my own concern of Athiesm

[bosk1]

The fact that you subjectively do not accept it does not render it unacceptable.  I did not provide direct support in that initial post because I did not need to given that the post I was responding to was similarly unsupported.  When asked, one aspect of the argument was in fact fleshed out here:  https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=17654.msg637028#msg637028  Sorry, but I'm not really following you on how this is "not an acceptable argument in a historical debate."

[zerogravityfat]

I have longed developed my views, but one concern that has always lingered in my mind which I have yet to resolve is summarized in this excerpt:

Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality. Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/

The last two sentences especially.  The moment humans developed self-awareness (technically pre-homo sapiens) was the very end of pure atheism, in the sense of "lack of belief."  Are our morals today, truly, that of a pure non-believer? Or the fact that we are living in a world saturated with Abrahamic morals, steeped in Eastern philosophies, providing modern athiests with a understanding perceived to be uniquely original.

Example:  Killing is wrong.  However, our ancestors, the only true athiests, turned an easy eye to it, similarly to primates today.  They would have no qualms to kill to fee their family, yet us modern athiests seem to believe morals are innate in nature.  I do believe so, but when looking at our primate cousins, these morals dissolve so quickly given certain circumstances.

As the author stated, there has never been a human culture without religion.  We can disregard religion and god, but one has to rethink where our modern morals really come from.

Has the fear of eternal damnation permeated the deepest parts of our minds that, even with the lack of god, the general "badness" of the thought lingers....

thoughts?

I think your comparison to other primates is false in the sense that they still have to fight for their food. If we had to fight for our food, we would war and kill for it too, wait a minute, we already do. We call people enemies for whatever resources they have and make up excuses to justify killing them eventhough the bottom line is resources. So, no, we do not have the moral ground we claim we have.

Also, the underlined region saying there are no non-religious cultures only means that every culture struggles and needs an easy out to save them from whatever problems they are facing, it doesn't mean that there is a higher power that every culture just discovers.

[bosk1]

If we had to fight for our food, we would war and kill for it too

Dude, that's uncanny.  You've never even been to my house at dinner time.

[zerogravityfat]

If we had to fight for our food, we would war and kill for it too

Dude, that's uncanny.  You've never even been to my house at dinner time.

whose fault is that?

[bosk1]

[El JoNNo]

Given that at at least two points in history (creation and flood) all living people believed in the one true God, and that Christ was foretold from the beginning, it is no small wonder that later religions (including the Mithras cult) borrowed heavily.  Don't believe everything your high school humanities teacher tells you.

I'm a bit confused to by what you are saying here... Are you saying you believe in the biblical event known as the great flood? If so, why?

[bosk1]

Are you saying you believe in the biblical event known as the great flood? If so, why?

Yes.  As for "why," in part because:
1.  It is recorded in a book that lists so many events and phenomena that can be verified that I have little trouble believing those that cannot be verified.
2.  The occurrence of the flood explains such phenomena as fossils of sea creatures existing at locations thousands of feet above sea level (e.g. the Rocky Mountains), the layering of strata observed at locations such as the Grand Canyon, the petrified forests of Yellowstone, and the vast coal deposits of Kentucky, for example.
3.  The existence of the flood account explains why so many cultures that likely had no exposure to biblical texts later derived flood myths that share commonalities with the Genesis flood account that are beyond coincidence.

[El JoNNo]

Are you saying you believe in the biblical event known as the great flood? If so, why?

Yes.  As for "why," in part because:
1.  It is recorded in a book that lists so many events and phenomena that can be verified that I have little trouble believing those that cannot be verified.
2.  The occurrence of the flood explains such phenomena as fossils of sea creatures existing at locations thousands of feet above sea level (e.g. the Rocky Mountains), the layering of strata observed at locations such as the Grand Canyon, the petrified forests of Yellowstone, and the vast coal deposits of Kentucky.
3.  The existence of the flood account explains why so many cultures that likely had no exposure to biblical texts later derived flood myths that share commonalities with the Genesis flood account.

I would have not expected that you would have believed the story of the flood. I'm not going to rebuttal as it would only result us just going back and forth etc etc.. But I am Curious; what is your explanation for all the animals that did not go extinct? Obviously there is no possible way Noah could have gathered 2 of every species on the planet.

