Does belief in the Flood indicate intellectual incapacity?

[Looncall]

Don't choke on all that arrogance.

Yet the people of that time knew much, much less than we do now and the vilenesses one finds in the bible justify the term savages. "Ignorant savages" is a sober statement of fact.

It is the demand that ancient superstition be given precedence over hard-won scientific understanding that is arrogant.

 

[rusra02]

Evidence from numerous fields such as geology, genetics and archeology shows clearly that the flood of the Genesis part of the bible cannot have happened as described there.

That account may have cultural or moral value as a story, but it clearly has none as history.

There are individuals who, in the face of the above, continue to insist that the Noah's flood story actually occurred. What is one to make of this? Has their religiosity actually impaired their ability to reason? Is their stance really political and not based on actual beliefs? What gives?

Since the first statement of your post is incorrect, the rest of your post is based on a false premise. To declare that one knows the effects of a unique, one-time event on earth's geology is mere hubris, IMO. It has been amply demonstrated that archeological dating is more and more unreliable, the further back in history one tries to date objects. In view of such uncertainty, “Scholars also must be extremely wary of attaching undue authority to archeologists’ estimates of dates and interpretation of data. That the fixing of dates and the conclusions drawn from archeological findings often depend on subjective factors is amply demonstrated by the wide divergences between competent authorities on these matters.”—Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 164. The claim that genetics disproves the Flood occurred is simply speculation. Impugning the intelligence of those who hold views different from yours does you no credit, but perhaps ridicule is an effective propaganda tool.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Since the first statement of your post is incorrect, the rest of your post is based on a false premise. To declare that one knows the effects of a unique, one-time event on earth's geology is mere hubris, IMO. It has been amply demonstrated that archeological dating is more and more unreliable, the further back in history one tries to date objects. In view of such uncertainty, “Scholars also must be extremely wary of attaching undue authority to archeologists’ estimates of dates and interpretation of data. That the fixing of dates and the conclusions drawn from archeological findings often depend on subjective factors is amply demonstrated by the wide divergences between competent authorities on these matters.”—Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 164. The claim that genetics disproves the Flood occurred is simply speculation. Impugning the intelligence of those who hold views different from yours does you no credit, but perhaps ridicule is an effective propaganda tool.

Goodness not only is your post inaccurate it's outdated...stop quote mining...I'm pretty sure at one point it becomes libel to the people you're quoting....

 

[Looncall]

Since the first statement of your post is incorrect, the rest of your post is based on a false premise. To declare that one knows the effects of a unique, one-time event on earth's geology is mere hubris, IMO. It has been amply demonstrated that archeological dating is more and more unreliable, the further back in history one tries to date objects. In view of such uncertainty, “Scholars also must be extremely wary of attaching undue authority to archeologists’ estimates of dates and interpretation of data. That the fixing of dates and the conclusions drawn from archeological findings often depend on subjective factors is amply demonstrated by the wide divergences between competent authorities on these matters.”—Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 164. The claim that genetics disproves the Flood occurred is simply speculation. Impugning the intelligence of those who hold views different from yours does you no credit, but perhaps ridicule is an effective propaganda tool.

Whatever uncertainties there may be in such matters as dating methods and the behaviors of water and lands in floods are less than you need to support the biblical flood by orders of magnitude. Your vague handwaving does not rescue your position.

Argumentum ad crackpotum does not impress me. So you found some kook who agreed with you. So what?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet the people of that time knew much, much less than we do now and the vilenesses one finds in the bible justify the term savages. "Ignorant savages" is a sober statement of fact.

People capable of such pathetic drivel should think long and hard before laboring others as "ignorant savages."

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Depending on the trajectory we go I fully expect our descendants to label our generation as ignorant savages

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There are lots of places in the world where believing in the literal flood is both the norm or good for your health or both.

In some countries the prevalence of the belief is so great that it might indicate either lack of intelligence or total conformity.

 

[averageJOE]

Since the first statement of your post is incorrect, the rest of your post is based on a false premise. To declare that one knows the effects of a unique, one-time event on earth's geology is mere hubris, IMO. It has been amply demonstrated that archeological dating is more and more unreliable, the further back in history one tries to date objects. In view of such uncertainty, “Scholars also must be extremely wary of attaching undue authority to archeologists’ estimates of dates and interpretation of data. That the fixing of dates and the conclusions drawn from archeological findings often depend on subjective factors is amply demonstrated by the wide divergences between competent authorities on these matters.”—Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1964, p. 164. The claim that genetics disproves the Flood occurred is simply speculation. Impugning the intelligence of those who hold views different from yours does you no credit, but perhaps ridicule is an effective propaganda tool.

Translation: People are not smart enough to understand water damage to the earth, and because of this it is impossible to disprove a global flood, therefore the default position is to believe that it happened.

 

[ametist]

Balderdash! Not everything is unknown. Much of what is known, as the result of heavy labour by many people, directly contradicts holy writ.

The Flood is a stellar example. Such a flood would have left observable traces and disrupted ancient civilizations. No such evidence is found. Ergo, no such flood occurred, no matter what is found in the scribblings of ignorant savages of the ancient world.

