The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
-
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
I had participated in a debate at CFI (Center For Inquiry) on "Noah's Flood Debate" where I noticed that many there were arguing for how general floods sufficed to justify the myth. However, I argued that the actual cause is due to an early rational recognition of fossils because the specificity of its details of the myth would lack any normal justification otherwise.
I know that my argument appealed logically by context, but I was disliked for how I dared to challenge some of the participants of those I have had contentious issues with in the past, especially with respect to the site's beliefs about what is acceptable to 'prove' something true or not. Because my argument was valid and sound, I was targeted instead for my aside notes on etymology of religious terms that some here are familiar with.
[The digression to speak on how to accept 'proof' regarding authority is something that I raised with the community years ago and to which the admin on that topic [Lausten (John Dub)] thought to challenge me on. So the actual discussion veered off topic with intention by Lausten and so the actual argument I made was 'buried'.]
Here is the argument (not particular to the linked 'debate'):
Because the myth was a secondary event in which God thought to destroy the world and restart again, the odd way the myth evolved suggests that they had to have had prior knowledge of fossil evidence of ancient beings, including dinosaurs, which led them to derive a 'story' that theorized how and why these fossils existed.
What do you think?
I know that my argument appealed logically by context, but I was disliked for how I dared to challenge some of the participants of those I have had contentious issues with in the past, especially with respect to the site's beliefs about what is acceptable to 'prove' something true or not. Because my argument was valid and sound, I was targeted instead for my aside notes on etymology of religious terms that some here are familiar with.
[The digression to speak on how to accept 'proof' regarding authority is something that I raised with the community years ago and to which the admin on that topic [Lausten (John Dub)] thought to challenge me on. So the actual discussion veered off topic with intention by Lausten and so the actual argument I made was 'buried'.]
Here is the argument (not particular to the linked 'debate'):
Because the myth was a secondary event in which God thought to destroy the world and restart again, the odd way the myth evolved suggests that they had to have had prior knowledge of fossil evidence of ancient beings, including dinosaurs, which led them to derive a 'story' that theorized how and why these fossils existed.
What do you think?
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
I do not really know what your OP is asking for in regards to understanding, so I cannot comment on that.
But I don't mind talking about the idea that was the Noah's Ark story?
As far as I am aware of that story, God wanted to destroy much of his creation ..save the ones that he could safely fit on the ark, so that they would be able to continue on reproducing after all the other creatures had died.
I mean why destroy your creation only to just create it all again...So the only thing I can think of, is that we enjoy telling ourselves stories, and we do this because we have no other point of reference in which we can relate ourself to apart from the stories we make up.
What do you think?
.
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
I don't believe the argument from fossil evidence because it's more likely that fertile areas were flood plains where floods were regular events.
It's the nature of a myth to be a narrative about a particular event which signifies a regular or constant event.
It is also the nature of human intelligence that myths narrate a particular story about one man's values that should be all men's values. Noah's Flood is an example of both these characteristics of myth.
It's the nature of a myth to be a narrative about a particular event which signifies a regular or constant event.
It is also the nature of human intelligence that myths narrate a particular story about one man's values that should be all men's values. Noah's Flood is an example of both these characteristics of myth.
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
What do you think the ''Ark story'' was depicting to the reader Belinda?Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:02 pm I don't believe the argument from fossil evidence because it's more likely that fertile areas were flood plains where floods were regular events.
It's the nature of a myth to be a narrative about a particular event which signifies a regular or constant event.
You do not have to respond to that question though, I understand if you do not want to.
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
Do you know that ''value'' was created as and through what could only be described as a very bad negative painful ouchy experience?
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
It is 'about' how people who had to live with regular flooding preserved their livestock when the pastures flooded. Morally, the story is about how God will not abandon his people to natural dangers.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:07 pmWhat do you think the ''Ark story'' was depicting to the reader Belinda?Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 1:02 pm I don't believe the argument from fossil evidence because it's more likely that fertile areas were flood plains where floods were regular events.
It's the nature of a myth to be a narrative about a particular event which signifies a regular or constant event.
You do not have to respond to that question though, I understand if you do not want to.
You did not ask me my opinion of the moral import of the story but here it is anyway.
At this particular time Loving Heavenly Father will not preserve us, and the myth is dysfunctional.
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
Whenever one begins a so-called 'argument' with, "Because the 'myth' ...", BEFORE it has been PROVEN that 'it' is an ACTUAL 'myth', then what you are going to do is just get the ones who ALREADY BELIEVE that 'it' is a 'myth', like you do, LISTEN to you, and the ones who do NOT believe that 'it' is a 'myth' NOT LISTEN to you.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:00 am I had participated in a debate at CFI (Center For Inquiry) on "Noah's Flood Debate" where I noticed that many there were arguing for how general floods sufficed to justify the myth. However, I argued that the actual cause is due to an early rational recognition of fossils because the specificity of its details of the myth would lack any normal justification otherwise.
I know that my argument appealed logically by context, but I was disliked for how I dared to challenge some of the participants of those I have had contentious issues with in the past, especially with respect to the site's beliefs about what is acceptable to 'prove' something true or not. Because my argument was valid and sound, I was targeted instead for my aside notes on etymology of religious terms that some here are familiar with.
