Close-mindedness

[ottenni]

Yeah people tend to not like change. Except maybe the homeless, i'm sorry i couldn't resist. So yeah close mindedness is very common. Although i think the younger generations are a bit more open minded. I guess they are more used to change and don't mind all the new ideas and theories being thrown around. And they are in general allot more accepting. However i must admit where i live in Australia there is still allot of racism, but thats because live in bogan territory. AS for the God vs Science debate, it'll never end until one proves the other, neither side will admit defeat. I try not to get involved i'm happy to let people believe what they want just dont get in my face about your god or evolution ok. ANYWAY. Back on track. I think it varies. People are becoming more open minded about new things but older things are staying the same.

 

[Borrowed Time]

It seems that more and more often today, people are becoming "close-minded" and holding on to dear life of something that they believe, even when a valid counterpoint to their belief, even when the counterpoint has valid proof (or at least theories) behind it.

As Thaius stated, the narrow-mindedness goes both ways. Individuals on both sides of the fence can be just as guilty as the other. Just as both sides can be as fanatical as the other. It's as much a problem with those who are swamped in religion as it is with those who are not. It also helps to talk to people who are actually knowledgable about the subjects and have done at least a small amount of research, instead of swallowing everything handed to them by any tom, dick or harry sunday school teacher.

Now, to tackle some of the "Noah's ark" questions. "Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth." Meaning that by the time he was 500, Noah had all 3 of his sons. "Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Two birds with one stone here, there's a 100 year gap between when we learn that Noah's 3 sons exist, and when Noah is closed up into the finished ark. 100 years is plenty of time to build a boat that's 1.5 football fields long and 3 stories high. Heck, 50 years would be. Secondly, not all the water came from rain. "all the fountains of the great deep broken up," it is theorized that much in fact came from beneath the earth. Noah also was said to have lived for 350 years after the flood, meaning he was in total around 950 years old at death. I can guarantee you, we'd all be quitea bit smarter if we lived for 600 years at least. Time and experience encourages the attaining of wisdom and the persuit of knowledge.

Noah was, biblically, on the ark for a little over a year, not years and years as you so quickly point out.

"Gen 6:19-20 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the fowl after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive." This does not mean that you have to take 2 of every type of dog, or every type of elephant. "after their kind" means that you take a pair of wolves, there, there's your dogs. You take one kind of elephant, there ya go! You take one kind of horse, etc... He took 2 of each kind of species, not 2 of each type of variation of a species. Not to mention the fact that the animals would not have to have been adults, meaning that they would take up less space as well as eat much less.

Anyway, back OT and basically tl;dr. As I said before, narrow-mindedness is a human condition. We tend to come to our ways of believing (as not just religious people believe in things, athiests believe in their own moral code, etc...) based upon our experiences in this life. All humans have the tendancy to hate being wrong. We desire to be right, so we make excuses and such as to why we are right. Not everything everyone believes, even if you believe you're the most logical person on the planet, is completely founded on fact. We have irrational fears, we have irrational emotions, we have irrational desires. All of these things feed a narrow-minded attitude and will do so continually for however long we're on this rock.

 

[bjj hero]

If Skeleon believes our society has become more open-minded in the last 300 years, he is right to a certain extent. 10% of society has. The rest hasn't.

These people cannot be convinced with facts. I say, let them live in their world, I will continue to live in mine (one where the universe was created by endless cell reproduction processes and bi-sexuality is caused by a hormonal imbalance while growing in the womb).

I'm with Skeleon. Things have vastly improved. There are openly gay homosexuals on TV, homosexuality would land you in prison 50 years ago. In the UK at least we are far less church led than we have been at any other point in time. Single mothers are no longer sent off to institutions.

I could go on and on. Society is a lot more accepting and open minded than it has been at any time in recent history. Sure some individuals are not open minded but thaat doesn't mean society hasn't moved on a little, although we still have further to go.

 

[manicfoot]

If Skeleon believes our society has become more open-minded in the last 300 years, he is right to a certain extent. 10% of society has. The rest hasn't.

These people cannot be convinced with facts. I say, let them live in their world, I will continue to live in mine (one where the universe was created by endless cell reproduction processes and bi-sexuality is caused by a hormonal imbalance while growing in the womb).

