Rainbow Myth (Fairy Tale of Noah's Ark) copied from the Sumerian civilization 5,000 to 6,000 years ago

[scandal 951]

true. another scientist just comes around later & proves the first one was a dumbass & didn't know what they were talking about.

i wonder if one will actually prove there isn't a higher power.

i doubt it. they have jackshit other than a theory themselves...but, everyone w/ faith must prove why they have faith to them. pfft

another scientist just comes around later & proves the first one was a dumbass & didn't know what they were talking about.

You are expressing (crudely) the classic naive falsificationist view of the Scientific method (google 'Karl Popper' for more detail). Namely, the idea that science is a sequence of theories in which new ones falsify previous ones which are then discarded. Except that this isn't really how science progresses at all, as even Popper & disciples hasten to point out. More modern accounts of the scientific method, in particular Kuhnian paradigms/revolutions, come much closer to describing how the scientific method really operates.

i wonder if one will actually prove there isn't a higher power.

That's an elementary logical fallacy. Logical proofs require an axiomatic basis. A "higher power" is by definition something which exists outside the axiomatic basis of something which can be seen or measured or experienced. By definition, one cannot prove (or disprove) the metaphysical in a framework with axiomatic principles grounded in the physical.

i doubt it. they have jackshit other than a theory themselves...but, everyone w/ faith must prove why they have faith to them. pfft

You are being rude and dismissive and don't really deserve a serious answer to such a remark. No one is asking you to "prove" anything. Believe what you like, have faith in what you like. By the same token, just don't expect others to necessarily agree with you.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Who runs Bartertown?

[Nagishkaw 510]

i wonder if one will actually prove there isn't a higher power.

That's an elementary logical fallacy. Logical proofs require an axiomatic basis. A "higher power" is by definition something which exists outside the axiomatic basis of something which can be seen or measured or experienced. By definition, one cannot prove (or disprove) the metaphysical in a framework with axiomatic principles grounded in the physical.

i doubt it. they have jackshit other than a theory themselves...but, everyone w/ faith must prove why they have faith to them. pfft

You are being rude and dismissive and don't really deserve a serious answer to such a remark. No one is asking you to "prove" anything. Believe what you like, have faith in what you like. By the same token, just don't expect others to necessarily agree with you.

[SMOKE 1,426]

You are expressing (crudely)

That's an elementary logical fallacy.

You are being rude and dismissive and don't really deserve a serious answer to such a remark. No one is asking you to "prove" anything. Believe what you like, have faith in what you like. By the same token, just don't expect others to necessarily agree with you.

thats what i do.

yah i know. thats kinda the point.

again, thats what i do. i wasn't looking for an answer from the person i addressed or you. odd that you don't point out to the person i was addressing, they're being rude or disrespectful when they mock religion & call for proof from others to justify their beliefs.

Edited October 16, 2011 by SMOKE

[Dan and Judy 614]

i wonder if one will actually prove there isn't a higher power.

That's an elementary logical fallacy. Logical proofs require an axiomatic basis. A "higher power" is by definition something which exists outside the axiomatic basis of something which can be seen or measured or experienced. By definition, one cannot prove (or disprove) the metaphysical in a framework with axiomatic principles grounded in the physical.

What if the definition of a "Higher power" is a guy 20 feet tall that can create worlds and has bad breath?

[scandal 951]

What if the definition of a "Higher power" is a guy 20 feet tall that can create worlds and has bad breath?

Then I suggest spearmint Trident gum.

If that doesn't work, try Listerine.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Then I suggest spearmint Trident gum.

If that doesn't work, try Listerine.

I believe it would be compound falsey to suppose that the "higher power" would wish to rid itself of the bad breath.

It is axiomatic that the "higher power" has bad breath because the "Higher power" desires to have bad breath

[scandal 951]

I believe it would be compound falsey to suppose that the "higher power" would wish to rid itself of the bad breath.

It is axiomatic that the "higher power" has bad breath because the "Higher power" desires to have bad breath

The Trident and Listerine are not prescribed for the halitosis.

