I Am Not Religious

@Pfuzylogic I'm sorry but it's just not genealogically, historically, physically, evolutionarily, or geographically possible for the story of Adam and Eve or Noah to have ever existed. And the Bible is not a viable source for much besides Hebrew Traditions and certain mentions of a few historical figures and places. It's not malicious, you're free to keep on believing, but it's just impossible and based on everything known of the world.

@Cease You have no basis of a story during that time period and you didn't dare give an example of why it wasn't possible. Why would anyone believe you?

@Pfuzylogic My "stories" if you wanna call it that or evidence are, meteorology, anthropology, geology, geography, zoology, math, biology, archeology, paleontology, astronomy, evolution, etc.

Come on, even many Catholics know those stories are symbolic or over exaggerated. You can believe in God all you want, but those stories as they are told are just that: stories. You can believe in God without taking those stories literally.

They shouldn't just believe me. Nor should they believe you. Both of us could be lying or wrong. They won't truly know if they go look for themselves. But your only proof for God is the Bible which is highly fallacious, full fantastic feats, self contradictory and just plane wrong?

If I told you could change my mind with and asked you for evidence for God what what would tell me or where would you point me to?

And if I asked you how one could change your mind? Or if your mind could even be changed? Or have you ever even questioned your faith?

@Cease I went through a period of time in my early twenties in which I visited Existentialism. I am not here to make you incredibly verbose or upset? You can't knock down the Noah story, sorry and as recent as it happened you would think there would be a retort but there isn't.

@Pfuzylogic Science is amazing and it doesn't require anything of me, but it sucks. It doesn't offer me anything or promise me anything. I don't believe it to be true because it frees me from "moral" shackles of the Bible to do whatever I want. It's inconvenient, tells me what I don't wanna believe: That I'm (we're) just an insignificant, finite product without intent and there's no evidence to the contrary, regardless of my (or anyone's) feelings anything about it.

I only believed in the Bible because I was raised to without question and out of fear. If I started to believe now, it'd be against all reason and out of fear God, death, and hell (or Sheol/ eternal death for JWs), not out of love or true belief. And that'd be disingenuous of me. I'd be comforting to know I have a chance of eternal life or I had objective purpose but that doesn't make it true. Believing so actually seems to keep some from living their one and only life to the fullest.

The Noachian Flood... These are only some of many questions that arise: Where did all that water to cover the earth come from and go? There is not that much water on earth (including in the ice caps, atmosphere, and underground) to cover the all the land as it was know to be. Why is there no geological strata on every continent of same age that's indicative of a global flood during the time Noah supposedly lived? (There's a layer with what seems to be flood deposits in Mesopotamia (Iraq), an area that was prone to flooding, where they have their own flood stories/myths that are older than, extremely similar to, and most likely the origin of the Noah's Ark story) How are there still living trees older then the supposed flood when being under water for a year would and such great depths surely would have died? There is just no evidence for a global flood and no reason to think there was. The burden of proof is always put into science and never on to God or the men of God because there is no proof or evidence for God besides the Bible which is riddled with contradictions and faulty explanations. (Like why does Saul die a 2nd time after he already killed himself? And the Bible says there's a firmament.)

Look, people a few hundred years went in to studying different sciences expecting evidence to fall in line with stories of the Bible but there just wasn't any and were compelled to change their mind in light of reason, yet most of them still were Christan also in light of reason. Creationism seems to be an Anglo-American thing that came about 100 years ago in defiance of all science and reasons. Again, you can be Christan and not believe in those stories or creationism. And science can't definitely say they're isn't a "God" of some sort because there's no testable or demonstrative evidence. But because of that, it can't prove it either and is essentially useless to ponder upon something without some indication, when there are other things in/about our world we are able to work towards understanding or putting to practical use.

So I would guess the idea of no God and no purpose was too fearful and idea for you (which I feel it is); so in spite of reason (assuming you looked at sources about the world outside of theological ones), you took on Pascal's Wager you went back to putting your faith in the Bible; am I wrong?

I am sorry that you didn't receive anything for your life in church.
Jesus said ask and you will receive; knock and the door will be opened; seek and you shall find. It is something conducted in Faith and knowing him.
I still didn't see any alternative history presented for something recorded so recent. The Talmud does have incredible stories that were put under the highest scrutiny as they were replicated. No other text in history took the same measures as the Scribes for accuracy.
I really don't buy evolution. Just because there is difficulty with "Creationism" as a science in schools doesn't mean that God is not real.
I do thank you for making your response very considerate and engaging. I am not trying to "prove" you wrong. I do find the Christian perspective to be very valid and I just don't accept that all Science is true to its definition as being observable
evidence. There are too many men lacking pure motives for me to trust it.

@Pfuzylogic It's not their fault. It's just not compelling. I had questions that science could answer with evidence that the Bible could not. And everyone I meet who believes in the Bible cherry pick it. And I doubt they've read the whole thing it themselves and only know what they know through sermons or whatever. They take it literal where it's impossible and say it's metaphorical where it's inconvenient for the narrative. Who is to say what is supposed to be taken literally and metaphorically and symbolically.

The words have passed through many mouth and hand. Doesn't it bother you how many times it's been translated, knowing the way stories and myth shift overtime with big fish stories, Chinese whispers and cultural assimilation. The repeating stories and contradictions even in the Gospels . And before the was Bible was conglomerated, there were 100s of different accounts telling of Jesus. How did they pick the right accounts out of 100s and how can they have picked the right accounts when the Bible still has internal contradictions? As recently as Martin Luther, the Bible was being altered. And if it was "the truth" how has is divided people into so many different factions that fought/persecuted/killed each other over it's meaning? Why woul a loving God allowed that. (Though the text shows he's not really loving) There are texts older than the Talmud in India.(The stories of Krishna are very similar to Jesus) With that and any of what I said before? Does that not bother you or hint that the Bible might be wrong?

And just because evolution and science can't anwser everything every in the world in an easy way doesn't mean you should believe in the God of the Gaps. For evolution: just because something isn't directly observable doesn't mean it's not verifiable. If you could only convicted a murder based on eyewitness account, then there'd be a lot murders about. And just because that murder wasn't directly observed doesn't mean all explanations for it are equally plausible. Evidence will weed out bad explanations.

I don't think men with preconceived biblical notions, beholden to believe something without evidence and are threatened with eternal damnation for not believing/doing anything otherwise, are "pure" but biased and with a warp way of looking at things. Their word is as trustworthy as a witness threatened by the mob. And it warps their thinking into a top-down mentality, like thinking like 'how perfectly made these are river-rocks for river' as if they were made for perfectly for the environment when in actuality the environment around rocks shaped them.

But thanks for being civil

@Cease
The Gospel is not a "top down" message but personally received for me.
You have to choose the stories you believe and I personally receive Jonah as literally true as do the Jewish on his book. I take the Bible literally for the most part. It is easier to swallow than some of the "fish stories" inScience for me. It comes down to a matter of Faith and who you believe.
I trust the Word of God.