Athiests. . III Israel loverly- pra Action Bar: Resolved Show me another s Atheists, can you prove The BIBLE is false? wwill make this really simple for yeti. A
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Athiests

III
Israel loverly-
pra
Action Bar:
Resolved Show me another s
Atheists, can you prove The BIBLE is false?
wwill make this really simple for yeti. All yeti have to do is.....
l) Preys testjust CINE city that The BIBLE talks about, never really existed.
2) Preys testjust CINE person that The BIBLE talks about never really existed.
3) Preys testjust CINE extent that The BIBLE talks about, never really happened.
All yeti have to do is give ABSOLUTE PROOF of any ofthose.
Can yeti ONE?
1 year age F Report Abuse
I could if yeti' d listen to reasen. I mouldiest point right to Genesis, the same way I
could point right to Harry Potter and say, "Look, silly, this is obviously fictional".
But yeti went listen to reasen. It' s like playing Chess with a pigeon; no matter how
good I am at chess, the pigeon isjust going to knock pieces, crap en the
board and strut around like it' s Victorious.
1 year age F Report Abuse
tes
...
+379
Views: 16340
Favorited: 65
Submitted: 07/07/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to phanact E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#79 - tenthdivine (07/08/2013) [-]
Oddly relevant!
User avatar #75 - Whetstone (07/08/2013) [-]
When it comes to trying to disprove the Bible to a christian, it's like the outside of an old building under construction. When you are inside of the building, it looks sturdy and sound, and you don't have a second thought. However, from the outside, everyone can see that there are holes and it is covered in scaffolding. And no matter how hard you try, you will never be able to convince the people inside that it is a crappy building. The only way they can ever see it is if they step outside of the building. But they will never step outside, no matter how many times you tell them.
User avatar #65 - anonslayer (07/08/2013) [-]
I don't know if they have these classes anymore, but when I went to highschool, I took a class called: "Analyzing the Bible as Literature" First we would decide what things in the bible were supposedly true stories compared to what was Fiction. After that we would decide what the fiction stories meant, such as reading a story that never happened but the message is that stealing is bad. Now at the end of the year we decided that the Bible was just a survival guide. Telling people how to live with others in communities.
User avatar #64 - Zyaph (07/08/2013) [-]
I've been thinking about reading the bible recently. Not because I'm a believer or anything, I'm just kind of curious about reading it. I'd like to start from the beginning. Would I have to start at the old testament or anything? Or a different version/book/whatever you wanna call it?
User avatar #78 to #64 - Whetstone (07/08/2013) [-]
Also, try to read the NIV version or NET or NLT. Don't read the King James version. It's almost impossible to understand and you will get bored in minutes.
User avatar #77 to #64 - Whetstone (07/08/2013) [-]
If you are reading it to get a view of a christian perspective, you should read Genesis and the New Testament. 80% of the bible is the Old Testament. The Old Testament consists of a lot of the bible stories you hear about. They also contain the writings of prophets. However, it is not mandatory to read it.

The New Testament is mostly written by Paul the Apostle. The books that are listed as Corinthians and Galatians are letters he wrote to the people of those cities. He also wrote Timothy and Titus. They are letters to them whose sole purpose were to tell them to spread the word after his death. He wrote many more than I listed.