[bosk1]

I'm not going to rebuttal as it would only result us just going back and forth etc etc.

Fair enough.  And it's too time-consuming and has been done to death anyway.  I don't really care to do that either.

Obviously there is no possible way Noah could have gathered 2 of every species on the planet.

How so?  I've seen models showing that, based on the size of the ark, there would be room and room to spare, especially if (and this is just an assumption) some of all were in hibernation during that time.  But of course, it also depends on how we are defining "species" as well.  If, for example, you mean literally every species of sparrow, we are talking about hundreds (or is it thousands?) of sparrows.  Or if you are talking about every breed of dog, we are talking about lots of dogs.  But I don't think that is a necessary assumption given that we can observe variations and mutations that could easily have produced the variety we now see in 2010 from relatively few ancestors just a few thousand years ago. 

[El JoNNo]

I'm not going to rebuttal as it would only result us just going back and forth etc etc.

Fair enough.  And it's too time-consuming and has been done to death anyway.  I don't really care to do that either.

Obviously there is no possible way Noah could have gathered 2 of every species on the planet.

How so?  I've seen models showing that, based on the size of the ark, there would be room and room to spare, especially if (and this is just an assumption) some of all were in hibernation during that time.  But of course, it also depends on how we are defining "species" as well.  If, for example, you mean literally every species of sparrow, we are talking about hundreds (or is it thousands?) of sparrows.  Or if you are talking about every breed of dog, we are talking about lots of dogs.  But I don't think that is a necessary assumption given that we can observe variations and mutations that could easily have produced the variety we now see in 2010 from relatively few ancestors just a few thousand years ago. 

I agree evolution can produce variation in species or even speciation in a relatively short time, but I think this is a stretch. This forum has worn me out on internet debates, I'll simply just disagree lol. Thanks for clarifying.     

[GuineaPig]

The fact that you subjectively do not accept it does not render it unacceptable.  I did not provide direct support in that initial post because I did not need to given that the post I was responding to was similarly unsupported.  When asked, one aspect of the argument was in fact fleshed out here:  https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=17654.msg637028#msg637028  Sorry, but I'm not really following you on how this is "not an acceptable argument in a historical debate."

What I meant Bosk is that the Bible is not an acceptable source as a history, no more than it is an acceptable source for scientific purposes.  Even if you threw out the divine occurrences that you mentioned (the flood, genesis) the Bible is simply not a good historical source to base an argument around, especially if there is a complete lack of outside accounts for the events it presents.  It's impossible to take a historical debate seriously if one person is basing their arguments off unreliable sources. 

[bosk1]

What I meant Bosk is that the Bible is not an acceptable source as a history, no more than it is an acceptable source for scientific purposes. 

Says who?  It is almost universally recognized as a reliable source by both secular and religious historians.

[GuineaPig]

Maybe in 1850.  But historians have been backtracking from Biblical maximalism ever since. 

[El JoNNo]

Oh Bosk no. The flood and now this.

[bosk1]

Maybe in 1850.  But historians have been backtracking from Biblical maximalism ever since. 

Really?  That's interesting.  I had two separate history classes when I was in college (that were not "religious" history courses) that used parts of the Bible as historical sources.  But you're right: the world at large (and the University of California, Berkeley) have become much more enlightened in the past 15 years or so.  Oh, wait--I just did a quick Google search, and I'm getting hits showing that Brown, Fordham, and Harvard currently offer courses that use parts of the Bible as well.  (Jewish history, ancient Rome, and Medieval history)  Quick!  Somebody tell these schools their professors are wrong! 

[GuineaPig]

Maybe in 1850.  But historians have been backtracking from Biblical maximalism ever since. 

Really?  That's interesting.  I had two separate history classes when I was in college (that were not "religious" history courses) that used parts of the Bible as historical sources.  But you're right: the world at large (and the University of California, Berkeley) have become much more enlightened in the past 15 years or so.  Oh, wait--I just did a quick Google search, and I'm getting hits showing that Brown, Fordham, and Harvard currently offer courses that use parts of the Bible as well.  (Jewish history, ancient Rome, and Medieval history)  Quick!  Somebody tell these schools their professors are wrong! 