I'm with Skeleon. Things have vastly improved. There are openly gay homosexuals on TV, homosexuality would land you in prison 50 years ago. In the UK at least we are far less church led than we have been at any other point in time. Single mothers are no longer sent off to institutions.

I could go on and on. Society is a lot more accepting and open minded than it has been at any time in recent history. Sure some individuals are not open minded but thaat doesn't mean society hasn't moved on a little, although we still have further to go.

It has got better, but you only have to look at the protests against gay marriage in America to see that the problems haven't gone away completely.

 

[bjj hero]

As Thaius stated, the narrow-mindedness goes both ways. Individuals on both sides of the fence can be just as guilty as the other. Just as both sides can be as fanatical as the other. It's as much a problem with those who are swamped in religion as it is with those who are not. It also helps to talk to people who are actually knowledgable about the subjects and have done at least a small amount of research, instead of swallowing everything handed to them by any tom, dick or harry sunday school teacher.

Now, to tackle some of the "Noah's ark" questions. "Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth." Meaning that by the time he was 500, Noah had all 3 of his sons. "Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Two birds with one stone here, there's a 100 year gap between when we learn that Noah's 3 sons exist, and when Noah is closed up into the finished ark. 100 years is plenty of time to build a boat that's 1.5 football fields long and 3 stories high. Heck, 50 years would be. Secondly, not all the water came from rain. "all the fountains of the great deep broken up," it is theorized that much in fact came from beneath the earth. Noah also was said to have lived for 350 years after the flood, meaning he was in total around 950 years old at death. I can guarantee you, we'd all be quitea bit smarter if we lived for 600 years at least. Time and experience encourages the attaining of wisdom and the persuit of knowledge.

Noah was, biblically, on the ark for a little over a year, not years and years as you so quickly point out.

"Gen 6:19-20 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the fowl after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive." This does not mean that you have to take 2 of every type of dog, or every type of elephant. "after their kind" means that you take a pair of wolves, there, there's your dogs. You take one kind of elephant, there ya go! You take one kind of horse, etc... He took 2 of each kind of species, not 2 of each type of variation of a species. Not to mention the fact that the animals would not have to have been adults, meaning that they would take up less space as well as eat much less.

It still doesn't work though. If we ever get to the point where there are 2 tigers left on the planet then tigers will become extinct. There is not enough genetic diversity to continue the species. Also did the animals not eat each other? There would be some very sick animals (and people) after a year with poor diet and little exercise, not just muscle atrophy from being cooped up onthe boat but all sorts of illnesses like scurvey etc.

On a more moral point, what a total act of douchebaggery to drown all of the men, women and children. What would be gods damage to do something like that? Not getting enough attention? Thats not a god, thats a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. No second chances? Even for the kids?

 

[SonicKoala]

As Thaius stated, the narrow-mindedness goes both ways. Individuals on both sides of the fence can be just as guilty as the other. Just as both sides can be as fanatical as the other. It's as much a problem with those who are swamped in religion as it is with those who are not. It also helps to talk to people who are actually knowledgable about the subjects and have done at least a small amount of research, instead of swallowing everything handed to them by any tom, dick or harry sunday school teacher.

Now, to tackle some of the "Noah's ark" questions. "Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth." Meaning that by the time he was 500, Noah had all 3 of his sons. "Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Two birds with one stone here, there's a 100 year gap between when we learn that Noah's 3 sons exist, and when Noah is closed up into the finished ark. 100 years is plenty of time to build a boat that's 1.5 football fields long and 3 stories high. Heck, 50 years would be. Secondly, not all the water came from rain. "all the fountains of the great deep broken up," it is theorized that much in fact came from beneath the earth. Noah also was said to have lived for 350 years after the flood, meaning he was in total around 950 years old at death. I can guarantee you, we'd all be quitea bit smarter if we lived for 600 years at least. Time and experience encourages the attaining of wisdom and the persuit of knowledge.

Noah was, biblically, on the ark for a little over a year, not years and years as you so quickly point out.

