Well I Never...

A small collection of religious thingies

 

 

On Noah...

Noah's ark is stated as being 300 X 50 X 30 cubits in size. A cubit is roughly the length of the forearm. (Well, my dictionary says it is). Do the sums yourself, and work it out, in reality, how many animals could be squeezed onto such a small vessel? A few hundred thousand small ones - certainly not the required twenty million plus (I am assuming that only two of each animal were taken aboard and not fourteen of the clean and two of the unclean). I reckon that the required transport would have to be much larger than any modern international zoo by several orders of magnitude. The food alone for an extended sea voyage would take up more space than the gathered menagerie. How would such a large wooden vessel stand up to the incredible stresses of all the large land mammals. And their food?
I'm Noah the sailor man...

It is a question of perception. The writers of that part of the Old Testament were victims of the era in which they lived. To those persons, the world in which they lived would seem vast; even though their collective geographical experience would only stretch to a few hundred square miles, because they couldn't travel very fast or far. Yet to us, in the 21st century that same region would seem relatively small. The Noah story writers were expressing all that they could in terms of what was available to them and the biggest vessel they could comprehend for the purposes of their tale was that inadequate size. The Noah writers would only have a perception of a few hundred different species of non-humans, it would be perfectly acceptable to them to be able to place all the species that they knew of into the biggest boat that they could comprehend. But we know otherwise.

Let's assume the story of Noah is true. Why are there no marsupials indigenous to the middle east? Or pandas? How did Noah and his family discover all the land species on the planet? We haven't found them all yet - not even in the 21st century. Why is there no mention of the other vessel he would have had to build - in or next to the Mediterranean sea - to go and get the animals that could only be found on a voyage of super-human, epic proportions. Again we couldn't do that - even today.

 

 

On Adam...

In Genesis 2:19-20 God brings all the creatures of the world before Adam to name them. A particularly arduous and time consuming task considering God's considerable liking for beetles. Allowing, say, five minutes for each little naming ceremony for each of the (approximately) ten million species and an average working day of eight hours, how long would the whole process have taken? I'll tell you - nearly forty years, and that is without holidays, weekends, time off for meals and comfort breaks, leg stretching and head scratching. How the hell* could Adam have possibly named such a variety of creatures when he didn't even know the difference between good and evil!? His vocabulary must have been humongous - much greater than anyone alive today! I have confronted Jehovah's Witnesses on these points - they just stared back at me blankly and umm'd and ahh'd. They had no explanation that confirmed their religious belief, yet were unable to admit that the rational explanation (that it did not happen, that it could not possibly have happened) was possible. They were unable to tell me if the animals paraded before Adam included dinosaurs.

* "Hell" in this instance is used as an expletive - not as an acknowledgement of any theistic belief.

 

 

On Adam...(II)

Adam speaks in GEN 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

At this point in the creation myth Adam would have no conception of a mother. He and Eve were the only two people on the planet, and at that point had not procreated.

 

 

On Adam...(III)

Why were Adam and Eve not content with apples, pears, bananas, plums, oranges, melons, strawberries, lemons, limes, satsumas, raspberries, sloes, cucumbers, blackcurrants, pumpkins, peaches, mangos, papayas, apricots, damsons, aubergines, gourds, persimmons, guavas, olives, oleasters, blackberries, pomegranates, elderberries, kiwi fruit, grapes, ugli fruit, loganberries, vanilla pods, tamarinds, lychees, gooseberries, chestnuts, redcurrants, sultanas, tomatoes, cherries, avocados, blueberries, grapefruit, pineapples, greengages, cranberries, prunes, quinces, rhubarb, figs, cumquats, passion fruit, mulberries and dates? (Help with additions to this list are most welcome! And yes, I know that rhubarb isn't a fruit.)

 

 

On Death...