OK, there's been a bit of a misunderstanding here.  I said the Bible is not an acceptable source as a historical account, which doesn't prevent it from being an incredibly relevant and useful source for the history of Judaism and Christianity, as well as the culture of first century Israel or the many cultural ramifications afterwards.  Of course it's going to be an important part of a Jewish history course, as well as any cultural analysis of a Western society after the 3rd century or so. 

What you can't do is say "The Exodus happened.¹"


1. Because the Bible said so

[bosk1]

GP, I'm generally happy to debate with you because even though we disagree, you make good points.  But you are completely off base on this one.  You absolutely can make that argument, and scholars regularly do.  The book of Exodus is relied on as a historical source by both religious and secular scholars, although as with any historical source (especially ancient ones), you will still have lively debates among scholars about whether or not parts or all of it are actually authentic.  You see the same kinds of debates over Tacitus, Josephus, or any other source.  But, again, several of the books in the Bible are considered recognizable "historical accounts."  When I took an ancient Rome class at Cal, our professor (who is not religious in the slightest) had us read part of the gospel of Luke and Acts, and his position was basically:  "The writer obviously had a religious bent that caused him to misinterpret or misstate some things that he classifies as miracles, but this is a historical source that does in fact record real people, places, and events."  In a secular university, in a class taught by a non-religious professor, those were (rightfully) presented as valid historical sources of information that we as students of history could rely on.  So, yeah, even with the religious aspect removed from the picture for a moment, from a purely historical perspective, I clearly can say, "Yes, I believe the Exodus occurred because it is recorded in great detail in a document that was either comtemporary to the event or composed within a reasonable time afterward by a person or persons who were in a position to know."  Whether or not I believe there is reason to doubt the accuracy of some or all of the source material is valid as well.  But to argue that the Bible is not recognized as an acceptable source of historical account is not the position a lot of scholars would take.

EDIT:  And to tie this into the argument I made above regarding Mithras, it is perfectly valid in that regard as well.  Again, even looking at the books of the Bible from a secular perspective, looking at the timeline of when the books were likely written and the things they said about the coming "messiah," whether one believes there would really be a messiah or not, it is easy to see that those books and how they developed within the context of Jewish history is a much more likely explanation for how Christianity developed than "oh, they ripped it off from the cult of Mithras LOL."

[GuineaPig]

GP, I'm generally happy to debate with you because even though we disagree, you make good points.  But you are completely off base on this one.  You absolutely can make that argument, and scholars regularly do.  The book of Exodus is relied on as a historical source by both religious and secular scholars, although as with any historical source (especially ancient ones), you will still have lively debates among scholars about whether or not parts or all of it are actually authentic.  You see the same kinds of debates over Tacitus, Josephus, or any other source.  But, again, several of the books in the Bible are considered recognizable "historical accounts."  When I took an ancient Rome class at Cal, our professor (who is not religious in the slightest) had us read part of the gospel of Luke and Acts, and his position was basically:  "The writer obviously had a religious bent that caused him to misinterpret or misstate some things that he classifies as miracles, but this is a historical source that does in fact record real people, places, and events."  In a secular university, in a class taught by a non-religious professor, those were (rightfully) presented as valid historical sources of information that we as students of history could rely on.  So, yeah, even with the religious aspect removed from the picture for a moment, from a purely historical perspective, I clearly can say, "Yes, I believe the Exodus occurred because it is recorded in great detail in a document that was either comtemporary to the event or composed within a reasonable time afterward by a person or persons who were in a position to know."  Whether or not I believe there is reason to doubt the accuracy of some or all of the source material is valid as well.  But to argue that the Bible is not recognized as an acceptable source of historical account is not the position a lot of scholars would take.

EDIT:  And to tie this into the argument I made above regarding Mithras, it is perfectly valid in that regard as well.  Again, even looking at the books of the Bible from a secular perspective, looking at the timeline of when the books were likely written and the things they said about the coming "messiah," whether one believes there would really be a messiah or not, it is easy to see that those books and how they developed within the context of Jewish history is a much more likely explanation for how Christianity developed than "oh, they ripped it off from the cult of Mithras LOL."