"Gen 6:19-20 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the fowl after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive." This does not mean that you have to take 2 of every type of dog, or every type of elephant. "after their kind" means that you take a pair of wolves, there, there's your dogs. You take one kind of elephant, there ya go! You take one kind of horse, etc... He took 2 of each kind of species, not 2 of each type of variation of a species. Not to mention the fact that the animals would not have to have been adults, meaning that they would take up less space as well as eat much less.

It still doesn't work though. If we ever get to the point where there are 2 tigers left on the planet then tigers will become extinct. There is not enough genetic diversity to continue the species. Also did the animals not eat each other? There would be some very sick animals (and people) after a year with poor diet and little exercise, not just muscle atrophy from being cooped up onthe boat but all sorts of illnesses like scurvey etc.

On a more moral point, what a total act of douchebaggery to drown all of the men, women and children. What would be gods damage to do something like that? Not getting enough attention? Thats not a god, thats a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. No second chances? Even for the kids?

Look, it's just a story. Taking it literally is a bad idea, just as taking pretty much ANY story from the Old Testament literally (particularly the book of Genesis) is just asking for a scientific deconstruction of why these ideas are wrong. The flood of Noah WAS an actual event that occured thousands of years ago, so even if the Bible threw in a bunch of exaggerated claims for the sake of emphasizing the powers of God, what does it matter. Also, to go down another path, if the EVENT that the story of Noah talks about did actually occur, who's to say what else actually happened. Perhaps there was a guy who built a big boat and brought a bunch of animals on. THAT's possible. The story in its literal form isn't possible, but I wouldn't be surprised if a less-extreme form did actually take place.

As for the moral point you address, this is a religion in its most primitive forms, and those early believers really wanted everyone to know how much of a badass their God was - this is why you get so many stories in the Old Testament where God comes off as incredibly vengeful and sort of a dick.

 

[bjj hero]

It still doesn't work though. If we ever get to the point where there are 2 tigers left on the planet then tigers will become extinct. There is not enough genetic diversity to continue the species. Also did the animals not eat each other? There would be some very sick animals (and people) after a year with poor diet and little exercise, not just muscle atrophy from being cooped up onthe boat but all sorts of illnesses like scurvey etc.

On a more moral point, what a total act of douchebaggery to drown all of the men, women and children. What would be gods damage to do something like that? Not getting enough attention? Thats not a god, thats a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. No second chances? Even for the kids?

Look, it's just a story. Taking it literally is a bad idea, just as taking pretty much ANY story from the Old Testament literally (particularly the book of Genesis) is just asking for a scientific deconstruction of why these ideas are wrong. The flood of Noah WAS an actual event that occured thousands of years ago, so even if the Bible threw in a bunch of exaggerated claims for the sake of emphasizing the powers of God, what does it matter. Also, to go down another path, if the EVENT that the story of Noah talks about did actually occur, who's to say what else actually happened. Perhaps there was a guy who built a big boat and brought a bunch of animals on. THAT's possible. The story in its literal form isn't possible, but I wouldn't be surprised if a less-extreme form did actually take place.

Thats far more sensible. I can get my head around it's just a story to pass on a message. Like the tortoise and the hare but with a higher body count. Unfortunately there are people out there deluded enough to believe it is factual. I don't argue with the fact that all manner of freak weather events have taken place in history, floods are part of that.

It does raise an interesting question over which bits of the bible are fact and which are make believe. Who has the final say? I think people opt with the old testament as its just god pulling dick move after dick move until Jesus arrives.

 

[Casual Shinji]

When most of the people become open-minded,it will be next step in the evolution of human race. Zealous worshiping of anything (be it religion or a new console) is what holds us down as a species. On the other hand,society was even more close-minded in,say,Middle Ages. So we're progressing,slowly but surely.

We all believe in something or follow a certain way of life. The reason we are so desperate to believe in something or discover the "truth", is because nothing really leads us. We're not lead by our instincts like animals, we're practicly our own masters. But the truth of the matter is that we don't really know what the hell we're doing or why we're here. We all wish for someone or something to tell us what to do so that we don't feel so lost and helpless, wich is what we really are in the end. This is the reason why so many people went absolutly ape over Obama. Here was a man who apparetly had all the right awnsers and could lead us to a brighter future. But in the end he also is just a helpless human being like you and me. Same reason as to why some people believe in alien civilizations beyond our own; Someone out there who really knows the true purpose of excistense. Humanity will probably never evolve because it's to busy in finding it's own comfort zone. Evolution is only possible if something out there forces us to change. Maybe that's the link between God and evolution?