Long story short. Some of the books tell the story of Jesus. Some tell the same story, but are told in the perspective of another disciple. And the rest is pretty much Paul telling people how to live their lives as a Christian. However, I do think you should read it. It really is a great read. There are really great analogies and allegories, especially the ones that Jesus said. I'm not very religious myself, but I did think that it was an entertaining read. I also think it's cool that I've read more of the Bible than 98% of Christians (That is a real statistic)
User avatar #55 - tigersstripes (07/08/2013) [-]
Anyone up for a reasonable discussion of opinions and beliefs? Cool.
I am agnostic, I could accept that a god of some sort existed, if I had a bit of proof. I genuinely HATE God's fanclub, not all of the Christians, of course, just ones like the above. Not because they are Christian but because they don't accept others opinions and shove their religion down your throat. Can we all just accept that there is no way everyone will agree on everything? I don't even mind laying out the proofs of what each person accepts as reality (whether it be a book or ancient bones), but if the other disagrees can we let it be? Don't believe in evolution? Ok, as long as you aren't constantly trying to tell me why I am wrong about it. I won't tell you that you are wrong about creationism. We cool? We cool.
User avatar #66 to #55 - toadkillerdog (07/08/2013) [-]
it's been awhile since I've been able to have a legit discussion about this, I'm fairly subtly an atheist most of the time, but I would like your take on the belief that you can repent for anything and still be allowed into heaven. Do you consider this fair, or do you think it works another way? If I had to choose, I would pick what I think is the Jewish method, where you spend a portion of time in hell dependent on your sins. Since this balances out the moral nonchristians and the corrupt christians, it seems the most fair to me.
User avatar #68 to #66 - tigersstripes (07/08/2013) [-]
I wasn't raised in a religious family, and know only limited things about religion. Most of my morals come from obviously fictional books. But, I feel like a loving god would probably allow all his daughters and sons into paradise, after a suitable time in hell. Using hell like a jail where they can be punished for what they have done wrong. Once their punishment is over, they go to Heaven. Also, I don't think that Lucifer would be a cruel person, more like a prison cop than anything. Keeping people who deserve time for their time. That's just my opinion though. Of course, I think religion in general was created to answer the unanswerable and control whoever would believe it. I also think that being judged by your religion is ******** , and a loving father would accept anyone whether they believed in him or not, because following blindly is a foolish thing. As long as someone does good and lives by good morals (love everyone, don't ****** or harm anyone, all the other morals the bible teaches) then they deserve happiness.
User avatar #70 to #68 - toadkillerdog (07/08/2013) [-]
then it would appear you are the sort of religious that atheists could coexist with. I understand your interpretation of lucifer, as someone that lives to punish evil is hard to consider the epitome as evil itself. So, I have also heard a few interpretations of what evil is. A good friend of mine used to say that evil is only a human behavior, another insisted that evil didn't truly exist, as it is relative to intent. He also said that by a strict interpretation of evil, god would be considered evil as well, as he is said to have caused extreme amounts of unecessary suffering. Again, what is your thought on this?
User avatar #71 to #70 - tigersstripes (07/08/2013) [-]
It isn't though, evil is all in perception. A man kills someone to save his family, to the man the someone is evil, to the someone the man is evil. Evil is a perception from someones eyes. Whether it is purely human we may never know. Do other species understand 'good' and 'bad' the way we see it? It would seem possible that they do, but then again, it is created, like so many things, from our abstract minds.
User avatar #72 to #71 - toadkillerdog (07/08/2013) [-]
there is one common behavioral phenomenon reffered to as "recognition of kin". For the most part, animals are able to recognize anywhere from their own offspring to their herd all the way to their species as off limits for food. Essentially, the vast majority of animals do not engage in cannibalism with thier own species, or at least their own group, as they have a programmed behavior to avoid killing their own kind. Obviously there are exceptions, such as chimpanzees and crocodiles, but these are the ones that prove the rule. So, if there is some sort of biological morality, is it supreme over all of our abstract rules, is it lesser, or is it balanced with? Or is it something else?
User avatar #73 to #72 - tigersstripes (07/08/2013) [-]
Human laws are nothing. They mean nothing. The only real observable morals are, in my opinion, those upheld by the lowest and simplest. Do not kill your own kind. So, biology and instincts reign high over any rules of our own.
User avatar #74 to #73 - toadkillerdog (07/08/2013) [-]
but thievery and rape, for instance, are not biological laws. Rape as a concept does not exist in the animal kingdom, let alone personal property, so technically both of these are illegitimate then. I understand your insistence on biological laws, but do you have a method to account for ones such as these? and I sense a sloth will be appearing shortly.....
User avatar #82 to #74 - tigersstripes (07/08/2013) [-]
Well, true. There are rules we set out for ourselves to make us more 'human'. I think there is a form of thievery in the animal kingdom though, because there is territory. So, that can be considered a possession, and is often stolen, such as a smaller male living on the larger males territory.
User avatar #51 - YllekNayr (07/08/2013) [-]
Wow, I am genuinely impressed. All these comments, but none talking about ********** . Or causing ********** . Just discussion.

