Noah's Ark was round

[Hantlers]

So atheists should just STFU and religious people should share their exciting news with people who have already had that news shared with them thousands of times?

Not at all what I'm saying. I never said atheists should shut up, they can talk to me about their belief in nothing if they want, I would either say I'm not interested in hearing it, or I would listen and then explain to them my beliefs.

I think everybody has a right to voice what their beliefs are, if prompted.

I really don't think it's that big of a deal. If I don't want to hear somebody talk about it, I just tell them I'm not interested. Usually people go away when you tell them that. No reason to act like a prick because of it. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, normal people aren't too pushy about these types of things.

 

[Gameface]

Not at all what I'm saying. I never said atheists should shut up, they can talk to me about their belief in nothing if they want, I would either say I'm not interested in hearing it, or I would listen and then explain to them my beliefs.

I think everybody has a right to voice what their beliefs are, if prompted.

I really don't think it's that big of a deal. If I don't want to hear somebody talk about it, I just tell them I'm not interested. Usually people go away when you tell them that. No reason to act like a prick because of it. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, normal people aren't too pushy about these types of things.

I believe in all sorts of things, fwiw...and I'm not talking about "science"

 

[One Brow]

I wonder why people like Siromar, Tink, and OneBlow feel the need to discredit someone's faith through their superior mental prowess. Live an let live fellas, who frickin' cares?

Faith is a poor source of knowledge.

However, in this thread, I've only commented on how legends are created and passed on, and not commented on faith at all.

 

[One Brow]

So now were going to believe "according to building instructions on a recently discovered, 4,000-year-old cuneiform clay tablet" that Noah's Ark was "round" RATHER than the detailed instructions given to Noah found in the inspired account of the Bible as to its size, shape, design for light and ventilation, and materials to be used for its construction?—Gen 6:14-16.

Both descriptions, to my understanding, are incompatible with the strength of any known wood. The ships would have had hulls that buckled under the weight.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Faith is a poor source of knowledge.

How do you know that for sure? If there is a God that can communicate with those willing to listen, wouldn't you think that would be the absolute best source for knowledge?

Both descriptions, to my understanding, are incompatible with the strength of any known wood. The ships would have had hulls that buckled under the weight.

So you're saying there's finally rock solid proof of supernatural power? Awesome, may I use you as a reference?

 

[Hantlers]

Faith is a poor source of knowledge.

However, in this thread, I've only commented on how legends are created and passed on, and not commented on faith at all.

Lets say there is a God (I believe there is, you don't, at least I don't think you do), so just for the sake of a discussion, lets just agree there is a God. Why would it make sense for us to understand or even know things on the same level as God? Wouldn't that essentially make it pointless for there to be a God if we knew everything that He knew?

 

[colton]

So right off the bat, can we agree that FAIR is essentially the definition of apologetics?

Sure, the A in FAIR stands for apologetics. But the way you imply it has a negative connotation, I have to say "I don't think the word means what you think it means." /Princess Bride. Apologetics simply means "systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologetics

Second, I suggest you review these various letters that the Smithsonian has sent out to previous inquiries regarding Book of Mormon historicity. While FAIR has posted one version of those letters, they chose only to present the one that is most neutral. If you'd like to review the detailed letter here: https://mit.irr.org/smithsonian-institution-statement-on-book-of-mormon you'll see that the organization has taken a significantly more hostile position than FAIR would have you believe. That position largely reflects the consensus on this subject.

FAIR posted the current statement. The one you posted stopped being used, apparently in response to Sorenson's detailed rebuttal. From the FAIR site cited above: "In 1982 John Sorenson wrote a detailed critique of the Smithsonian piece that was published by FARMS. It pointed out errors of fact and logic in the statement. He revised that in 1995 and included the recommendation that the Smithsonian Institution completely modify their statement to bring it up-to-date scientifically. FARMS officers later conferred with a Smithsonian representative who indicated a willingness to make changes."

That would be fair if the church hadn't explicitly drawn links in all versions of the pre-2006 edition of the Book of Mormon by stating in the introductory page that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of Native Americans.

So the view held by Elder Bruce R. McConkie (author of that introduction page) was indeed shown to be wrong by the DNA evidence, and therefore the church edited the introduction. But how does DNA evidence disprove the current commonly held view?

 

[colton]

Colton, I'm not nearly as vested on this subject as you are given that a) I'm not actually employed by the church and b) I don't take unequivocally anti-church positions. You may recall that in the past two years or so I've taken church-defensive positions regarding 1) allegations of Joseph Smith's fathering of children outside of his marriage to his first wife and 2) arguments related to Joseph Smith's use of guns near the time of his death. That makes my record of church support significantly more mixed than yours.

Sorry, just to reply to a few other points:

a) I wasn't employed by the church when I formed my opinion on this topic.

b) I don't take unequivocally pro-church positions. You may recall that as recently as the post to which you were replying, for example, I mentioned that there are some legitimate things to complain about with regards to the BoM's historicity.

Given that my position regarding historicity reflects what is, BY FAR, the consensus position it is not remotely fair to claim that you can't take that position without being objective about the evidence.

I've no idea how you would even try to get an unbiased consensus scientific position on this topic. But if it were possible, I believe it would be much closer to my previous statement than yours. For reference, my previous statement was: "There are plenty of things that speak to the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon. Of course, there are also things that don't."

 

[One Brow]

How do you know that for sure? If there is a God that can communicate with those willing to listen, wouldn't you think that would be the absolute best source for knowledge?

So you're saying there's finally rock solid proof of supernatural power? Awesome, may I use you as a reference?

I don't see why you would take my statement on "faith", and respond with "a God that can communicate with those willing to listen". To me, they are not the same thing at all.

If there were rock-solid proof the ark existed, yes.

 

[One Brow]

Lets say there is a God (I believe there is, you don't, at least I don't think you do), so just for the sake of a discussion, lets just agree there is a God. Why would it make sense for us to understand or even know things on the same level as God? Wouldn't that essentially make it pointless for there to be a God if we knew everything that He knew?

I'm at a loss at how one takes a statement about faith, and converts it to knowing what some hypothetical God knows. To my understand, faith does not give you the knowledge possessed by this putative God.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I don't see why you would take my statement on "faith", and respond with "a God that can communicate with those willing to listen". To me, they are not the same thing at all.

If there were rock-solid proof the ark existed, yes.

Faith tells me that I am, in fact, being led by God, inspired by the Holy Spirit... that's why.

 

[GVC]

If there is a God that can communicate with those willing to listen, wouldn't you think that would be the absolute best source for knowledge?

Given the frequency of contradictory statements of fact/truth made by people claiming to be led by some god, it strikes me as a terrible source of reliable knowledge. Any omnipotent god would have recognized this long ago, and found a better way to transmit knowledge/truth (you know, like letting people critically examine and analyze the world around them). Any god worth worshiping wouldn't be so concerned about our worship or devotion to small points of doctrine/dogma that are irrelevant to the problems real people/others face today.

Seriously, who the **** cares if Noah's Ark actually existed? What difference does it make?