First of all, by ‘Great Flood’, you seem to be implying a world flood as far as I and most are concerned who use the term. Certainly there were likely great big floods here and there for various reasons. But these aren’t the same thing. Also, even if temporary local flooding due to tsunamis were a possible supporting candidate for flood myths, these stories are everywhere at all times and places supporting different religious stories. Either way, any flooding has much more natural explanations than mystical ones of any particular religious claim.
Ages of people in ancient times are just as likely to come from the passing on of the lunar age of a person rather than the annual one. Noah’s claimed age is likely to have been originally a reference to 900 moons or months. 900/12 = 75 years old. Soil is a mix of past living organisms and various grounded rock from river or other water erosion silt. Normally, the land gets its living stuff from the very things growing on it. But if everyone is eating or consuming it, where could the soil get it’s new living stuff to keep the soil black (good)? If it is not continuously replenished, eventually their will be no good soil left. Therefore, you get desert.
What I have read is about a Great Flood that they say effected every civilization around the world. The flood of 2807 affected the weather in Mexico and South America too.
And the silt layers instead of being a tenth of an inch are several feet thick in areas. Reports of 8 to 11 feet in Ur.
And yes, Noah could have been 75, but then that would mean they were missing records for years in the linage of man. My understanding is they wanted to show relationship going back to Adam. In other words the 900 was not about math, it was about loss of the names of people and history after the flood.
Thevillageatheist Post #119
I am not saying it flooded in Egypt other than rain. But it rained so hard after the whatever (Burckle Impact). That the method of building changed from mud to stone. Not just in the big structures but also in the smaller ones too.
I need to check out the Ebla tablet, I remember not only reading the Ur was next to the ocean but there was a map with the theory showing the old coast line. I looked on the web and just grabbed the first one that came up. Maps 2: History - Ancient Period
This all made sense to me, because the only items I can add are reason. And it is reasonable if was by the ocean or a delta. Looking at all large cities of the time. They were all located next to rivers or a good fresh water source. And many next to rivers and oceans, fish for food and water for transportation. Deltas supplied a resource of birds for food.
Ur had none of these items; it went against all building at the time unless the theory is correct that a large delta was close by and got filled in by the flood.
I remember having trouble with the theory because of the distance in involved. But it was the theorist idea that there was this huge shallow mud delta from Ur to the ocean. And looking at the Mississippi and Nile delta, and then calling up the depth maps of the Persian Gulf, I could see the delta was much different.
The elevation of Ur is twenty feet. Just above high tide storm surge levels if the delta or ocean was close by.
Now I know what today’s history is telling us. But you tell me, Ur today could not feed twenty people, how did it ever feed 65K?
The flooding of the Euphrates is not like the Nile that leaves deposits of fertile soil.
So this whole concept of the canals is good. And history says they used canals, and fine with me. But the land over time would have gotten depleted. Ask any farmer, rotation of crops help but, you need fertilizer to farm. Otherwise there would have been cities of millions of people living in the Euphrates Valley.
Off subject, I was reading about the ancient farming in the Amazon River area. Flooded each year but no fertilizer to be able to grow enough food for any size of population. But now they are learning that the natives knew this and used methods of farming to compensate for this problem. So the very first reports may have been correct that there were large populations in the Amazon.
I am not saying it flooded in Egypt other than rain. But it rained so hard after the whatever (Burckle Impact). That the method of building changed from mud to stone. Not just in the big structures but also in the smaller ones too.
I need to check out the Ebla tablet, I remember not only reading the Ur was next to the ocean but there was a map with the theory showing the old coast line. I looked on the web and just grabbed the first one that came up. http://web.cocc.edu/cagatucci/classes/hum213/Maps/Maps2HistoryAncient.htm
I'm still having trouble highlighting quoted material so I'll break this up into separate posts. Referencing Egypt, if there was a "great inundation" flooding the whole of the area then Egyptian scribes would have recorded it as hieroglyphics were used during and after the date you cited yet no great flood is mentioned. As to the Burckle hypothesis, it hasn't been accurately dated to that period as yet so you're jumping to conclusions here as there is no archeological evidence that I know of linking a mega tsunami to changing mediums in Egypt. In fact Egyptians were still building mud structures through the Ptolemaic period and beyond. Stone was always reserved for religious and secular structures but you could call a palace a temple of sorts as the pharaoh was considered divine.