I like it.
User avatar #35 - luckyspirit (07/08/2013) [-]
A friend of mine once told me that before Moses got onto the arc, he had a group of people that he split into two groups. One half was pretty much on his side and the other were questioning Moses or something. In the end, the second half refused to believe God would flood the earth and then Moses and his supporters killed them all.

I probably butchered the explanation, but it came from a friend who learned this in a Catholic school and I figured it'd be interesting to put on here because religion.
User avatar #36 to #35 - Zydratejunkie **User deleted account** (07/08/2013) [-]
Moses didn't build an Arc... Noah did.
Moses parted the red sea and led the Jews safely away from the Egyptians. Then Moses proceeded to casually drown all the Egyptians that had dared to follow.

I prefer to be educated about the mythology I reject
User avatar #37 to #36 - luckyspirit (07/08/2013) [-]
Ah for ****** sake... I don't know, I never can remember the names correctly to be honest.
User avatar #38 to #37 - Zydratejunkie **User deleted account** (07/08/2013) [-]
That's alright, you knew there was an arc in there somewhere, and a Moses in there too. To be honest, that's more than most people understand.

I am likely only as educated as I am because my dad was a preacher. A badass hard rock listening to, motorcycling preacher who owned the Qu'ran, Torah, and books by Dawkins and other such atheists.
User avatar #39 to #38 - luckyspirit (07/08/2013) [-]
And all my dad was and will ever be is an ex mail man now teacher with his head so far up his own ass that his vision is permanently clouded by his own **** .
User avatar #40 to #39 - Zydratejunkie **User deleted account** (07/08/2013) [-]
At least your dad is alive.
User avatar #41 to #40 - luckyspirit (07/08/2013) [-]
I'm sorry to hear that you're dad is gone. But trust me when I say I could go into so much more detail with mine.
User avatar #42 to #41 - Zydratejunkie **User deleted account** (07/08/2013) [-]
Feel free to, I know a lot of people have really ****** parents, but they're still parents; they still raised you, and even if they have trouble showing it, they love you. If your parents are around, you are incredibly lucky.
User avatar #43 to #42 - luckyspirit (07/08/2013) [-]
I appreciate that my dad could provide for me and my siblings financially, but he could never show any moral or emotional support. Trust me, I see what you mean, but I guess not everyone can really appreciate their parents. After all, when you've had your mom binge drink and smoke a few packs a day when pregnant with a child and then ditch you after the third kid (AKA me) and a dad who honestly could not give a **** about you... You tend to develop issues with them.
User avatar #34 - iHAXnoobs (07/08/2013) [-]
prove harry potter doesn't exist.
User avatar #33 - kintoexile (07/08/2013) [-]
snakes cant talk.
#32 - sventrain (07/08/2013) [-]
That guy has obviously seen this picture.
User avatar #54 to #32 - Mantis (07/08/2013) [-]
or maybe he was the inspiration for that picture.
#60 to #54 - sventrain (07/08/2013) [-]
Picture was added to my folder in 7/28/2012 and that post was from a year ago according to that picture. Could be. The world may never know
User avatar #63 to #60 - Mantis (07/08/2013) [-]
We may never know indeed. We must remember though that the person who posted this may have also added that picture to their folder on 7/28/2012 though and waited until today to post it.
#31 - kommandantvideo (07/08/2013) [-]
I hate bible thumpers. I'm probably gonna get flak for this, but I'm a catholic christian, and I can honestly say that I don't believe in everything in the bible. I believe in everything in the bible, but not literally. Most things in the bible are simply religious truths, put there to try to strengthen your bond with god/explain the unexplainable. For instance, there is a book in the bible called Job about a fictional man who suffers, even though he is very good and does not sin. This book is COMPLETELY fictional and holds no truths. In fact, it doesn't even answer the question that the book was written to explain, which is "why do good people suffer?" The answers is : We don't know. If you ever see a person who goes around claiming that everything in the bible is true, go ahead and ask them about the series of books called midrash. Chances are, they may not know anything about what you're talking about, because they aren't really christians, just posers/extremists trying to make everyone else in the group look bad. Much like the muslim terrorists. And if they truly believe everything in the bible is true, they're just crazy people. I know a nun in a community who acknowledges that not everything in the bible is true.
User avatar #76 to #31 - trifection (07/08/2013) [-]
I completely disagree with you. I feel as if you have never actually read the book yourself, and you have that opinion from something someone taught you. You cannot honestly tell me you have read the book of Job, and that is what you took from it. I found your post asinine.