They are prescribed for the pathological 20ft. height. Both are known to cure spinal deformities.

[SMR 368]

I lean toward explanation d. as being a much closer fit to our modern understanding of how many floods and disasters humanity regularly contends with, and how diverse are the peoples of the Earth with no opportunity for communication between, say, Algonquin Indians and ancient Sumerians to share their flood stories. I think d. makes much more sense, and has the added benefit of not needing metaphysical explanations for something that is quite simple to understand without them.

A fine explanation if we're just talking about many different civilizations having a myth that involves a flood. Floods are, as you say, widespread. But although the stories vary, there are various common elements that seem to make this hypothesis less likely. All of these flood myths contain:

--An explanation that the gods/God are/is angry. This probably isn't a smoking gun since you could argue that to a primitive person destruction implies that God is angry.

--A man is warned by God about the impending flood. This may not be entirely ridiculous to suggest that multiple people independently developed the story this way but obviously there are other things that could happen (e.g. God decided to protect a certain group, a certain man outsmarted the gods, etc.).

--This man builds a boat. Once again, not ridiculous but there are many other things that a man might do to survive a flood (go to the top of a mountain, learn to swim, ride on the back of a flying turtle, build a wall).

--This man proceeds to take representatives of all species/life into this boat.

--A rainbow is given as a sign after this flood as a promise. Naturally, due to the fact that rainbows often appear after rain, this once again isn't a ridiculous thing to be added to the story. However, it is yet another detail that seems to indicate that these stories weren't created independently.

Of course, probably not all of these details are included in all of the stories. But nonetheless, and although none of these details are in themselves entirely non-sequiturs to the point that it's impossible for them to be developed independently, I find your explanation somewhat harder to accept. Shouldn't there be other flood stories somewhere with markedly different, although also not ridiculous details? Why did all of these independent storytellers make the same decisions in their stories?

1. What does any of this have to do with flooding? You haven't addressed any of the points made in response to your earlier post. That's your right, but it seems you are just taking the conversation in random directions here.

2. No one claims Noah was Jewish. In the Biblical account, he clearly is not. What does that have to do with anything?

3. The Orthodox Jewish belief is that the Torah is the word of God handed down to Moses at Sinai. Literally the word-for-word text, spoken by God to Moses who transcribed it. Except of course that Deuteronomy and Exodus both describe this event, and events which follow it, an obvious logical inconsistency. And more importantly, despite the fact that analysis clearly shows multiple authors who wrote different pieces of the text which was then redacted into a single volume. Experts today overwhelmingly subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis which holds that several authors, labeled J,E,P,D wrote the various segments of the Pentateuch and were then stitched together by Redactor R. The text fragments have been dated to historical Israel around 600-700 BCE. Meaning that all the stories they wrote about, particularly in Genesis and Exodus- Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph in Egypt etc., Moses , "happened" hundreds or thousands of years after the Biblical accounts. They have about as much accurate historical significance as a modern day writer writing about King Arthur and the Round Table.

Actually, the points I made are very relevant to the issue but you may be right that I didn't clearly enough draw the connection. Modern Christian religions see humanity as monolithic to the extent that God created everyone and has, more or less, the same expectations and hopes for everyone. Thus, the creation story and events early in the history of humanity are relevant to everyone. To the extent that Judeo-Christian tradition holds that God reveals truth to prophets, one would expect that truth about these events would be revealed to everyone. While some people change and corrupt these truths, other accounts may survive, some more pure than others. My point about Noah not being Jewish was just that this truth was revealed to Moses but that doesn't mean Moses account was a primary record or that it couldn't have been a history of a Sumerian (according to modern definitions) man (or some other group). Further, the account that Moses recorded was doubtlessly transcribed, transliterated, and translated many times. The individuals who did this likely had varying motivations. Some wanted to preserve the record while others had other agendas. Some likely added clarifying notes or summarized what was written.