I am perplexed - why, when we witness a Christian burial, do the attending throng seem to be so unhappy and If only we could dance on his grave!distressed? Surely when a devout Christian dies, their relations and good Christian friends should be cock-a-hoop with happiness in the knowledge that the deceased has gone to where they wanted to be all along, the departing 'soul' is off to the best thing that could possibly happen to anyone, ever. They should be wearing their best party frocks and such-like, not sombre black suits. Christians should be overtly proclaiming a festive celebration for their departed loved ones at the funerals they attend, with the officiating priest wearing a party hat, a colourful spinning bow tie, blowing into one of those paper trumpet things and handing out party poppers. But they don't. They are not practising what they preach. Or could it be that deep down they don't really believe that Woo Hoo!there is a nice heaven to go to, that there really is no everlasting life, that there is no god ready and waiting for them to participate in eternal bliss? That in reality, there is no one watching over us? Christians believe that Heaven is a fantastic, wonderful, loving, eternal place - I don't see too many trying to get there early.

Personally, I do get sad and distressed at funerals. I have a right - I am an Atheist - I know that death is the end of personal experience. I know that I will never see the deceased again and that they have departed forever. For me, there is an empty space that cannot be filled, hence the sadness.

 

 

On Death...(II)

It came to me a while ago, in the twentieth century, if you will. I sometimes like to watch the Discovery Channel on satellite TV. One evening, maybe two years ago there was a program roughly detailing the training that American fighter pilots are needed to endure. As well as the meteorological, theoretical and practical (and all sorts of other) training, the trainee pilots portrayed were also subjected to high G-force training in a giant military centrifuge. Those that lost consciousness, reported that they whilst they were unaware of their true situation they were conscious of a bright, white light approaching them. This was attributed to a lack of blood flowing up and into the brain.

I will again say that I am no scholar, and have only an average education. But it occurred to me that those people that say they have experienced the 'light at the end of the tunnel' when in a near death medical situation are experiencing exactly the same thing, a lack of oxygen to the brain due to some sort of trauma. But, being steeped in mystery and religion, portray the event as almost getting into heaven or some other nonsense. This led me to formulate the following, and whilst I agree it is nothing more than mere speculation on my part, seems to make quite good sense.

What if the brain - when death is imminent - makes the moment of death as pleasant as possible for the dying individual? A gradual shutting down of the thought system, a pleasant feeling induced by internal chemical process(es) due to a lack of oxygenated blood flowing into the brain? A perfectly natural, evolved and ordered event.

I have not studied death at all, but to know that my own system will shut me down in a not too unpleasant fashion heartens me in the sure knowledge that there is no life after death.

Of death itself, I have no fear whatsoever, I suspect that is not unlike being asleep, but not dreaming - quite nice really. Just like before I was born. Nevertheless the manner of my exit does give me cause for concern. A car crash, cancer, a fundamentalist bomb, none of them pleasant. Maybe I'll get lucky and die in my sleep. It is possible that I may die as the result of a protracted illness, or such like. If I still have my wits about me, I have every intention of proclaiming by beliefs, prior to my demise, somewhat in the manner of Robert G. Ingersoll (see below). Thank goodness I have no Christian theistic belief - right up to last moment of my conscious life I would have no sure knowledge of where I was 'going', a 50/50 chance, and the possibility of eternal hellfire, excruciating pain and damnation would be with me to the end. Ouch.

Oh yes, and by the way, I will now put it on record that if possible, I would like my body, after I have died (but please double-check first!) to be used by first year medical students in their anatomical studies. Should my request be granted, I hope that they have a bloody good laugh when they first fold back the big white sheet. And maybe learn a thing or two as they poke, prod, cut, slice, open, spread, lift and separate the bodily parts that were once Martin James Burn, English atheist.

 

 

"In the presence of death I affirm and reaffirm the truth of all that I have said against the superstitions of the world. I would say that much on the subject with my last breath."
Robert G. Ingersoll


Back

© Copyright Martin J Burn 2000