[PipeBox]

Eh?  Clarify what you mean for me.  I don't know anyone here who isn't an agnostic (does not claim knowledge), and what gods do you believe in?  Unless I'm mistaken, you're an atheist, too, just a really soft one.  Or maybe you're a really soft theist.   Do I understand you're saying we can't be happy and that we are just thoughtlessly discarding all religion?  Are you also saying we could not do it without the internet and meditation?  I just want to make sure I understand before responding.

[karadan]

Quoting the bible is not good for athiests btw.

I wasn't raised anything. I like philosophy.  I'm personally agnostic.  B/c I'm the real free-thinker. Religion sucks, but I can't "
fake happiness" which you all pretend to believe just cuz you renounce a religion w/o thinking freeley for yourselves w/o the net w/o years to meditate.

All best, (Feel free to ban me again; I just like to mess)

P.S. But take my words as a grain of salt.

I'm sorry, but happiness for me is gained from the people and places I've chosen as my surroundings. The only exception to this rule is my family, whom I had no choice being born into but am damn well happy it worked out that way. I don't think it is possible for me to be more loved by that particular group of people.
So, for me, happiness doesn't come from my atheist tendencies but rather, the lack of religion in my life is one of a plethora of reasons I can safely say 'I am happy with my life'. I definitely wouldn't describe that as fake and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Whether you come here and generalise just to annoy, or whether it is because there are a whole heap of things you still need to learn about life, doesn't really bother me. It is a rather defeatist position to take either way. It won't gain you kudos points but I doubt that is your prerogative either. To be honest, I'm not really sure what your agenda is. Most of the things you say rarely make sense. I'm not trying to provoke anything by saying that, it is merely an observation.
Be warned though, people generally take issue with wilful misconception and generalisations, especially if it is due to the lack of will or inability to re-evaluate information given to you.

[Whitney]

All best, (Feel free to ban me again; I just like to mess)

P.S. But take my words as a grain of salt.

If you have to tell us that, don't post.  This is the last time I'll warn you about your combative posting style (Were you posting drunk again?  If so, read this... http://www.atheistthinktank.net/atheist_alcoholic.html )

And yes...you will be banned permanently if you do this again.  I've given up on trying to feel sorry for you.

[buttercupbaby]

Oh, c'mon is that so hard to believe?  He just used the "how do you fit 4 elephants in a Volkswagen" rule...2 in the front-2 in the back.    Duh!

[Zenrage]

I spent nearly 6 hours debunking Ron Wyatt's garbage video (3 of them actually) on my blog before I came across this genius video:

Part 1

[youtube:1pyahw3l]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY[/youtube:1pyahw3l]

Part 2

[youtube:1pyahw3l]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfSvktyxVYA[/youtube:1pyahw3l]

[G.ENIGMA]

I care about FACTS. If god did fit the hundreds of millions of species of animal this planet has to offer on one boat, I'd like to know how he managed to get so much mass to occupy the same space at the same time. I'd ask what sort of 4th dimensional device he was using to accomplish this or whether he was using parallel universes to store the animals. Maybe it was just their DNA he stored but didn't write that into the bible because primitive worshippers probably wouldn't understand what DNA was.

Even though these are obviously not "facts" I can see how answers to these questions would start to make more sense  

[Renegnicat]

I'm more interested in the mythology of Noah's ark, rather than any literal interpretation of a real 40-day flood. Big events like this impress themselves in our collective consciousness, resonating within our minds till the day we die. And I wonder why that is? They mythology of the flood goes back to the cradle of humanity; Mesopotamia. Given that the majority of humans were in this area at the time, it certainly would explain the similiarity of myths in various regions.

Putting that aside for a moment, if we take the myth as a dream, we ask ourselves what associations we connect to floods. There is a connection there between flood and water, water and life, flood and death. A flood, assosiatively, gives connotations of both life and death: Death, through drowning, and life, through the symbol of water, also associated with motherhood. It conjures up an image of mother earth killing her newborn children.

Is it not the case that primitive humans would see a massive flood as an ironic instance of dying by the very thing that sustains them? It is a betrayal, then from mother earth, and all the successive gods man has hoisted above. Every god in every religion has destroyed the world through water. But I'm tempted to think that the first god to do so, was the goddess of mother nature herself.

Interestingly enough, there are connections with the ark of noah and the garden of eden. In both cases man is punished by god for man's wickedness. It may be just enough of a reasonable assumption to think that primitive man may not have been able to distinguish between separate events of punishment. The flood as punishment is punishment always, just as being cast from the garden of eden was eternal as well. In the mind of primitive man, the punishments are for the same immortal thing.