And yes there is evidence that UR was considered a coastal city at one time but due to river silting it is now located farther inland. It was a major trading city and extensive records have been found on cuneiform tablets from libraries uncovered there. Once again, outside of the Epic, where is a record of a great flood? The Mesopotamian plain flooded quite often, in fact like the Nile, the Sumerians relied on it. That's why so many cities sprang up there, good for grain production.
This all made sense to me, because the only items I can add are reason. And it is reasonable if was by the ocean or a delta. Looking at all large cities of the time. They were all located next to rivers or a good fresh water source. And many next to rivers and oceans, fish for food and water for transportation. Deltas supplied a resource of birds for food.
Ur had none of these items; it went against all building at the time unless the theory is correct that a large delta was close by and got filled in by the flood.
I remember having trouble with the theory because of the distance in involved. But it was the theorist idea that there was this huge shallow mud delta from Ur to the ocean. And looking at the Mississippi and Nile delta, and then calling up the depth maps of the Persian Gulf, I could see the delta was much different.
Except that you can't look to reason, only archeological and geological facts. And yes all cities during the predynastic period were located along water sources for travel, food and trade but they don't have to be exactly on the water. It is in fact a pattern world wide. The industrial revolution ended the need in the 19th Century. BTW Ur now is roughly nine miles from the mouth of the Euphrates and at one time was closer to the mouth, hence it's location on a delta. Deltas silt up as ours is presently doing and has been since the Civil War. What made Ur a large city was its location on the trade route down the river, same as Memphis, Thebes or New Orleans. The silting was due to sediments being carried down by periodic flooding caused by mountain runoff from melting snow
.
The elevation of Ur is twenty feet. Just above high tide storm surge levels if the delta or ocean was close by.
Now I know what today’s history is telling us. But you tell me, Ur today could not feed twenty people, how did it ever feed 65K?
The flooding of the Euphrates is not like the Nile that leaves deposits of fertile soil.
So this whole concept of the canals is good. And history says they used canals, and fine with me. But the land over time would have gotten depleted. Ask any farmer, rotation of crops help but, you need fertilizer to farm. Otherwise there would have been cities of millions of people living in the Euphrates Valley.
Off subject, I was reading about the ancient farming in the Amazon River area. Flooded each year but no fertilizer to be able to grow enough food for any size of population. But now they are learning that the natives knew this and used methods of farming to compensate for this problem. So the very first reports may have been correct that there were large populations in the Amazon.
You'd have to study the ancient farming practices of Mespoptamia to get a handle on this, I suggest the "Sumerian Farmer's Almanac" a how to book from a father to his son. It's pretty revealing of Sumerian farming methods. And yes they used extensive canal systems to water their crops but they also raised sheep, goats and cattle for meat. What you've left out of the equation is the advent of a series of crippling wars that decimated the population as well beginning with Sargon the Great and ending with the final Persian conquest before Alexander. Also climate changes expanding deserts and drying up rivers and streams didn't help either.
As to Amazonian farming practices, Charles Mann's book "1491" gives a detailed explanation of Amazonian settlement and farming practices. It's a good read too. What decimated native populations in the Western Hemisphere was a series of diseases spread by white contact. Mann cites this as having the greatest impact on Native settlements and the fact that they caused their own droughts by burning off the vegetation to create cities.
Cap't Jack
Thevillageatheist Post #122
Flooding does not always mean good farming. If it did the Mississippi River Valley would be a farming hot spot in the world of farming.
Different types of floods will deposit different types and sizes of silt.
You had three types of buildings in Egypt. Mud, Reed and stone. Egyptians were the masters of the reed building.
Mud and reed was fast. Stone was expensive and took years. My thinking is that the stone building was the welfare system of Egypt.
Say you booze it up and spent all you money, now there is no work until the upcoming harvest. You could get a loan but your credit is no good. What are you going to do? Go to the temple and ask for handouts? Egypt had good food and good beer and wine. So there might be more guys who did the same as you and are looking for a handout too.
I think the temple building system was more of a welfare program to put the unemployed to work in hard times. Therefore the size and difficultly of the job did not matter.
We do the same thing in the US today. The defense building or the Arms Race was not about weapons. It was a welfare system. The contracts always went to areas in the US that had bad economy conditions. That is why every major contractor in the US has seven major plants. For the seven economic zones. Economy slowed up, the Arms Race contracts picked up. If we ended up with a plane or tank that was good, but the idea was economical only. Look at Egypt, the temples were spread out too. Same thing.
