Pat Robertson’s flood (OF LIES!)

Pat Robertson famously claimed that the Christian god caused Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent aftermath of flooding, destruction, property and lives lost because of legalized abortion, debauchery, Mardi Gras, and “exposed breasts.” In other words, his god caused a massive flood which killed many because it was angry with a few. Sound familiar?

Yet most people reject Robertson’s claims as nothing more than spiteful and bigoted.

What if the Noah’s Ark account is just a 3,000-year-old exaggeration of a Pat Robertson-esque quote?

I have a zero tolerance for sanctimonious morons who try to scare people.

-Pat Robertson

Thanks Holly for the great title of this post!

Morality and the Bible

This was originally meant to be a brief little blurb, but then I just kept typing. Anyway, here it is. Today’s episode of Atheist Dave, titled Morality and the Bible:

Do you subscribe to the “moral code” laid forth in the Bible?

Do you acknowledge the fact that the Bible not only condones slavery in multiple passages, but even encourages it at times?

Do you acknowledge the fact that several parts of the Bible show the Judeo-Christian god committing or endorsing mass genocide?

Do you agree that slavery, murder, and especially genocide are morally wrong? Do you sometimes find yourself saying things like “Yes, but that’s not how the world is anymore. Things were different back then“? This is called grasping for straws. That’s fine, though – you’re right – the world isn’t like that anymore. Yes, there’s still genocide and slavery going on in some parts of the world, but on a much smaller scale, and we both agree that they shouldn’t be – that humanity is better than that. Right?


What you’ve just proven is that your morality exists outside of your religious beliefs. Your morality is not dependent upon your religion, or upon a book that was written thousands of years ago. You can still say “Okay, so the Bible teaches some pretty good lessons sometimes, but these other things in it are bad.”

Your next step is to discover that if everything in the Bible really is true – if it really is the word of some sky god – then regardless of your set of moral beliefs, this god still endorses slavery and genocide and lets rapists get off easy, unless you agree that a rapist’s punishment should simply be that he marry the woman he raped. Your next step is to realize that even if the god of the Bible exists (whom we’ll give male properties to, to make it easier), then he’s not such a great guy. He flooded the world, killing countless children, infants, and animals, to punish the fact that there were a lot of bad people. Would you burn down an entire forest just to kill the murderer hiding in it?

“Oh, but he regretted it,” you might say. That raises another question: how does a so-called “perfect” god do things he’ll regret later? Anyway, it doesn’t matter. If he exists and what the Bible says is true, then he killed everything. That’s not the sort of thing you look at and say, “Well, as long as you’re sorry…”

Let’s use the story of Lot. Lot lived in Sodom and was saved because he was the only “good” person in the entire city. Apparently god still saw evil in the rest of the city (including the children) and figured they deserved to die. Not to mention, when a bunch of men were about to rape a couple angels Lot sent out his daughters for them to rape instead. And yet the entire family was saved. Except Lot’s wife – as the city was burning, she turned around to look and god killed her. Afterward, Lot’s daughters got him drunk and then essentially raped him, became impregnated by their own father, and each bore a son.

It that how god judges good character? To me, and to most rational people who look at the story of Lot without the context of it being in the Bible, the story is nothing more than obscene. Please tell me this is not where you gather your moral standards. This book has a few good messages, sure, but so do most books – Aesop’s Fables teach wonderful moral lessons but you don’t believe animals can talk like people, do you?

Oh wait, there was that snake in the garden at the beginning of the story.

Long story short, morality is just another product of evolution and even you (not you, you – over there – the religious one) didn’t get yours from a book.

Why do we have fish?

…and other questions about Noah’s flood for the layman.

What did the animals eat?
Sure, Noah took two of every species on his ark. As if that’s not believable enough, how did all the animals survive? Some animals have a very particular diet: they’ll only eat certain plants, grasses, berries, or other animals.

What did the vegetarian animals eat? Did Noah also bring plants, trees, grass, nuts, fruits, and berries on the ark? Did he remember to bring eucalyptus for the koalas and bamboo for the pandas?

What about the carnivores? Surely an animal such as the lion would require more than two antelope to survive for five months. Speaking of that, why do we still have antelope if the lions ate them on the ark?

Did Noah also take fish on the ark with him?
If not, why do we have such an abundance (80%-ish) of sea life on the planet? A worldwide flood that covered the tops of all the mountains would have severely offset the saline level in the ocean, killing all the saltwater species. Likewise, as the ocean’s salt water and the land’s fresh water met and mixed, all of the freshwater species would have died.

We would have a mass extinction of approximately 80% of all life on earth in the geologic record taking place only 6,000 years ago. This is not the case. We would have only very few (if any) species adapted to a strictly aquatic life. As the ocean is earth’s most life-abundant biome, that is clearly also not the case.

Why are there trees?
And grass, and bushes, and ferns? No plant could survive being drowned for five months (fact-check that if you’d like; there may be some that can – I’m no botanist). Unless Noah also included some of every type of vegetation on his cruise, a worldwide flood would have killed off all (or most) of the species of plant life on earth to the point of extinction. And yet in no time at all after the flood waters abated, a raven managed to find an olive tree in bloom. This would not have been the case. Six thousand years is not enough time for all the plant life on earth to re-evolve to where it is now.

Why is there still life?
With all the plant life extinct, all of the vegetarian animals who relied on plants would then go the way of vegetation and sea-life, followed by the carnivores and finally, humans. We’re talking about a global mass extinction here, consisting of 99% of all species on earth. You wouldn’t be here, I wouldn’t be here, the berries that became my coffee wouldn’t be here, there wouldn’t be a beautiful tree standing outside my window, and the lawn wouldn’t be neatly trimmed.

Editor’s note: my wife has explained to me that the animals on Noah’s ark packed their own lunches, and the carnivores depended on a diet of  “tofurkey.