Flood should have left traces and didnt left? How do you know?
You know they say that everyone dies..but do they really? To be able to really prove that you should go and check with everyone ever was on earth if each and everyone really died.
We are all really people full of faith..People of faith..thats what we are.

You read Edgar Cayce on Atlantis? It is like a different place different history on earth. Like there are multiple earthes in an overlapping environment of some sort. We know very little about universe, lets come to accept this and only through this acception we can be open to many possibilities and discoveries.

 

[outhouse]

We are all really people full of faith..People of faith..thats what we are.

.

That's wonderful !



If SOME of the faithful quit using imagination, wish, and want. Then started using reason and knowledge to determine history and or science, we would not have threads like this.

To denounce the global flood is the use of reason, nothing more.


We see the mythology and its origins in previous civilizations, and there is no mystery here at all.

ONLY certain theist who refuse logic, reason and knowledge in favor of faith.


The same kind of faith that flies planes into large buildings.

 

[outhouse]

"Ignorant savages" is a sober statement of fact.

Modern people have no idea just how true that statement really is.


We treat are animals better then the lives they lived. It was a VERY primitive and barabric time, and the people matched it.

The mythology they lived and believed was simply dumbfounding. They literally thought little people ran around inside your body.

 

[Looncall]

Flood should have left traces and didnt left? How do you know?
You know they say that everyone dies..but do they really? To be able to really prove that you should go and check with everyone ever was on earth if each and everyone really died.
We are all really people full of faith..People of faith..thats what we are.

You read Edgar Cayce on Atlantis? It is like a different place different history on earth. Like there are multiple earthes in an overlapping environment of some sort. We know very little about universe, lets come to accept this and only through this acception we can be open to many possibilities and discoveries.

This makes little sense. One needs to find an absence of evidence in only one place to disprove a global flood.

Depending on where you live, it is likely that if you dig in your garden, you can reach layers laid down at the supposed time of the flood. You will not find a layer full of the debris such a flood would have left. You should be able to see such a layer at the sides of road cuttings. Archeologists routinely dig to much older layers. We do not hear of reports that include such items as "after we dug past the flood layer". Any such would certainly show up in the news.

How do you account for ancient civilizations carrying on undisturbed through the supposed time of the flood?

You seem to be ready to accept anything you find in writing. Atlantis? Really?

 

[Mycroft]

I guess it depends which flood you're talking about. History indicates to us that there was a great flood some 3.26 billion years ago. A 23 mile wide asteroid smashed into the earth causing it to shake for a full half of an hour and creating tusnamis thousands of meters deep that covered most of the landmasses that had formed at that time.

 

[Sunstone]

I guess it depends which flood you're talking about. History indicates to us that there was a great flood some 3.26 billion years ago. A 23 mile wide asteroid smashed into the earth causing it to shake for a full half of an hour and creating tusnamis thousands of meters deep that covered most of the landmasses that had formed at that time.

So it was almost as bad as Obamacare, then?

 

[Mycroft]

So it was almost as bad as Obamacare, then?

And Gay Marriage!

 

[IHaveTheGift]

I don't believe the Flood of Noah happened.
Never the less though, ... if a Deity actually did create the whole universe, earth included....
I think it's pretty fair assumption that he could flood the Earth, then drain it off and put it back the way it was before the Flood.

Again I don't necessarily believe the flood happened, but I see nothing wrong with that belief.

 

[TheGunShoj]

I don't believe the Flood of Noah happened.
Never the less though, ... if a Deity actually did create the whole universe, earth included....
I think it's pretty fair assumption that he could flood the Earth, then drain it off and put it back the way it was before the Flood.

Again I don't necessarily believe the flood happened, but I see nothing wrong with that belief.

The problem with this belief is that God supposedly created us with the tools of reason and logic and knew that we would eventually study to try to determine the truth of these stories. He also created a place of eternal torment where non believers would be sent to.

Why would he give us less evidence to base our beliefs on?

To me, anyone who believes this is endorsing a God who's sole criteria for torturing a soul for eternity is based on our belief in him, yet deliberately chooses to remain in hiding. I can't respect that position.

 

[IHaveTheGift]

The problem with this belief is that God supposedly created us with the tools of reason and logic and knew that we would eventually study to try to determine the truth of these stories. He also created a place of eternal torment where non believers would be sent to.

Why would he give us less evidence to base our beliefs on?

To me, anyone who believes this is endorsing a God who's sole criteria for torturing a soul for eternity is based on our belief in him, yet deliberately chooses to remain in hiding. I can't respect that position.

Me either.
Hell is for satan and his demons, it is not for us.

 

[viole]

Me either.
Hell is for satan and his demons, it is not for us.

So, Satan will have his soul tortured for all eternity.

What has he done to deserve that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[IHaveTheGift]

So, Satan will have his soul tortured for all eternity.

What has he done to deserve that?

Ciao

- viole

His soul is in torment always, will be for eternity.
I suppose if you need to know why, ask him yourself, I cant speak for him.