All I am saying is after the 40 days of rain the temples decided to use more stone, they could afford it and there was no hurry in the building of the projects.
The first recorded labor strike in history was in Egypt during the building of a pyramid.
The laborers regularly used garlic as a ingredient to their food. It had supposedly all kind s of beneficial properties, including warding off evils. Apparently at some point there was a shortage of rations and the regular portions of garlic were cut. This was unacceptable and the laborers went on strike, which was duly recorded by the pharao’s scribe.
and
The use of garlic dates back to the early Egyptians, over 5,000 years ago. ... daily ration of garlic was removed, thus becoming the first ever known labour strike.
Thevillageatheist Post #124
I did not need to add crippling wars in the equation. Because the battles were mostly about land. There was not that much good farm land.
Look at the laws, the water rights and canal usage laws.
According to one of the older Genesis stories, the Upper Gods had the Midwife create man to help the lower Gods build canals.
Write4U Post #126
I did not know that. Show they were organized.
I was surprise by some of the Egyptian foods. I had presumed marshmallows were a modern food. It was invented by the Egyptians.
The post #127 about the Midwife creating man to help the lower Gods build canals.
The lower god went on strike in that story too.
The Upper Gods kill the strike leader who was a lower God, but burned his bones so he might live forever. And that is the oldest record of the Holy Spirit. And all because of a labor strike.
Round and round you go. Where you stop, nobody knows.
Wake up people.
The definition of atheist is in reference to god.
So.
First you have to understand the definition of god.
Let’s have some fun and see how far out of the Dark Ages man has come on this subject.
Wikipedia, God - an object of faith.
What is faith? It is what ever you want to believe.
So where does that leave the meaning of “Atheist"?
An atheist is someone who rejects belief in any god that has not been shown objectively to exist. We don't have to define things we don't believe in. There have been thousands of gods, all with different definitions. It's up to the believer to define what he believes in, not the atheist. How can anyone define a being he doesn't believe in? You don't do that either.
Why don't you define all of the gods you don't believe in. Your position on gods other than your own is exactly he same as ours about all gods, including yours. We believe in only one less god than you do.
If anyone has to define a god it's the believer. You're the one making the claim that a god exists. The burden of proof is on you not only to describe it but to show objective evidence that it exists. The burden of proof is never on the person to whom the claim is made.
OK, Lois how about God is; that which is supernatural, in fact, having neither beginning nor end, imperishable, immovable, and eternal, which does not become, but always is, in one word “Metaphysical".
Now I think that covers about 5% of the past Gods. But it covers the Christian God of today and when gods are talked about on this forum it would cover say 95% of the thinking of what God is.
Would you agree?
Let’s look at the history of the “Metaphysical" god.
We know it came out of Egypt. Egypt had its gods, then the Hyksos came and changed that somewhat.
Egypt tried to go back to its old gods, but before it got there the Persians took over Egypt, moved a lot of the religious items to Babylon. And brought their religious to Egypt.
Then the Greeks came and change the language as well as how they view the gods along with some new gods.
Then we got Alexandria, a city of 300K with universities. From the many things that came out of the universities of Alexandria was the understanding of Physics. Then the metaphysical phenomenon from Aristotle which brought the idea that man had reason, consciences, affections which are non physical items. So metaphysical thinking was here to stay. They got bound together by laws concerning right and wrong, and numberless other unseen and spiritual relations that claimed the body was not merely just part of nature but in harmony with nature with a spiritual gift.
Now, I have said how I think we got to where we are today in our thinking.
Facts, man has always needed a god, even before he need pottery he had gods.
Fact, as long as man feels or thinks there is a sixth sense, we will have metaphysical thinking.
So, how many atheists feel there is a sixth sense in man?
Those that do feel that man has a sixth sense but feel that it has nothing to do with god can not change the fact that it is still defined as a metaphysical condition.
Lois, I do not claim there is a god, but I do claim that the metaphysical condition exists. And if god is a metaphysical condition then there has to be a clear understanding of what god is or we will not be able to separate the metaphysical conditions that are not god with out great difficulty like I am attempting here.
And the Christians will, as they do today use the metaphysical thoughts of man to claim there is a god.
So I am back to the same claim, “Atheist agrees and understands what an atheist is and what the word means, but for the rest of the world it is not that clear".
