Mansplaining the continued religious preferences of women and minorities

[gsj68]

Doesn't ring true for me. I was raised going to Sunday school as a very young child, then attending church only on Easter and Christmas each year. After going through my Confirmation at the age of 13ish I began reading the Bible. It didn't take long before I realized the stupidity of the book. And when the answers of my mother weren't convincing enough I had to turn to the Minister. His answers were no better. Funny thing is, I have never heard an answer worthy of consideration when it comes to the Bible.

Again I will say; that doesn't make any of these believers stupid. It just makes them elephants tied to a stake. And if any of them HONESTLY questioned ANYTHING, they would realize the stake is no match for them.

if you take a child from day 1 and tell them the sky is purple and the grass is pink that what they will believe and alot of those elephant have barbs and spikes around their ankles so its painful to pull away

nice to have you posting again

[shrewsbury]

That leaves a logical person to conclude that it is loosely based in some truth; namely a localized flood, and that's it.

so a logical person would be someone who uses only speculation? such as a localized flood or the impossibility of repopulation. I did not even factor in the longevity that is associated with these biblical characters.

most children born to one woman = 69, two did not survive infancy, so 67 people to reproduce. so if 37 of those were female and they all reproduced at the same rate we have 2500 people just from one womans offspring.
take in account that each of these offsprings can start reproducing at age 12 or 13, times that by the four women mentioned on the ark, and and you have a plausible 5 million by 8000 BC if the ark story is around 12000 bc or earlier.

are the number relying on heavy odds? yes, but evolution has even higher odds.

logic comes from critical thinking, and leaves open the fact you may not know.

[habsheaven]

so a logical person would be someone who uses only speculation? such as a localized flood or the impossibility of repopulation. I did not even factor in the longevity that is associated with these biblical characters.

most children born to one woman = 69, two did not survive infancy, so 67 people to reproduce. so if 37 of those were female and they all reproduced at the same rate we have 2500 people just from one womans offspring.
take in account that each of these offsprings can start reproducing at age 12 or 13, times that by the four women mentioned on the ark, and and you have a plausible 5 million by 8000 BC if the ark story is around 12000 bc or earlier.

are the number relying on heavy odds? yes, but evolution has even higher odds.

logic comes from critical thinking, and leaves open the fact you may not know.

Localized flooding is NOT speculation. It happens today all around the world.

If you were to take into account the ages of biblical characters you would also have to consider the biblical family trees, none of which, speak of mass reproduction.

So now we are led to believe you think evolution is less likely than EVERY woman for 1,000`s of years producing 37 females EACH.

Im sorry. This is beyond ridiculous.

[shrewsbury]

So now we are led to believe you think evolution is less likely than EVERY woman for 1,000`s of years producing 37 females EACH.

never said less likely, I just pointed out the odds.

but I understand, if it doesn't fit your beliefs, you will do everything to relate it to being illogical, common human fault we all have.

[Star_Cards]

from my experience the atheists i know where raised in pretty oppressive religious families catholic/mormon/evangelical ect.

does this ring true for anyone else?

not for me. my immediate family never went to church. my father's parents did. my mother's parents did not. Most atheists I know didn't have a religion taught to them growing up.

[Star_Cards]

but the basis of the story could be true, humans could have repopulated in the given time.
but I do agree to think it is 100% factual is leaving no room for error with translation and transcription.

I agree some things with the story could have possibly happened, but my example was the to the people who take the story as a literal part of history.

[duane1969]

So I am not the only one who notices that the claimed atheist speaks for all. Wow finally I think somebody is on the same page with me. Here I thought I was the only one who thought this. Funny thing is I knew of Atheism but never really met somebody who claimed to be one until I joined this site. Which seems to have quite a few.I almost thought this was an Atheist lobbying site disguised as a card trading site.

Beware. Not all claiming to be atheist are atheist. For some it is a convenient term that they use as a license to ridicule and attack. Insults and degradation are not the basis of atheism, just bigotry.

[duane1969]

I agree some things with the story could have possibly happened, but my example was the to the people who take the story as a literal part of history.

I am not saying I believe the flood happened, but consider this. I currently live 2080 feet above sea level and can dig around in my back yard and find fossilized impressions of clams and shellfish. I am sure that science presents a theory that explains why, but it is just a theory. Since neither the scientific theory nor the story of Noah's ark are factually provable, accepting either one as an explanation is entirely an individual decision. In the end, one is a story told by religious people and the other is a story told by scientific people and neither story has an undeniable evidence to support it.

[habsheaven]

never said less likely, I just pointed out the odds.

but I understand, if it doesn't fit your beliefs, you will do everything to relate it to being illogical, common human fault we all have.

Well that's not how "odds" work. If we back trace all the events that had to occur for you or I to have ever been born, the odds would dwarf evolution's odds, but guess what, both happened.

My beliefs are based on common sense. If your claim/theory makes no common sense, I refute it. That's the logical thing to do. It has nothing to do with "being open to all possibilities". Some possibilities defy logic. Just as this explanation of yours does.

[habsheaven]

I am not saying I believe the flood happened, but consider this. I currently live 2080 feet above sea level and can dig around in my back yard and find fossilized impressions of clams and shellfish. I am sure that science presents a theory that explains why, but it is just a theory. Since neither the scientific theory nor the story of Noah's ark are factually provable, accepting either one as an explanation is entirely an individual decision. In the end, one is a story told by religious people and the other is a story told by scientific people and neither story has an undeniable evidence to support it.

Could you please inform us of what this theory is and then try and poke holes in it? Everything one chooses to believe is an "individual decision". That doesn't make the possible choices equal in credibility. When presented with opposing theories of how something happened, a logical person weighs the evidence supporting both, considers any impossibilities presented in both, and then chooses. Do you know of any "impossibilities" in the Flood story? Or is the answer, anything is possible because we weren't there?