 

[SonicKoala]

It still doesn't work though. If we ever get to the point where there are 2 tigers left on the planet then tigers will become extinct. There is not enough genetic diversity to continue the species. Also did the animals not eat each other? There would be some very sick animals (and people) after a year with poor diet and little exercise, not just muscle atrophy from being cooped up onthe boat but all sorts of illnesses like scurvey etc.

On a more moral point, what a total act of douchebaggery to drown all of the men, women and children. What would be gods damage to do something like that? Not getting enough attention? Thats not a god, thats a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. No second chances? Even for the kids?

Look, it's just a story. Taking it literally is a bad idea, just as taking pretty much ANY story from the Old Testament literally (particularly the book of Genesis) is just asking for a scientific deconstruction of why these ideas are wrong. The flood of Noah WAS an actual event that occured thousands of years ago, so even if the Bible threw in a bunch of exaggerated claims for the sake of emphasizing the powers of God, what does it matter. Also, to go down another path, if the EVENT that the story of Noah talks about did actually occur, who's to say what else actually happened. Perhaps there was a guy who built a big boat and brought a bunch of animals on. THAT's possible. The story in its literal form isn't possible, but I wouldn't be surprised if a less-extreme form did actually take place.

Thats far more sensible. I can get my head around it's just a story to pass on a message. Like the tortoise and the hare but with a higher body count. Unfortunately there are people out there deluded enough to believe it is factual. I don't argue with the fact that all manner of freak weather events have taken place in history, floods are part of that.

It does raise an interesting question over which bits of the bible are fact and which are make believe. Who has the final say? I think people opt with the old testament as its just god pulling dick move after dick move until Jesus arrives.

See, I've wondered that myself. Personally, I think when one looks at the Bible, they really have to take a large majority of the stories with a grain of salt (or heaps of salt, depending on how you look at it). Most of them are there to stress messages about how to live your life, or how it is important to fear God, or something to that effect. I think a much more sensible way to approach religion is to realise that the stories in the Bible are just that - stories. What actually matters is the MESSAGE that these stories are trying to convey.

I'll divert away from the Old Testament and ask about the New Testament. Does it matter if Jesus ACTUALLY rose from the dead and descended into heaven in all his divine glory? Well, if you ask me, I'd say it doesn't. I think that the most important part of Jesus is what he said - the messages he spread among his disciples, which have become the tenants of Christianity. These are the things that religious people should focus on. Instead, what you get is legions of people defending these outlandish stories in the Bible as if their beliefs DEPEND on them being true. Personally, if it turns out that the story of Noah was highly exaggerated, I would still believe in God. If it turns out that Jesus DIDN'T perform all those awesome acts (turning water into wine, feeding a whole village with two fish and one loaf of bread), that would in no way change my opinion that his teachings are a genuinely good and positive way in which to live your life (I personally DO believe he did those things cause some of them are just so freaking awesome, I just don't see how anyone could make that shit up). It is often the defence of these religious tales that generates so much debate over the viability of religion in our increasingly scientific and secular society - for me, the growing knowledge of man simply serves as a means to view religion in a new way without, in anyway whatsoever, compromising the fundamental principles of the religion itself.

 

[Sparrow]

Alot of people that argue with close-minded people are being close-minded themselves, just as the OP was in the Noah arguement.

 

[bjj hero]

See, I've wondered that myself. Personally, I think when one looks at the Bible, they really have to take a large majority of the stories with a grain of salt (or heaps of salt, depending on how you look at it). Most of them are there to stress messages about how to live your life, or how it is important to fear God, or something to that effect. I think a much more sensible way to approach religion is to realise that the stories in the Bible are just that - stories. What actually matters is the MESSAGE that these stories are trying to convey.