In a sense, religion could be a result of a certain psychological mythology of wicked punishment and curing redemption. It is impressed on our collective consciousness that there is always something bad, something wicked, about the world. The world is always in a state of decay in all religions, just as all religions point the way to redemption, even as, in the universe, there really is nothing to redeem. It could be that religion is the result of the psychological reactions child-like humans had to the very first bad parent of all time: Mother nature herself.

Fascinating.  

[Nancy08]

The biblical account, told in the Book of Genesis 6-9, tells how God sends a great flood to destroy the earth because of man's wickedness and because the earth is corrupt. God tells Noah, a righteous man in his generation, to build a large vessel to save his family and a representation of the world's animals. God gives detailed instructions for the Ark, and after its completion, sends the animals to Noah. God then sends the Flood which rises until all the mountains are covered and every living thing died. Then "God remembered Noah," the waters abate, and dry land reappears. Noah, his family, and the animals leave the Ark, and God enter a covenant to never again send a flood to destroy the Earth.

God observes that the earth is corrupted with violence and decides to destroy all life. But Noah "was a righteous man, blameless in his generation, [and] Noah walked with God," and God gives him instructions for the construction of an ark, into which he is told to bring "two of every sort [of animal] ... male and female," and their food.

[Tom62]

What always bothered me about the story is, that God could find only one man who was righteous. Even in those days there must have been thousands of other men and women, who were righteous and followed God. So, why pick out a single man and murder all the rest?  Not to mention of course all the innocent children that he murdered and all animals and plants. From a moral point of view, the story of Noah stinks heavily.

[Reginus]

hmm I'm not sure that most of the animals would take up an entire square foot. Remember that most species are tiny little insects, and only a few are close to our size.

[Whitney]

hmm I'm not sure that most of the animals would take up an entire square foot. Remember that most species are tiny little insects, and only a few are close to our size.

They probably would once their habitat needs were taken into consideration; to do the calculations properly we'd basically need to have a list of all known species and how many square feet they need to stand there (and if just standing there would drive them insane or not, necessitating more space).  However, we are supposed to assume this was God's work...so he could have put the animals in stasis.  He also could have shrunk them down in size and made them all fit in a teacup or wiped away any evidence of the flood.  

[hismikeness]

to do the calculations properly we'd basically need to have a list of all known species and how many square feet they need to stand there (and if just standing there would drive them insane or not, necessitating more space).

Don't forget, you could stack them on top of each other saving "footprint" on the wooden boat. Even still, just the beetles would take up gobs of space in 3 dimensions.

Hismikeness

[Renegnicat]

The bible is a great repository of mythological seasonings. There is a lot there that represents early man's psychological development. It's too bad it can't be studied in that way, as that would send all the religious nuts into a world-wide frenzy.

I'm especially curious of the koran. The Koran was dictated inside mohammad's head. He heard voiced. Can you imagine the psychological knowledge that could be gained through it's stories? ARGH!

[LoneMateria]

Unless you buy into the Micro Evolution part of this crap here is an easy way to figure out if its possible.

http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php

1,263,186 non plant species we currently have found on the earth.  Multiply that by 2 (if you believe in one account) or 7 (if you believe in another account) and come up with  either
2,526,372 animals or 8,842,302 animals on the ship respectively.  How big was the ship a few hundred feet long?  Each species would have to occupy a space a fraction of an inch long.  Easily impossible.  I guess magic need to be added or some way to discount some animals to make the story more believable.

[hismikeness]

Unless you buy into the Micro Evolution part of this crap here is an easy way to figure out if its possible.

http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php

1,263,186 non plant species we currently have found on the earth.  Multiply that by 2 (if you believe in one account) or 7 (if you believe in another account) and come up with  either
2,526,372 animals or 8,842,302 animals on the ship respectively.  How big was the ship a few hundred feet long?  Each species would have to occupy a space a fraction of an inch long.  Easily impossible.  I guess magic need to be added or some way to discount some animals to make the story more believable.

Lone, you got me on a math-capade to interrupt a slow work day. Check it out.

Using your numbers of species and estimating that the boat was 1/2 mile long (2640 feet, 880 yards, about 800 meters) by 1/8 of a mile wide (660 feet, 220 yards, about 200 meters), that gives 1,742,400 square feet, or oddly enough, 40 acres almost exactly (40.0000000621 acres). Now, that is a very generous estimate considering the current largest boat/ship is the Emma Maersk and it is only 1300 x 180 feet.

Breaking it all down, that leaves a little over 99 square inches per animal. That is about 70% of a square foot. A square foot is about the size of an unfolded paper napkin. So there are lots of smaller animals that could definitely fit on a paper napkin, but there are also many that can't.

And that also assumes that Noah was able to build a boat that has 7.4 times the surface area out of wood as the current largest using today's technology.

Seems unlikely at best.

Hismikeness