I probably wasn't as clear as I should've been on my previous two posts.  Different books of the Bible are of course viewed differently by scholars with regards to historicity, and I whitewashed it a little.  I agree that there are most definitely debates over the veracity of the information of many early scholars (I'm actually procrastinating right now over an essay on historic sources in the early Roman Republic), and that the farther back you go, the hazier things become.  That being said, in the initial post I objected to, you seemed to use the Bible as a source for theories that simply have no standing in the academic community.  Even if one could justify the historicity of the Bible in a very limited sense, it still doesn't gift the rest with historicity.  Right now, scholars believe Exodus was written at the earliest in mid-6th century B.C.E., which doesn't exactly follow with your "contemporary" assessment.  Besides that, there is an almost complete absence of archaeological/historical evidence outside of the Bible; there's a reason the majority of scholars think it's about as historical as Romulus and Remus.  And even the Exodus is far from the most far-fetched thing claimed by the Bible.

[bosk1]

I probably wasn't as clear as I should've been on my previous two posts.  Different books of the Bible are of course viewed differently by scholars with regards to historicity, and I whitewashed it a little.  

Okay, fair enough.  

I agree that there are most definitely debates over the veracity of the information of many early scholars (I'm actually procrastinating right now over an essay on historic sources in the early Roman Republic), and that the farther back you go, the hazier things become.  

Sounds like fun!  (seriously)

Even if one could justify the historicity of the Bible in a very limited sense, it still doesn't gift the rest with historicity.  

In the abstract, that is true.  And I think we've been over why I believe the rest is historically accurate as well, and we don't necessarily have to hash that out here.

Right now, some scholars believe Exodus was written at the earliest in mid-6th century B.C.E., which doesn't exactly follow with your "contemporary" assessment.  

From my own experience and research, I simply cannot agree with that sentence as you posted it.  But with my correction above, yes, you are right that some scholars ascribe a much later date.  The arguments I have seen for doing so are not pursuasive to me.  But that's fine.  

Besides that, there is an almost complete absence of archaeological/historical evidence outside of the Bible; there's a reason the majority of scholars think it's about as historical as Romulus and Remus.  And even the Exodus is far from the most far-fetched thing claimed by the Bible.

Depends which event you are talking about.  I assume you are, again, making a statement that comes across as a lot more general than you intend it to.  There are literally tons and tons of archaelogical evidence of some events recorded in the Bible (as well as other evidence, such as extra-Biblical historical evidence).  For other events, you are correct, there is a dearth of discovered evidence outside the text.  Again, it depends which even you are talking about.

[Odysseus]

More likely scenario:

The earliest people alive understood and practiced monotheism entirely and worshipped the one true God, and over time as people rebelled and created their own systems of worship and non-worship, they incorporated a lot of those same beliefs into their own belief systems and changed/perverted/or simply forgot the origins.  Given that at at least two points in history (creation and flood) all living people believed in the one true God, and that Christ was foretold from the beginning, it is no small wonder that later religions (including the Mithras cult) borrowed heavily.  Don't believe everything your high school humanities teacher tells you.

Cobblers.  Monotheism didn't rock up in any meaningful way until proto-Judaism.  Don't believe anything a fundie tells you - their beliefs were created by bronze age goatherds - you get what you pay for....
Nobody said Christianity is a straight rip from Mithras. Mithras was an Indo-Persian import dating from around the time of the Zoroastrian reformation, thought of to be around 7th to 4th century BC, 600BC being spoken of as very likely.  Only in the 1st century CE did the Mithraic cult become particularly popular with the military, almost becoming like a form of freemasonry within the army, but died out one Theodocius had made Christianity the official state religion.
There is little wonder that the worship of Mithra was regarded as a threat to Christianity, especially since it was so widespread. It is not surprising then that Christianity adopted many aspects of the Mithra religion; such as treating Sunday as holy; making 25 December a special day; having a deity born on Earth who looked after man even after ascending to the heavens, where he continued to look down over all, especially his followers, promising them protection in the afterlife. There are many aspects of the Mithra religion that Christianity adopted, but they drew a line at sacrificing bulls in their rites, not surprisingly.
  Borrowing  from pre-existing has a long tradition in Judaeo Christian scripture, as it is a proven way of drawing in new believers by using well known and loved stories, motifs etc.  The Book of Genesis is the most obvious example of this.