I'll divert away from the Old Testament and ask about the New Testament. Does it matter if Jesus ACTUALLY rose from the dead and descended into heaven in all his divine glory? Well, if you ask me, I'd say it doesn't. I think that the most important part of Jesus is what he said - the messages he spread among his disciples, which have become the tenants of Christianity. These are the things that religious people should focus on. Instead, what you get is legions of people defending these outlandish stories in the Bible as if their beliefs DEPEND on them being true. Personally, if it turns out that the story of Noah was highly exaggerated, I would still believe in God. If it turns out that Jesus DIDN'T perform all those awesome acts (turning water into wine, feeding a whole village with two fish and one loaf of bread), that would in no way change my opinion that his teachings are a genuinely good and positive way in which to live your life (I personally DO believe he did those things cause some of them are just so freaking awesome, I just don't see how anyone could make that shit up). It is often the defence of these religious tales that generates so much debate over the viability of religion in our increasingly scientific and secular society - for me, the growing knowledge of man simply serves as a means to view religion in a new way without, in anyway whatsoever, compromising the fundamental principles of the religion itself.

I wish more people shared your outlook. Unfortunately interpretation of the old testament has lead to all sorts of problems, discrimination against homosexuals, women, paranoia over witchcraft etc. If people could let the nasty piece of literature that is the old testament go then the world would be better for it.

Im not saying burn the old testament, but I enjoyed A Picture of Dorian Gray without using it to discriminate against others and claiming it's factual.

 

[Borrowed Time]

It still doesn't work though. If we ever get to the point where there are 2 tigers left on the planet then tigers will become extinct. There is not enough genetic diversity to continue the species. Also did the animals not eat each other? There would be some very sick animals (and people) after a year with poor diet and little exercise, not just muscle atrophy from being cooped up onthe boat but all sorts of illnesses like scurvey etc.

On a more moral point, what a total act of douchebaggery to drown all of the men, women and children. What would be gods damage to do something like that? Not getting enough attention? Thats not a god, thats a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. No second chances? Even for the kids?

Well, do you believe in evolution? If you do, you basically just shot yourself in the foot concerning the whole "genetic diversity" aspect. Here's an interesting paper written by a grad student in the area of genetics (which he references at the end) that discusses how differing species would be able to gain and drop chromosomes from breeding with their "brothers and sisters" and there's no statement about a failure of the new species because of lack of biodiversity. Now, this is also with a very messed up genetic mutation, not a healthy pair of genetically sound specimines.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/875507503.Ge.r.html

Secondly, this wasn't some "temper tantrum" that you state. "Genesis 6:1-13 1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. 5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

Now sure, I know that you're going to call poppycock on this because I doubt you even believe the Bible, but if you're a parent, and your child ends up growing up and becoming a mass-murderer, would you not want to stop them at any cost? Especially considering you were the one who brought them into the world? No, it's not a direct correlation, but it should allow you to understand the feeling behind the act.

See, I've wondered that myself. Personally, I think when one looks at the Bible, they really have to take a large majority of the stories with a grain of salt (or heaps of salt, depending on how you look at it). Most of them are there to stress messages about how to live your life, or how it is important to fear God, or something to that effect. I think a much more sensible way to approach religion is to realise that the stories in the Bible are just that - stories. What actually matters is the MESSAGE that these stories are trying to convey.

Unfortunately, many who attack the Christian faith have used the idea and/or fact that the Biblical stories and such in the Old Testament aren't true with every single word as a way to destroy the faith of many a Christian. Many point out certain inconsistancies that they see in the text to individuals who have done no real research on the topics, and when they can't respond with any type of rebuttle they then proceed to say something to the effect of "See, you're a stupid, ignorant fool to believe in that!" I wouldn't have so much of a problem if many individuals weren't so hostile about the topics and for once actually let people who want to believe a certain way believe that way. That is why I have a hard time letting things like this go, especially when someone who doesn't have any knowledge on the topic is victimized. Granted, individuals should have a common understanding of what they believe, but many atheists are in the same boat of just swallowing whatever doctrine (or lack there of) that their parents have taught them hook, line and sinker.

 

[SonicKoala]

I wish more people shared your outlook. Unfortunately interpretation of the old testament has lead to all sorts of problems, discrimination against homosexuals, women, paranoia over witchcraft etc. If people could let the nasty piece of literature that is the old testament go then the world would be better for it.