And then trying to confirm your belief with what a nun believes. Saying "if they truly believe everything in the bible is true, they're just crazy people" is an ignorant thing to say.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm fine with you not believing in everything in the bible. I know a lot of people who don't. What I am NOT fine with, is you calling other people crazy for there beliefs. It would not matter who I was talking to or what there religious background was. I would never openly call there beliefs crazy. That makes the rest of your post presumptuous.
User avatar #80 to #76 - kommandantvideo (07/08/2013) [-]
I'm sorry that offends you, and I can tell you that I have read the book of Job. Looking back on my post, you're right -- I did call someone else's beliefs crazy, which is the complete opposite of the message I tried to convey. Perhaps what I meant to say was... Different. If someone believes that the entire bible is complete 100% fact, then that is a different view, and that's not what most people believe, as far as I know.
User avatar #83 to #80 - trifection (07/08/2013) [-]
Was the message about people posing as Christians? As if, who you were linking to "Crazy people" are the people who go around with signs saying "god hates fags"? I read your conversation with YllejNayr and I can see where those two things relate. People taking things the bible say too far. Like for instance, The Church forcing religion through law in the 1700's. The constitution says there should be separation between Church and State. And I agree with that. Another thing you mentioned was that if you asked someone walking around saying everything in the the bible is true "What is Midrash?" that they wouldn't know because there are not real Christians, And they don't know what they are talking about.
Just posers. I find that fairly presumptuous, because I call my self a christian, and I never heard of Midrash until I searched it on Google this day. I try to show everyone I meet God's love. I read the bible. But I don't go out claiming everything in the bible is true because there are some people who might have different beliefs. I don't try to force my beliefs on other people. God calls us to love. I digress... I know this is a strange request but I politely request you take some time to go through the book of Job. But go through it with an open mind and not just what you already know about the book. Maybe use a study guide online.
Sorry to put such a strange request on you. You can do whatever you want. I know it might seem hypocritical to say "I don't try to force my belief on people" and then ask you to read the book of Job with a different point of view. That is not my intention. Simply a request.
User avatar #84 to #83 - kommandantvideo (07/08/2013) [-]
I would be lying to you if I said that I had a Bible on hand to read the book of Job, and I would also be lying if I told you that I was going to read the book of Job, because I won't. And it's not out of disrespect, it's because I don't own a bible. I would like to ask you, though, what you think that the message of the book of Job is. From my understanding of it, it was an attempt to explain why good people suffer, however it wasn't answered, because it's God's place to worry about those things, not humans. What do you think the meaning of the book is?
#53 to #31 - anonymous (07/08/2013) [-]
it did answer the question as to why bad things happen to good people.
it's a test of faith.
come on man this is kindergarten sunday school stuff.
User avatar #50 to #31 - YllekNayr (07/08/2013) [-]
I'm an atheist and I think you sound like a pretty cool guy.
User avatar #56 to #50 - kommandantvideo (07/08/2013) [-]
I try to be. I think it's ridiculous that someone would dislike another group for something as trivial as what they think happened 4 billion years ago.
User avatar #57 to #56 - YllekNayr (07/08/2013) [-]
Most of the world would disagree with you on that point, unfortunately.
User avatar #61 to #57 - kommandantvideo (07/08/2013) [-]
As weird as it would be for a religious person to say, I somewhat wish that religion is abolished to a certain extent. Imagine a world with no holy wars, where all money goes to taxes, and science, rather than maintaining huge, expensive cathedrals? Without religion, we, as a people would be much more advanced than we were now. The funny thing about religion is that, for as many people there are that follow the religious piously and do good and follow the teachings, there are easily 5 people that claim to follow that religion, yet do no good. And that's the stuff that causes wars. Maybe religion changes people, maybe religion doesn't change people. I think that when people are good, they're good. I don't think that any god that they worship is going to change the way that they act. God(s) don't control your actions, you do.
User avatar #67 to #61 - YllekNayr (07/08/2013) [-]
I love it. People can be spiritual without the need to formalize it and try to integrate it with laws and customs. Do what you want, on your own. Quit trying to make other people do what you're doing. Let people think for themselves. To that extent, most atheists don't tell people to become atheist, but to really think about their beliefs, consider other sources, and often provide reasons why their thinking is flawed. But they don't say to become atheist. They just want people to be able to think critically. About 99% of the time.

