h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There are dozens of flood myths throughout the middle east (and probably all round the world). This is probably because the last ice age ended a bit over 10,000 years ago and this led to (surprise!) massive flooding all over the place. I think the Black Sea formed (to its present depth and area) at this time.
Absence of any evidence at all IS evidence of absence. It isn't proof, that's all.

Fathom, many Christians will tell you that Noah's Ark is allegory, doncha know. Yet they still claim other bits of the Bible are Fact and Truth. Once again - who decided this? And why didn't the Bible come with disclaimers?


hi Teasswill,

Nessie is a girl?

Re: the Noah story. Most religions have flood stories. In fact, most Bible stories are mirrored in other religions by peoples who had had no physical connection to the near East, where Christianity was born.


az

Simulpost, pedro7.


az

Various flood stories very similar to the biblical one seem to have been current in an are roughly defined by the Persian Empire (550-330 BCE), and it's probably no coincidence that most of the OT seems to have been written about this time, and that the Persian Emperors get an unusually good press in it. The tory is of course, much older than this, having a close affinity with the Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" which dates from at least a thouand years earlier. It would be interesting to know, although we probably never will, when this story entered the Palestinian region.

Noggin

I remember watching a programme, where they were discussing origins of the story of Noah. (as Pedro mentioned) they talked about some event that caused the Black to expand from a large lake to the sea it now is wiping out the towns on its shores.

heres a National Geographic article about it:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

<>
Hoo, do try to leave out the constant hostility and random insults! You don't seem to realise that the one left looking bad because of them is you, not me...
<>
Sorry, you're the one who's wrong here - there is no such general agreement as you imply, and even if there was, it is thought that the earlier one of the two was written less than a century after. The earliest Epistles were 40 years or less later, and as for being written by people who hadn't met him, or met anyone who had, that's just a plain silly assertion.
<>
There go your silly spiteful pointless insults again. Why? You are very proud of your huge IQ, and get very defensive if anyone questions your great intelligence. Is that defensiveness the reason why you feel you have to attack the intelligence of any believers of any sort? (It's not just me, as you well know - someone called Pattern chaser springs to mind as one of your targets...

<>

On the contrary, I think you find the idea of being proven wrong very threatening.

<< Yet they still claim other bits of the Bible are Fact and Truth. Once again - who decided this? And why didn't the Bible come with disclaimers?>>

azahar, you seem perfectly able to read any other book and odentify allegory, why do you have so much trouble with this? Might I suggest it's because you don't *want* to understand it? You're like a broken record with it. It's easy to see that Hoo finds it all quite frightening, and probably you do too, but it gets so tedious having to restate the same thing!

<>

So, are you saying that the Bible is simply a book like any other? Nuthin special?


az

"you're either knowingly lying or just wrong, aren't you?>>
Hoo, do try to leave out the constant hostility and random insults! "

Pointing out that you're either lying or wrong is neither an insult nor hostile, it is merely an observation of fact. If you consider it insulting, you might like to consider checking your facts. In this way, you may, possibly, avoid being called a liar again.

You seem unusually defensive about your honesty. Is this because you've been repeatedly shown in the past on this site to be an unapologetic liar?

"You are very proud of your huge IQ, and get very defensive if anyone questions your great intelligence."

I'm not proud of my IQ. That would be like being proud of the colour of my hair - I can't take any credit for it. Similarly, despite what you say, I do not get defensive if it is questioned. My intelligence, I believe, speaks for itself, much as your dishonesty does. There's simply no need for me to defend it - anyone with eyes to see can make their own judgement about me, just as they can about you. It does not seem to bother you that a significant minority of users of this site have done just that, and judged you and your family in terms you dislike. You have so far dealt with this by denial and counterattack, which merely confirms the impression people form of you. Quite neat, really.

H.

The fact, Hoo dear, is that there is no content to your posts, just the continued shouting of spite. You don't deal with the issues, just my alleged short-comings. That I suppose, is intended to take peoples' mind off the issues and set the terms of "debate", not that what you do could really be called by that name. I see you as being defensive all round. Your self esteem seems very fragile to me, and so you dish out what you hope not to get back - in the hope of avoiding facing any issues you can't cope with. It's sad, it really is.

Oh, it's special, and not in Hoo's sniping usage of the term, but I am not fixated on it as some seem to be.
Otherwise, that's just a silly question. You don't really want to know at all! I am disapppointed, though not surprised.

OK, here's some "content"

"Oh, it's special,... but I am not fixated on it as some seem to be."

You're not fixated on the divinely inspired Word of your God? Then from where do you derive your religion, ultimately, if not from that book?

"Otherwise, that's just a silly question."

Yah, it's a silly question. Calling it that absolves you from having to try to think about it or answer it. Who's defensive now?

"You don't really want to know at all!"

Um... projection, again. Quelle surprise.

H.

<>

Della, the reason I am a 'broken record' (as you so charmingly put it) on this question is that no one has answered it yet. They only keep repeating that some bits are this and other bits are that and don't explain what the criteria was/is for deciding this.

You just told me that if I can accept 'any other book' as having allegorical bits, then why not the Bible? Hence my question, which I don't think was silly.


az

Bickering apart, I am quite enjoying this thread.

I appreciate how some people follow a religon and others prefer a more objective view of the cosmos (myself included in the latter).

What I can't quite get my head around is those scientists etc who claim to follow a religon, I mean how does that work?? How can you be objective and religous at the same time??

My mothers faith helped her no end, but how much bloodshed is caused by religon. In the same way, advances in science saved the life of my sisters baby, but advances in science are creating bigger and better weapons. Ho hum.

Right thats it, I've said my bit...........
Got to go make the stuffing for sunday dinner

Religion & science are not necessarily incompatible, it depends on the nature of the religious beliefs.

I have to say that I think that in relation to thoe things covered by scientific discourse there is a fundamental incompatibility between science and the notion of a God who intervenes in the working of the universe. There are of course, many areas of discourse that are not covered by science (even if science can add something to them), and in these the two may well be able to peacefully co-exist.

Noggin

Surely it depends on which area of science the scientist is involved with. Why shouldn't a person investigating the effects of a particular drug, believe in God?

Why not indeed, ice. Unless they prefer to wait for a miracle cure, like with the rabies thing.


az

Yes, if their beliefs affect their science, that maybe a problem. But their beliefs may *not* affect their science. Evening Az.