Im not saying burn the old testament, but I enjoyed A Picture of Dorian Gray without using it to discriminate against others and claiming it's factual.

I strongly agree with you here. The Old Testament and the various interpretations have caused far more trouble than they ever should of. I also don't understand the continued discrimination against homosexuals, it's against the very princples of Christianity itself. Jesus himself said that all people are equal, it's not as if he slipped in a side note of "oh yeah, except those damn homosexuals". Sure it says in the Old Testament "a man shall not lie with another man" (but it doesn't mention women at all - does this make being a lesbian okay? does that even make sense?), but Jesus said a few things that were different from the Old Testament, such as his take on marriage and divorce. If people accepted Jesus' alteration of those concepts, why are they so resistant to his "everybody is equal" message?

Another huge problem here is this inherent desire in a lot of people (particularly religious people) who feel it necessary to force their beliefs on everybody else. People are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe (even if those beliefs are wrong), but why can't they just keep their opinions to themselves? Although this would not completely resolve the issues that come with narrow mindedness in our society, it certaintly would help. And it's so easy, too! You don't even have to change your beliefs. JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THEM ALREADY!

 

[Richard Eis]

When you bind you existence and worth to a set of beliefs then you have to defend those beliefs as you are also defending your existence and meaning in the world. No matter how ridiculous.

There is a greater variety to life and meaning now, and people are born into this more varied society so they don't get their panties in a twist that everyone isn't a carbon copy of them. I think though that the people from the last generation are still holding on tightly and becoming louder and more noticeable in their shrill close-mindedness.

-We live in a society where spiritual beliefs of any kind are disrespected and looked down upon, and those who believe are slandered and insulted.-

Spiritual belief still has a huge hold on society. Stop whining, you are still a majority. We call you out when you worm your way into government and schools with baseless propaganda. When you say ridiculous things without any facts or declare someone morally bankrupt because your particular holy book declares them evil(without actually saying why).

 

[scrambledeggs]

I'm narrow minded. I don't care. I take your argument into account - but i don't believe anything I don't have an argument for - and I usually believe mine outweighs whoever I am talking to.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Pase-and-coint is this: even though I know examples like this have been worn PAST their underpants, but I was arguing with a religious person about Noah and the ark. I was saying how it could not be at all physically possible for any man (an old man, at that), even with the help of his 3 sons, to gather up 2 of EVERY single animal on the face of the planet, check if they were male and female, gather up enough wood to build an ark big enough to hold all of the animals, not to mention all of the food necessary to stay alive for years on end while the flood went on and the waters subsided, then actually be able to BUILD an arc that big, all within the necessary time to do so (meaning his lifetime). Their response was, "Well with the power of God, anything is possible." To which i responded, "Then God didn't do it himself because?" No response to that, yet they still fully believed That Noah's story happened exactly as written. Any further input from me was pretty much made void after that point.

Another good argument is that the bible says that the entirety of Earth's surface was covered with water. This implies that even the peak of Everest was covered and thus sea level now would be 8km underwater. Now I wonder where all that water came from...

Anyway, I am quite close minded about a lot of things but also have good arguments to support what I believe. I generally listen if someone has something logical to say but that isn't often.

Even what we perceive as "logic" is often based on assumptions or requiring faith. Otherwise we'd have to bring lab kits and research staff with us anytime we wanted to prove a point. Just throwing that out there. I always hate to see the word "logic" thrown up as a buzzword justifying flaming any particular group of people.

One possible explanation for where the water was suggests that there was a lot more water under the Earth's crust, and that the fault lines we see today are where the water rushed out. Likewise, it has been proposed that places like the grand canyon are where we can see the devastation of a mass erosion, possibly caused rapidly by a flood rather than over time by one stream. I doubt either of these theories are provable, but well, you did ask.

 

[Borrowed Time]

JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THEM ALREADY!

Then stop attacking people's faith and insulting them (not you in particular) and there won't be a reason to talk about them.

Yes I know there are some that are actively shoving it down everyone's throats, but they are by far the minority. To expect me to sit there and stand idle as my beliefs are attacked or an individual who shares my beliefs is attacked, is just not going to fly with me. I would expect anyone else to do the same if they were in the reverse position.