The core reason religion exists is because death is scary and we know it's coming. We're the species that's conscious of our own mortality, and it freaks us out. It freaks me out. But lying to yourself won't make you not die.
#48 to #31 - kez (07/08/2013) [-]
Religious people get a lot more abuse than they should, but the main reason athiests tend to bash religious people is because it is frustrating.

Not because they think they are superior or more intellegent or anything like that, its just frustrating.

You beleive your religion because someone of the same religion told you it was true, other humans have tested all they can about what the religion says and most of it checks out to be false. And the only "proof" that it is true is some guy telling you and some guy you never met writing it down. But the evidence against religion is overwhelming.

Even just the concept that for your to beleive your religion, in 200,000 years you had to be born in the right 2000 years and in the right 25% of the population at best, otherwise there is absolutely no way you would follow your religion. Those are very generous numbers, yet the chance of you being born in the right 2,000 / 200,000 is 1% and the right population is 1/4. So a 0.25% chance that you were born into the right religion. And you honestly beleive you are that lucky?

There could be a God, no one can provide evidence for or against that, i'm open to the idea, but religions are wrong. And if there is a God he doesnt care for humans.

And to be perfectly honest, you say yourself you know most of the bible isnt true, yet you still claim to live by it. I dont mean to offend you but if you took away your religion, you would do the exact same stuff, that doesnt sound to me like it is very important.

The main reason people do what they want but claim they follow a religion is simpley due to heaven and hell. And that they're somehow special.

These are all amazing things I wish were true. People like to think that they will see their loved ones again in heaven and the people who did bad to them will suffer for all eternity. But the only evidence for that is some guy, who has been proved wrong about nearly everything he said, telling you

Sorry for the rant.
User avatar #59 to #48 - kommandantvideo (07/08/2013) [-]
No worries, and no offense taken. Regarding what you said about being into the "right" religion, well it's hard to explain it, but basically what it boils down to is faith. I believe (that's what it's all about) that being a Catholic Christian is what will bring me salvation. Hindus believe that they will be reborn, and maybe they're right, etc. etc. You can go on like that forever regarding theology. When people say that there is no god, they may be right, and if that's what they think, they can go ahead and think that. It won't change my view of them, in fact I would respect them more for telling people what THEY think, instead of being private and keeping it to themselves.