Are you saying you believe in the biblical event known as the great flood? If so, why?

Yes.  As for "why," in part because:
1.  It is recorded in a book that lists so many events and phenomena that can be verified that I have little trouble believing those that cannot be verified.

Go on then...
You don't question anything then?....

2.  The occurrence of the flood explains such phenomena as fossils of sea creatures existing at locations thousands of feet above sea level (e.g. the Rocky Mountains), the layering of strata observed at locations such as the Grand Canyon, the petrified forests of Yellowstone, and the vast coal deposits of Kentucky, for example.

Fold mountains and other geological processes... Jeez...

3.  The existence of the flood account explains why so many cultures that likely had no exposure to biblical texts later derived flood myths that share commonalities with the Genesis flood account that are beyond coincidence.

The flood account was nicked form the Epic Of Gilgamesh when the hero was called Utnapishtim rather than Noah.  The only difference was the change from many gods to one god. During the polytheistic years, the pantheon of gods was seen as a reflection of what was happening on Earth, and so the Gods argued and bickered and had many of the same qualities as humans.   Proto-Judaic monotheism changed that - there was now one god, one authority and only room for one opinion.  As described above, religions usually having a sense of mission, the best way to convert the great unwashed shambling herd to your new version of Bronze Age woo is to use exactly the same stories and rework them into a new framework.  Ditto for tree of knowledge, tree of life, breath of god into man, man created from dust yadda yadda...
In a subsistence society, your main fears are going to be flood, drought, famine, plague... no big surprise that many of the stories are going to contain these themes.

...and for no extra charge.... let's have a look at some other jolly episodes from the good book *cough*
Kill Sons of Sinners
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
God Will Kill Children
The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
Kill Men, Women, and Children
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
God Kills all the First Born of Egypt
And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)
Kill Old Men and Young Women
"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)
(Note that after God promises the Israelites a victory against Babylon, the Israelites actually get their butts kicked by them in the next chapter. So much for an all-knowing and all-powerful God.)
God Will Kill the Children of Sinners
If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
More Rape and Baby Killing
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

nice one, Yahweh... spread the lurve!

[Perpetual Change]

GP and Jonno, you're completely wrong on this!

The Bible is, indeed, an "ancient historical document." It contains writings supposedly from a time period where there are very few, if any, other writings available. Are the events recorded in the Bible unquestionably true, from a historical perspective? Of course not.  But keep in mind that ANY document of the Bible's nature is of EXTREME historical importance, and bound to influence the great majority of historical investigation of the time period it supposes to represent.

Besides that, there is an almost complete absence of archaeological/historical evidence outside of the Bible;

This is precisely what makes it so important! How much archeological evidence do you have from the ancient Jewish civilization? Not much? How many other documents which are supposedly from the time period the Old Testament covers? Even less?

Point being, why would you ignore literally all there is in terms of historical evidence from the place and time of the The Bible?  Are people really so sour about Christianity that they'd rather rather think it's entirely made up and based on no true historical events? Seems silly to me.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I just want to chime in concerning the great flood. The ancient Mesopotamian civilizations talked about a great flood in some of their writings/engravings/etc.

The great flood probably existed. Whether or not two of every animal was rounded up on an ark is debatable though

[GuineaPig]

GP and Jonno, you're completely wrong on this!

The Bible is, indeed, an "ancient historical document." It contains writings supposedly from a time period where there are very few, if any, other writings available. Are the events recorded in the Bible unquestionably true, from a historical perspective? Of course not.  But keep in mind that ANY document of the Bible's nature is of EXTREME historical importance, and bound to influence the great majority of historical investigation of the time period it supposes to represent.

Besides that, there is an almost complete absence of archaeological/historical evidence outside of the Bible;

This is precisely what makes it so important! How much archeological evidence do you have from the ancient Jewish civilization? Not much? How many other documents which are supposedly from the time period the Old Testament covers? Even less?

Point being, why would you ignore literally all there is in terms of historical evidence from the place and time of the The Bible?  Are people really so sour about Christianity that they'd rather rather think it's entirely made up and based on no true historical events? Seems silly to me.

I'm confused.  Did you gloss over my posts?  I tried to do my best to distinguish why, in my view, the Bible an extremely important historical artifact, while at the same time not a particularly useful text as a historical account for much of the time periods it covers.