In other words, Noah (or whatever you want to call him) survives the flood and his posterity begins to spread out. At some point in the future, Moses talks with God. Moses and the people around him no longer had an accurate record of their history and origins because of the nature of oral communication and manual transcription. God explains this to Moses who records the story. This is likely not the only time that God relates this story to some of his prophets. Further, a primary account written by Noah or others of his day may have survived in some form, somewhere. All of these accounts continue through time and undergo changes and corruptions, as I have above conjectured. In regards to "J, E, P, D, and R," there is no particular reason to say that these are the original authors. They easily could have been recording, transcribing, summarizing, expanding, or explaining other accounts or records (as you seem to believe is the case with R).

[웃 910]

A fine explanation if we're just talking about many different civilizations having a myth that involves a flood. Floods are, as you say, widespread. But although the stories vary, there are various common elements that seem to make this hypothesis less likely. All of these flood myths contain:

--An explanation that the gods/God are/is angry. This probably isn't a smoking gun since you could argue that to a primitive person destruction implies that God is angry.

--A man is warned by God about the impending flood. This may not be entirely ridiculous to suggest that multiple people independently developed the story this way but obviously there are other things that could happen (e.g. God decided to protect a certain group, a certain man outsmarted the gods, etc.).

--This man builds a boat. Once again, not ridiculous but there are many other things that a man might do to survive a flood (go to the top of a mountain, learn to swim, ride on the back of a flying turtle, build a wall).

--This man proceeds to take representatives of all species/life into this boat.

--A rainbow is given as a sign after this flood as a promise. Naturally, due to the fact that rainbows often appear after rain, this once again isn't a ridiculous thing to be added to the story. However, it is yet another detail that seems to indicate that these stories weren't created independently.

Of course, probably not all of these details are included in all of the stories. But nonetheless, and although none of these details are in themselves entirely non-sequiturs to the point that it's impossible for them to be developed independently, I find your explanation somewhat harder to accept. Shouldn't there be other flood stories somewhere with markedly different, although also not ridiculous details? Why did all of these independent storytellers make the same decisions in their stories?

As David Hume would say about miracles. The least miraculous explanation is the explanation.

So - You have one idiotic primitive moronic group of people (in terms of understanding the universe/science/math). They were around 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. To put their stupidity in perspective - a few hundred years ago the Aztecs were at the height of their power and ripped still-beating hearts out of their captives as a sacrifice to the sun god. I'm sure there are thousands of examples of idiotic beliefs just going back 500 years (world is flat, earth center of our solar system, your a witch and burned alive if you have a mole, etc.).

This is what most likely happened. A group of Sumerian superstitious imbeciles sat around a camp fire and came up with the first flood story. It was passed around and around. This story, 2 thousand years later was repeated (stolen/copied/used again) in Judeo-Christian mythology.

If you click this link ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

You'll find around 25 fairy tales. All from different primitive cultures. So there are many variations that are "markedly different".

It's obvious why you have so many fairy tales on basic kindergarten science subjects: Floods, earthquakes, the sun, wind, fire, rainbows, the first humans, etc.

They had no idea why they were there. You'll never find myths on molecules, atoms, bacteria because they were too primitive to know they existed. But if you gave them a microscope and a kindergarten science book back then (when gullibility and superstition were at record highs and human intelligence at record lows) you would end up with countless myths ---- Really funny explanations ---- Probably hilarious explanations on what an atom, a proton, a neutron, or an electron is.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[SMOKE 1,426]

basically, one can believe they are a fungus that grew on the side of a rock. or they can think a bit more of themselves. i choose to think more of myself. but, i won't be overly assy to people that believe they're bacteria.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

basically, one can believe they are a fungus that grew on the side of a rock. or they can think a bit more of themselves. i choose to think more of myself. but, i won't be overly assy to people that believe they're bacteria.

There are certain civilizations that laugh at your childlike science. Then you kill them.

[SMOKE 1,426]

There are certain civilizations that laugh at your childlike science. Then you kill them.

bacteria doesn't scare me. well, chlamydia scares me a little.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

bacteria doesn't scare me. well, chlamydia scares me a little.

Mildew is the enemy. Luckily, I keep a spray bottle of bleach solution handy. Works every time.