I'm assume you're familiar with a fairly well known bible verse, "By the sweat of your brow will you have food to eat until you return to the ground from which you were made. For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return." -Genesis 3:19
And it's right. Whatever happens, we're all gonna die, and we're all gonna end up 6 feet underground, regardless of race, religion, creed, nationality, etc. So, it can't hurt to worship a god, can it?
#30 - rockerforlife (07/08/2013) [-]
Some Christians may find that analogy offensive,
Some Atheists may find the steadfast faith of Christians absurd.

Neither of these however, are me.
I am a pigeon and I have a 1980 raiting in the US Chess Federation, and I will not stand for this ********
User avatar #28 - cleverguy (07/08/2013) [-]
the only way to prove something doesn't exist is to show that it goes against logic so usually thats pretty hard, but almost every event in the bible goes against logic so yeah
#15 - mcdonaldsman (07/08/2013) [-]
i lol'd so hard i cant even breath i am definitely using this in the future
#17 to #15 - unoriginalaccount (07/08/2013) [-]
Edgy atheist are we?
User avatar #19 to #17 - mcdonaldsman (07/08/2013) [-]
maybe but i just want to use the euphemism for things like this !
#21 to #19 - unoriginalaccount (07/08/2013) [-]
Whatever you say bro.
User avatar #22 to #21 - mcdonaldsman (07/08/2013) [-]
ok
#14 - anonymous (07/08/2013) [-]
They still didn't answer the questions and disprove the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is truth.
#16 to #14 - stickandmove (07/08/2013) [-]
Good trolls are more subtle than that.
User avatar #24 to #16 - corso (07/08/2013) [-]
Nah. Nowadays "trolls" are more of the "lel you replied you got so troooololololled" variety.
#11 - fahquoo (07/08/2013) [-]
I tried having a civilized debate while watching Religilous with a ******** believer, pausing every 5 minutes to discuss points. We made it through half the movie before he turned it off, saying "Well, if you need everything to be 100% proven before youll have just a little faith, I cant keep watching this with you."

It was the scene where Bill Maher was in the religion store and pointing out religion comes with a high price tag.
#47 to #11 - anonymous (07/08/2013) [-]
best movie ever. Remember, it was a big fish, not a whale!
#9 - anonymous (07/07/2013) [-]
also @teranin theres alot of evidence supporting the flood story..... so.....
#52 to #9 - kez (07/08/2013) [-]
The other guy is a prick.

But no, there isnt.

The flood makes no sense considering what we know now. And if it did happen God decided to remove all evidense of it for some reason that doesnt make sense.
User avatar #26 to #9 - corso (07/08/2013) [-]
Yes, God flooded the Earth and ******** all the people except one family because he's just merciful like that. So I'm guessing you really believe this family all ****** each other and somehow managed to NOT create a bunch of inbred drooling morons?
#8 - anonymous (07/07/2013) [-]
classic avoidance... yes the other came up with an impossible scenario... the only thing proven here is that when it comes to debate of something no one can fully understand... everyone is an idiot... so why dont people just leave it the **** alone...
User avatar #27 to #8 - corso (07/08/2013) [-]
And why.... Do you type... Like this....
User avatar #20 to #8 - jameshill (07/08/2013) [-]
no offence man because it is your religion, but no everyone is not an idiot, and by saying that everyone is would make you moronic and kinda making you the idiot in this situation because you are disregarding everyone's opinion your ignorant ****
#1 - teranin ONLINE (07/07/2013) [-]
Standard practice, shifting the burden of proof so that the opponent must try to prove a negative.  I'll make an attempt, here, but my proof for these is simply that there is no evidence of them ever having existed, beyond what is written in the bible.   
   