The specific quote you took from my posts was robbed of its context; it was referring specifically to the Exodus, which the consensus among modern scholars considers non-historical.  Of course there won't be any archaeological evidence outside of the Bible if there was never a significant Hebrew population in Egypt.

And I don't think it's completely made up.  Read my posts again; I tried very hard to get the point across that I don't consider the Bible a worthless text, let alone completely non-historical.  





@PlaysLikeMyung

Floods are very common in myths.  It's a symbolically powerful device, and one that Mesopotamian civilizations suffered from a lot

But more to the point, a global flood would leave undeniable geologic evidence.  Skipping the point that it would be impossible to round up all the species on Earth, even accounting for some level of speciation, a global flood would leave such an indelible mark any geologist who denied it would be labeled a crackpot.  We can pretty accurately reconstruct sea level rises/changes along with continental drift over the past billion or so years simply because the geologic markers of sea level rise/fall are so obvious. 

Not to mention obvious genetic, historic, archaeological, and other signs that would be left by such an event.

[Perpetual Change]

How is something that stands as the only historical account for some of the time periods and certainly the community it covers not important?

[GuineaPig]

How is something that stands as the only historical account for some of the time periods and certainly the community it covers not important?

I'm not saying the Bible's not important.  I'm saying that the Bible is not a useful historical source for arguing that the Exodus occurred, as it is completely unsupported by historical and archaeological research into Egypt's history.

[Odysseus]

 The bible is certainly an important document in that it tells us of the worldview of a number of people in the middle east hundreds of years ago, and it has influenced much of western society, for good or ill, for a long time. One thing that needs to be borne in mind is that one of the functions of religion is as a social control tool.  Given the time and context in which these texts were written, that not unreasonable.  What is unreasonable is to expect people to try and accept a bronze age worldview and 'morality' in the 21st century.  A quick look at Leviticus alone will illustrate the futility of this.
  

 Our current time and situation is worlds apart from the time and place in which the biblical texts were written 2000 years ago and beyond.  Biblical literalism is intellectually dishonest and doomed to failure in a world that has moved on beyond all recognition.  A problem of religion is that people confuse the message of morality with the literal belief in the characters that illustrated the message itself.  If you take a popular myth such as 'The boy Who Cried Wolf', you don't need a literal belief that the boy existed in order to understand the message contained in the story.  Trouble is... if that became canon in one of the main religions, you can bet your ass that there would be some bunch of hysterical, swivel-eyed fundie idiots who would take great pleasure in screaming with manic relish about the fires of hell awaiting those who don't accept that the boy existed in real life.  Way to miss the point.


If people want to believe ancient myths, then I guess that is ok... whatever gets you through the night and all that, as long as it doesn't get inflicted on others.   I'm not going to try and take it away from them, but I can't help wondering what sort of thought process, if any, got them to that point.  I'd say that most people reach it through one or more of three ways:

Tradition: we've always believed it
Authority: Mom, Dad, teacher, Father O'Feely, Pastor Cletus said we gotta believe it
Revelation:  I feel that it is true


Tradition and authority aren't necessarily a good reason to believe evidence-free religious propositions.  Revelation is more interesting - if I walked into your house and said "your sister is dead", the first question would be about how I know this - have I seen a body or an accident involving her?  If I said, "Well...no, but I just feel that it is true" then you would be justifiably pissed off.  Strange how some people demend evidence in certain situations but not in others.


Human egotism has a lot to answer for.  There are a great many people that simply do not like the idea that the world can get along quite nicely without them.  Furthermore, many people demand that there be an ultimate purpose to their existence, demand to know and understand what that purpose is, and in many cases demand that they themselves ought to be central to that purpose.  Given the unprecedented resources and opportunities at out disposal in 21st century western civilisation, I feel that recourse to superstition in the hope of some sort of afterlife is strangely disappointing, and only diminishes the life we have now.  
But that's just me. Eveyone's different I guess......

[Philawallafox]

I'll answer when I wake up.

[Bombardana]

Has the fear of eternal damnation permeated the deepest parts of our minds that, even with the lack of god, the general "badness" of the thought lingers....

No.



kthx.