One possible explanation for where the water was suggests that there was a lot more water under the Earth's crust, and that the fault lines we see today are where the water rushed out. Likewise, it has been proposed that places like the grand canyon are where we can see the devastation of a mass erosion, possibly caused rapidly by a flood rather than over time by one stream. I doubt either of these theories are provable, but well, you did ask.

Actually, there have been individuals who have studied the path of the grand canyon that say that the way it was carved, and the side to side sweeping of the river is the only part that was eroded, the steep sides are more or less impossible to have occured from a slow erosion process and instead occured from a rapid rush of water/flooding. I'll see if I can find a reference.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I'm narrow minded. I don't care. I take your argument into account - but i don't believe anything I don't have an argument for - and I usually believe mine outweighs whoever I am talking to.

Finally an honest person.

I sincerely doubt anyone here is more open-minded than this guy. You all just like to think you are. Because "narrow-minded" is the new political curse word. Sort of like how we're ALL "ignorant" of something, but nobody wants to use the word.

 

[bjj hero]

It still doesn't work though. If we ever get to the point where there are 2 tigers left on the planet then tigers will become extinct. There is not enough genetic diversity to continue the species. Also did the animals not eat each other? There would be some very sick animals (and people) after a year with poor diet and little exercise, not just muscle atrophy from being cooped up onthe boat but all sorts of illnesses like scurvey etc.

On a more moral point, what a total act of douchebaggery to drown all of the men, women and children. What would be gods damage to do something like that? Not getting enough attention? Thats not a god, thats a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. No second chances? Even for the kids?

Well, do you believe in evolution? If you do, you basically just shot yourself in the foot concerning the whole "genetic diversity" aspect. Here's an interesting paper written by a grad student in the area of genetics (which he references at the end) that discusses how differing species would be able to gain and drop chromosomes from breeding with their "brothers and sisters" and there's no statement about a failure of the new species because of lack of biodiversity. Now, this is also with a very messed up genetic mutation, not a healthy pair of genetically sound specimines.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/875507503.Ge.r.html

Secondly, this wasn't some "temper tantrum" that you state. "Genesis 6:1-13 1 When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. 5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD. 9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

Now sure, I know that you're going to call poppycock on this because I doubt you even believe the Bible, but if you're a parent, and your child ends up growing up and becoming a mass-murderer, would you not want to stop them at any cost? Especially considering you were the one who brought them into the world? No, it's not a direct correlation, but it should allow you to understand the feeling behind the act.

Thank you for the link, it made for interesting reading. It explains how new species get a foot hold but I would love to see how your family tree went if you limited your procreation to sibings. You cannot keep a species going with only one pair. If you could then conservation would be easy.

Fuck wasting money on saving the Gorrillas When they go extinct well just let 2 out from the zoo. We both know the real world doesn't work that way. It further fails when you consider that the predators will eat at least half of these pairings or starve to death.

The story can't be true on many levels.

IF you could fit all of these animals and all the feed etc needed to keep them healthy on board, with enough room to exercise, keep the animals that will eat each other seperate AND there were about 50 arcs doing the same thing then maybe... just maybe. It would still be a WTF moment you'd claimed had jumped the shark if it was in a movie.

On the temper tantrum, he killed every last one of them (except noah and co) Overkill much? It was a dick move. The old testament is full of these "outbursts. Dont get me started on Lot.

You can believe what you like but if you are going to feed me crap as fact, I'll call BS. You can say that is narrow minded if you like but if you have supporting evidence I will gladly reconsider my position.

 

[cobra_ky]

Before this turns entirely into a religion thread, I have to say I've seen plenty of close-minded people in threads regarding civil rights for various groups. A lot of people here seem to be of the opinion "I don't see any discrimination, therefore it doesn't exist." The historical trend is toward more open-mindedness, though, and it's easier to have your beliefs challenged now more than ever.

I wish more people shared your outlook. Unfortunately interpretation of the old testament has lead to all sorts of problems, discrimination against homosexuals, women, paranoia over witchcraft etc. If people could let the nasty piece of literature that is the old testament go then the world would be better for it.

i was raised Jewish and we interpreted the Old Testament just fine, thank you very much.