1: Tower of Babylon, No evidence of any kind that such a structure was ever constructed, nor that it ever existed, nor that it was ever destroyed, outside of the Bible.   
2: Noah.  There is no evidence of any kind relevant to his existence, his ark, and in fact, there is a tremendous TREMENDOUS amount of evidence that directly contests even the slightest possibility of the flood having occured or of Noah actually being capable of gathering one of every species onto a boat, as well as tremendous evidence against the very concept of only a few members of a species truly being able to repopulate a species.  Humanity is far too genetically diverse for this to have ever happened.   
3: Both of my examples also consist of events, and both events either have zero evidence of having taken place, or direct evidence to the contrary.   
   
I don't even know why I bothered to write that out, since the burden of proof has no business being on me.  Of course, the question on yahoo answers is already resolved, so I can't actually direct this at the guy who asked this 						*******					 question in the first place.
Standard practice, shifting the burden of proof so that the opponent must try to prove a negative. I'll make an attempt, here, but my proof for these is simply that there is no evidence of them ever having existed, beyond what is written in the bible.

1: Tower of Babylon, No evidence of any kind that such a structure was ever constructed, nor that it ever existed, nor that it was ever destroyed, outside of the Bible.
2: Noah. There is no evidence of any kind relevant to his existence, his ark, and in fact, there is a tremendous TREMENDOUS amount of evidence that directly contests even the slightest possibility of the flood having occured or of Noah actually being capable of gathering one of every species onto a boat, as well as tremendous evidence against the very concept of only a few members of a species truly being able to repopulate a species. Humanity is far too genetically diverse for this to have ever happened.
3: Both of my examples also consist of events, and both events either have zero evidence of having taken place, or direct evidence to the contrary.

I don't even know why I bothered to write that out, since the burden of proof has no business being on me. Of course, the question on yahoo answers is already resolved, so I can't actually direct this at the guy who asked this ******* question in the first place.
#58 to #1 - anonymous (07/08/2013) [-]
A lot of the major religions beyond some more "extreme" examples believe that most of the bible is in fact myth. I'd be surprised to find anyone who takes Genesis as the truth. Then again, we are talking about dumb ass people on the internet who jump to conclusions and talk out of their ass.
User avatar #81 to #58 - teranin ONLINE (07/08/2013) [-]
ever heard of Young Earth Creationists? Well guess what, they're real, and almost 40% of americans are of that belief.
User avatar #45 to #1 - vanoreo (07/08/2013) [-]
You've earned your fedora
#29 to #1 - anonymous (07/08/2013) [-]
there is actually a lot of evidence that suggest a flood on a large scale (such as fossilized herds of animals near mountain tops suggesting a rapid death of the whole group in a way that would leave intact fossils) and there are a couple current archaeological digs that believe they have found a vessel large enough to possibly be the ark.
#44 to #29 - anonymous (07/08/2013) [-]
There is much, much more events that actually show it to be impossible. Some species are much more genetically diverse than others, while some suffer from a genetic 'bottleneck'; that is at one point in their history a mass extinction lowered their populations and gene pool at a very low level. Humans have a bottleneck. Many other animals do. If a great flood actually happened why isn't the bottleneck universal among all species?
#23 to #1 - onyxleigion (07/08/2013) [-]
As far as the tower, I believe it has been proven to exist, just under a different context.
And the thing about the flood is it supposedly flooded the world, but they didnt know of the entire world.
Just to clarify I am a Christian, but I don't really care what others believe, its everyone's personal choice.
User avatar #12 to #1 - pamman (07/08/2013) [-]
I've read the replies that pointed out the possible existence of the flood. Could it also have been possible that the flood itself was greatly exaggerated? Similar to how stories can exaggerate the size of armies and such.
#13 to #12 - anonymous (07/08/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_floods

It's almost as if floods are fairly common things...yet a lot of these replies are shocked by evidence of one happening within a large time margin.

