes and ears it all seems so obviously
> "ridiculous", can we state that it totally did not
> occur? Something can seem unlikely or mistaken but
> that alone, combined with non-believer certainty
> and/or ridicule, does not always tell the full
> story. Also, as you say, with some/many believers,
> at least the fundamentalist type thinkers, once
> believed/always believed is the key to their
> faith. For them, it's true, nobody can say
> anything that will dissuade them from their faith.
> I understand that take on things too.
>
> I think there is still a lot to discuss wrt issues
> like this. In the world of the religious and the
> non-religious, are there ever going to be new
> topics when it comes to the standard talking
> points? Not unless we have ongoing revelation, new
> stuff cropping up, which isn't going to happen
> with a closed Christian canon.
>
> So, Noah it is! :)
>
> Edited to add the bit about the fundies continuing
> to believe, whatever "evidence" is presented to
> the seeming contrary.
This is old news to this board and you are preaching to the choir. BTW, I never claimed to speak for all Christians.I don't recall which poster said that, but that is not what I said or meant. In fact, I am not a believer. I said 'not all Christtians believe in Noah's Ark' and that is true. My main point was that Fundies are hardly going to give up their beliefs because Richard Dawkins says so. Come on. Fundies are not in the habit of reading scientific material written by radical atheists.In fact v ery few Americans read much of anything, let alone heavy stuff I happen to be bored by Dawkins rantings on the subject of religion and doubt he is convincing anyone to change their minds. I am also aware that Ameericans are often not well educated and believe stupid things.I agree that Noah's Ark cannot be entirely debunked. There often is a bit of truth in myths and Noah's story could be based on local flooding or not.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2010 11:08PM by bona dea.