That what the websites that define the word “atheist" is saying. Keep in mind us atheists are only 2% of the population.
See, everyone keeps telling me what an “ATHEIST" is and means.
Please don’t do that.
Please tell me what the rest of the world who are not “ATHEIST" thinks the word means.
I’ve look at what the world is thinking and I’ll tell you. They think that you think there is a god, and that you just don’t have any belief in god. That’s what most of the world thinks. I’ll repeat myself; none of us atheists feel that way or thinks that way.
And Dr. Terence Meaden says it would be better if “Atheist" was defined the following way instead of using the word “GOD".
“The supposed deity that Christians purport to be the creator and ruler of the universe."
And Dr. Terence Meaden says it would be better if “Atheist" was defined the following way instead of using the word “GOD".
“The supposed deity that Christians purport to be the creator and ruler of the universe."
Mike, I once asked the question, "if there is only one God, is Allah the same God as the Christian God?"
The response was an unqualified, "no, Allah (Muslim God) is a different god than the Christian God".
And that is where the problem lies. Even those who believe in a single god, believe that their God is EXCLUSIVELY the one true God.
The problem does not lie with the definition of Atheist at all. The problem lies with all religions which claim to worship "the one true God" and "the one true word of God".
It is the believer who is confused about God, not the Atheists. We do not recognize ANY definition of god, because there is none.
Your right W4U, but being right does not always get the problem fixed. Some ones got to step up and fix the problems so this whole issue can move forward.
OK, the believers are confused, I agree 100%.
I think the church wants them that way. They like the flock to stay confused on all issues concerning atheists.
Let me ask you these questions.
Do you think there is power in organizations or being organized?
Do you think churches are organized and have some power?
Do you think atheists are organized and have some power?
Tell me what the atheists’ mission statement says?
Or do atheists even have a standard mission?
Are atheists capable of even the simplest tasks of letting the rest of the world understand what they think?
What good is it having a voice if the only people that can understand atheist are atheists?
Are atheists happy living in a 2% world of understanding?
“The supposed deity that Christians purport to be the creator and ruler of the universe."
See, the word “God” is taken out, so the “EXCLUSIVELY the one true God” is not a problem anymore.
W4U, I need to break you post into two posts as not to be confusing.
“if there is only one God, is Allah the same God as the Christian God?"
The answer is no, they are not the same god.
They evolved from the same god, the God of Abraham.
Just as the OT god is different the NT god. They can say it is the same god, but it is not. Gods evolved.
In the Christian God, Jesus is part of the God.
In the Muslim God, Jesus is a prophet but not part of God.
Think of it like twins, they look alike, sound alike and come from the same place. But each has their own mind and thought.
You have the God of Abraham, and then you have the god of the children of Abraham. If I remember right there were 13. Today there are 4 left. The Samaritans, the Jewish, the Islam, the Christians.
Then excluding the Samaritans, the other three have many sub groups where god is different in someway. Again very small changes, but over time these small changes add up.
There are two thoughts, on this, so i got to bring the other one up.
Some think that you have, Abraham-Christian-Islam. or that Islam came from Christianity. And they might be right, it just has not been a big enough issue for me to research.
W4U, I need to break you post into two posts as not to be confusing.
“if there is only one God, is Allah the same God as the Christian God?"
The answer is no, they are not the same god.
Actually it is the same god (what else can it be when there is only ONE?)
They evolved from the same god, the God of Abraham.
Just as the OT god is different the NT god. They can say it is the same god, but it is not. Gods evolved.
In the Christian God, Jesus is part of the God. In the Muslim God, Jesus is a prophet but not part of God.
Think of it like twins, they look alike, sound alike and come from the same place. But each has their own mind and thought.
Thus there are more than One God?
You have the God of Abraham, and then you have the god of the children of Abraham. If I remember right there were 13. Today there are 4 left. The Samaritans, the Jewish, the Islam, the Christians.
Thus there are more than One God?
Then excluding the Samariteans, the other three have many sub groups where god is different in someway. Again very small changes, but over time these small changes add up.
Yep, in evolutionary sciences it is called speciation. Thus for some, God has speciated into a different god. I say speciated because how can a single eternal perfect god evolve when is progenitor is still around. Sounds like some perverse version of Darwinism to me.
Not unlike the finches with different beaks speciated on the various Islands.
No logic can explain this inherent conflict. No reason can solve the "intuitive and subjective perception of God".