A freak flood that hits an area that usually doesn't experience them or one that's particularly bad would be the event of a lifetime for some bored monks and townsfolk. Add embellishment and opinion of the causes from those ignorant of sciences when writing it down and BAM a perfectly ordinary event becomes the almighty will of God and irrefutable proof of his divinity.
User avatar #18 to #13 - pamman (07/08/2013) [-]
Exactly. I would label the flood during Noah's time unconfirmed, yet highly plausible.
User avatar #49 to #18 - YllekNayr (07/08/2013) [-]
.......impossible. A FLOOD is possible. THE FLOOD is not.
User avatar #10 to #1 - timmywankenobi (07/08/2013) [-]
everything you said is true execpt their is a lot of evidence a huge flood did occur.
#7 to #1 - anonymous (07/07/2013) [-]
Actually, the oldest recorded story in history, the Epic of Gilgamesh, seems to reference some "great flood".
Food for thought.
User avatar #6 to #1 - Noah (07/07/2013) [-]
I could build a boat...
#4 to #1 - adamks ONLINE (07/07/2013) [-]
You have to disproof something that have not existed. You didn't disproove anything, you just said that there is no proof for it in the first place.
#5 to #4 - teranin ONLINE (07/07/2013) [-]
I don't HAVE to disprove anything, because the burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion, not with the party that doesn't believe said assertion, which is my whole problem with the question presented to yahoo answers in this content.  Have you ever tried to prove to someone, like a friend or something, that you didn't do something when they think you did?  You couldn't REALLY prove that you didn't do it, sure you might be able to bring some circumstantial stuff to the table but in the end absolute proof of the assertion's falsehood would be an impossible goal.   
   
This is why our justice system operates on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" since pre-emptively determining a person's guilt makes it nigh impossible to achieve a "not guilty" verdict, and thus, the burden of proof is always on the side of the prosecution.  The only time in which the burden of proof shifts to the defense is when the prosecution meets it's required burden of proof, producing enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant.  Since no religion has ever produced sufficient proof to validate the existence of a deity beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof has not shifted onto those who disagree with their assertions.   
   
TLR  I said that in my damn post, were you paying attention?
I don't HAVE to disprove anything, because the burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion, not with the party that doesn't believe said assertion, which is my whole problem with the question presented to yahoo answers in this content. Have you ever tried to prove to someone, like a friend or something, that you didn't do something when they think you did? You couldn't REALLY prove that you didn't do it, sure you might be able to bring some circumstantial stuff to the table but in the end absolute proof of the assertion's falsehood would be an impossible goal.

This is why our justice system operates on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" since pre-emptively determining a person's guilt makes it nigh impossible to achieve a "not guilty" verdict, and thus, the burden of proof is always on the side of the prosecution. The only time in which the burden of proof shifts to the defense is when the prosecution meets it's required burden of proof, producing enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant. Since no religion has ever produced sufficient proof to validate the existence of a deity beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof has not shifted onto those who disagree with their assertions.

TLR I said that in my damn post, were you paying attention?
#46 to #5 - anonymous (07/08/2013) [-]
are you the guy that hates women
User avatar #25 to #5 - thatguywhohasbacon (07/08/2013) [-]
Improved TL; DR: The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
User avatar #3 to #1 - shinku (07/07/2013) [-]
Actually it is believed that there was a flood in that part of the world at that time.

Seeing how people did not have a good understanding of location it may have seemed that the entire world flooded.

Also the Bible has been skewed and mistranslated over time so it is also safe to assume that by two of every animal referred to two of each farm animal.

Although you are correct of the Tower of Babylon
User avatar #62 to #3 - psychopsychedelic (07/08/2013) [-]
There was something resembling an ark found in a mountain somewhere in Asia I think. I remember seeing a video about it a long time ago. Roughly the same size as what was described in the Bible.

Wish I had a link boys. That was years ago though
User avatar #2 to #1 - tehnoblebean (07/07/2013) [-]
While I agree with you, I feel that your comment, like many others is not really needed here. You're preaching to the choir. However have a thumb for a well written comment.
 Friends (0)