[The digression to speak on how to accept 'proof' regarding authority is something that I raised with the community years ago and to which the admin on that topic [Lausten (John Dub)] thought to challenge me on. So the actual discussion veered off topic with intention by Lausten and so the actual argument I made was 'buried'.]
Here is the argument (not particular to the linked 'debate'):
Because the myth was a secondary event in which God thought to destroy the world and restart again, the odd way the myth evolved suggests that they had to have had prior knowledge of fossil evidence of ancient beings, including dinosaurs, which led them to derive a 'story' that theorized how and why these fossils existed.
What do you think?
The purpose of an 'argument' here is to PROVE that what has been said or claimed is NOT True, or a 'myth', or True, and thus NOT a 'myth'.
If some thing is an ACTUAL False belief or idea, then there is NO use presenting that 'myth' in an argument, because that 'myth' would ALREADY be a KNOWN to be NOT True.
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
Because what was being talked about NEEDED to be CLEANSED and the best way to do this is water and flushing it CLEAN, AGAIN. Contrary to popular BELIEF the words of the bible are NOT all written in literal language.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:19 amI do not really know what your OP is asking for in regards to understanding, so I cannot comment on that.
But I don't mind talking about the idea that was the Noah's Ark story?
As far as I am aware of that story, God wanted to destroy much of his creation ..save the ones that he could safely fit on the ark, so that they would be able to continue on reproducing after all the other creatures had died.
I mean why destroy your creation only to just create it all again...
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
I agree insofar as it's how we learn to live against the tide of danger. We inform ourself of what is dangerous which moves us toward adopting a more comforting situation, which is our natural state. Now, it is that comforting ''thought'' that is of value to us. The fact that we can know how to avoid dangerous situations is of great value to us. The idea of 'value' can only be known to us, purely by knowing it is better to avoid a negative and dangerous situation. This has nothing to do with God, unless we want to label ourselves as God...rather, it is our own direct intuitive experience to know how to avoid danger,as and through our automatic senses of knowing.
Every sentient living organism knows the ''ouchy'' sensation is not a good ideal, and so will automatically move away from this not so ideal situation. Therefore ''value'' is derived from what is always a negative...not a positive. The positive is always a relief from a negative situation, and is why the move away from a negative towards a positive is always seen as a ''valuable'' ideal, to all sentient living organisms, the ideal is automatic, no thinking is invloved, but for humans, they can KNOW the meaning of the concept ''value'' because they have a more ''evolved'' larger brain with the capacity to be more aware that if they themselves can KNOW that pain and suffering is not the ideal situation, then they will also know that every other living sentient feeling creature will feel exactly the same about pain and danger as well...
Well to my knowledge, morality is born of what is of most value to us...which is self-preservation. Which is the will to survive and reproduce, even while knowing that life for sentient living organisms are always subject to torture pain and suffering...it's a catch 22
On the meta level of human understanding...Morality is actually immorally accepted as being valuable, because it always comes at a price, a heavy price.
Thank you for responding, I really enjoy discussing with intelligent rational critical thinking people like yourself.
.
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
My favourite explanation for the Noah's flood myth is the Black Sea deluge hypothesis. I think you might prefer Adrienne Mayor's take in 'The First Fossil Hunters'.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:00 amBecause the myth was a secondary event in which God thought to destroy the world and restart again, the odd way the myth evolved suggests that they had to have had prior knowledge of fossil evidence of ancient beings, including dinosaurs, which led them to derive a 'story' that theorized how and why these fossils existed.
What do you think?
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
Well we all know that BELIEFS are just artificially superimposed ideas upon reality that has no idea or belief about itself. In fact there is no reality except a human interpretation of one.
Reality just is, it doesn't require a copy of itself in the form of an invisible interpretation or belief.
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
People experience floods.
People make up stories about floods.
Wow how amaazing!!!
People make up stories about floods.
Wow how amaazing!!!
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
The pronoun ''People'' is a belief.
A belief, is not the same as ''direct experience''.
Flooding is not imagined, flooding is a natural event that can be directly experienced. The Ark story is a metaphor for self- preservation.
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
I think you are clinically insane.
Re: The roots of Noah's Ark myth...
Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 5:11 pmI think you are clinically insane.
You're welcome to your belief, but it's not my direct experience here.
Mind your beliefs don't come a reality for you, imagine living among clinically insane people, I'm assuming you are a person who believes there are other people who are clinically insane, I mean imagine what kind of reality that must be like for you, having to live among clinically insane people, or even saying to your wife, hey babe, lets make-out tonight, so that we can invite more insane people to come and join all the other insane people, because we just really love the idea of having a huge insane party of insane people.
You are talking to a complete stranger on the internet you know nothing about or have ever met, and yet here you are believing this person you know nothing about or have ever met, is clinically insane, is that because my philosophy is not your philosophy, so it's just easier to call my philosophy insane. Are you insane too, or is your philosophy the sane type, but mine is just the insane type.
Oh my god ....I just can't....