Some native American tribes consider God to be of such personal nature, that it cannot be communicated to anyone else. Now, that I can understand!
"Catch a falling god and put it in your pocket, waiting for a rainy day". But don't tell me that your God will save me ONLY if I believe in Him exclusively.
I have to think that people back then looked at gods differently than we do.
And I think god evolve more now than in the past.
One of the reasons I think is the ability to tax.
The U.S. got rid of that function in the late 1700’s.
And then we got a lot of sub-branches of Christianity.
This did not happen in Germany, but the church still has the ability to tax and is part of the government because of the ability to tax. The same is true in other parts of Europe.
You said you were talking to Christians, so I answered the way I would talk to Christians.
If I am talking to another atheist, ya, they are all the same god, and the same heaven and hell.
Same tree, same fruit, just many branches.
I posted this a long time ago, but it may be pertinent here.
Suppose God is like a Rubics Cube as big as the earth. One person points up and says, “I have seen god and god is green”. A second person on the other side of the world points up and says, “I have seen god and god is red”. A third person at the No Pole points up and say, “I have seen god and god is blue”. And all around the world people see a single aspect (color) of god and all six religious groups see a different color god.
This was fine in days of old, but with trade and travel these differences became known as strangers always seemed to worship a god of a different color.
This upset all the religions who only saw one aspect of god and the next thing we know we are in a religious war, to impose one color over the others, because God is only of one color and we are the chosen ones because we know God’s color. Therefore your color god must be false.
This whole religious thing reminds me of the fable of “the emperors new clothes”.
I kind of understand what Mike may be trying to point out in some of his context here. Let me try to elaborate:
Notice how we can label ourselves in certain ways which attempt to describe a position which although stands contrary to others, can tend to be self-defeating or encouraging to opponents because we choose words to label ourselves in accordance to their expectations. I remember coming across the title, “History of Unbelief” which contextually seemed to be the story regarding the rise of various non-beliefs that opposed the status quo of the Western stronghold dominance of Christianity. The first thing that I remembered that bothered me was the term, “unbelief”, because it suggested that people were undoing something that was innately natural. I often notice even the more famous atheists who argue with religious people do not even seem to notice this use and actually support it without apparent recognition of its meaning by others.
If you go to a site or event that labels itself according to some position that is understood by those involved as the natural or normal position, it tends to beg the question that it is the normal view if you require wasting time arguing for it in isolation to the opposing views. At least, you should be able to understand that people who believe that their particular religious beliefs are the norm, when they see references to organizations that center around the philosophy of people claiming a comparative normalcy to themselves, they will view it as only something that could be understood as being only relevant with respect to themselves or others like them. In other words, if their were no religion, calling oneself an atheist seems rather redundant, unnecessary, and odd.
Also, even the titles can be more directly insulting and uninviting because they indicate motives and intents that even a cult would usually avoid without appearing deceptive. Imagine a cult calling themselves, The Wiser Ones, for instance. It’s success would certainly be less than one titled, The Wisdom in You. And here, we call ourselves, Center for Inquiry which suggests that some ‘we’ have knowledge for others to take a learning to. The most ridiculous term I ever heard was Richard Dawkin’s suggestion that we, atheists should call ourselves, “Brights”! The irony is, I think that somebody who called themselves, “Idiots” or “Morons” would have a bigger audience.(Maybe that’s how the Mor[m]ons got their success?) No one likes to think that they are dumber than others. And when they come across others who declare their wisdom too loudly, they are considered arrogant and are less liked.
“Atheist”, although not so insulting in many respects to some terms, still defines itself into opposition of others. Calling oneself a “skeptic” can do the same thing because it suggests that others are more ill-equipped to be sufficiently inquisitive enough. Another term that I find odd and rather outdated myself, is, “freethinker”. This may have been more appropriate during the Enlightenment when thinking freely could pose serious consequences. But if someone from an outside perspective comes across one who calls themselves a "freethinker’, it suggests that they believe that others who are external to their self-diagnosis cannot think freely!
So, I think that questioning definitions of labels is important. I always thought of myself as equally “atheistic” as my cat. I was surprised to discover that many atheists actually disagree with this because they felt that you would have to have the conscious recognition of the religious perspective first.
That is why I think the term Atheist is a perfectly proper term, because it does not deny the ability to believe as a property of the mind, it merely denies belief in a god.