Why I'm an Atheist. By Ricky Gervais

[Chachie]

OTOH, I think that if we're dealing w/ events that were told by one group (for example the Sumerians) and then centuries later the Hebrews adopted them, then we should take a look at the events in question and try to analyze how they were transmitted from the Sumerians (polytheists) into a monotheistic (Hebrew) religion.

I look at it like the Mesopotamians, Akkadians, Egyptians, Hebrews, and Persians were/are the Sumerians who in turn are Africans. Humans branched out, covered the Earth and our greatest or most horrific events traveled with us.

We now know the last ice age ended about 10,000 BC and that our planet was flooded right around then or shortly before. Any Flood epic that's still being told today had to have occurred then. The oldest civilization we currently have records on is Sumer. They have the longest, most detailed accounts of what we now refer to as Genesis. They must have also inherited the stories of man's creation, tribulations, domestication, etc. from an earlier culture who also inherited them.

[Metalhead]

Islam also finds homosexuality to be a deviant, disgusting, sinful, activity. Which is why I look at the current assault on religion as another attempt by the godless here and abroad to try to destroy the moral foundation of the nation. And we see it being down with a well coordinated brainwashing of the children with cute cartoons in school and PSAs during family time as well as progressives using propaganda to convince children they are smarter than their parents when it comes to social issues.

Even if homosexuality is or is not a choice why is there always outrage when someone suggests trying to find out if its a chemical imbalance,gene, or chromosome issue in hopes of finding a cure that can be applied while in the womb to future humans?

Back in those days there were no refrigerators or pasteurization process so yeah eating ham sammiches, bacon and ribs could result in people taking a permanent dirt nap.

Following or believing in a particular religion is a choice, right? So who chooses what is right and wrong?

I made a conscious choice several years ago not to follow Christianity even while my family and I still attended church. The closest "belief" I have found that represents the world as I experience it every day is karma. The simple balance. A to B. Action creates reaction, repeated cycles and over-lapping, rotating microcosms.

In regard to the topic of homosexuality - the population of earth is at 7 billion now, so what's the big deal if two people have chosen not to reproduce? Honestly. Survival of the species is not an issue at the moment.

[brandymac27]

Techboy,

Ok, the Lincoln/Kennedy assassination similarities are far fetched to say the least. I'll give you that one for sure. We can take any 2 people and find similarities if we look hard enough, as we can when it comes to religion and borrowing etc.

I have to admit though, I think there's a big difference when comparing 2 people as opposed to comparing different religious events or beliefs. I say this b/c almost every major religion has the same or very similar foundation. It's not just 2 people we're looking at, but a handful of different religions that all share the same foundation. Just to use use the 3 major religions, as an example, we see a LOT of similarities, so why is it so hard to believe that they didn't borrow from an ancient Sumerian (or other) "religion" even if it was polytheistic? Where else could these events or beliefs have come from?

Some of the similarieties are superficial indeed, but some aren't. When you take into account the number of similarites, compared with how many religions share the same foundational beliefs, compared with the superficial similarities, you have to wonder if there isn't more to the story.

And BTW, I'm not talking about the mithra/Jesus comparison (etc) b/c I also believe that debate is dead and doesn't hold any water. Plus, it doesn't go back far enough into history for me. I believe that going as far back in time as possible is a must when trying to determine "how we believe" or "how religion evolved" -- which is why I asked if anyone had anything on religion before the Sumerians.

Anyway, when you go back to Sumer and their religious beliefs, it makes it easy (at least for me) to see how it evolved or could have evolved into what we call the 3 major religions.

---------- Post added January-21st-2011 at 09:15 PM ----------

I look at it like the Mesopotamians, Akkadians, Egyptians, Hebrews, and Persians were/are the Sumerians who in turn are Africans. Humans branched out, covered the Earth and our greatest or most horrific events traveled with us.

We now know the last ice age ended about 10,000 BC and that our planet was flooded right around then or shortly before. Any Flood epic that's still being told today had to have occurred then. The oldest civilization we currently have records on is Sumer. They have the longest, most detailed accounts of what we now refer to as Genesis. They must have also inherited the stories of man's creation, tribulations, domestication, etc. from an earlier culture who also inherited them.

This makes a lot of sense. So if what we're dealing with is strictly oral tradition, where does God come into the picture in all of this? Doesn't that sort of throw Genesis and the creation story completely out of the picture (especially if you're among the "young earthers" who believe everything in the Bible is the infallible word of God, you'd think the earth was 3- 4,000 years old. If it's that young, how did these stories start in Sumer (or before) which we know existed long before the creation account in Genesis took place?)

Dang, now I have more questions

[techboy]

I say this b/c almost every major religion has the same or very similar foundation.

That's true, to some extent, but think about this: If God exists and made us with the natural desire to seek Him, you might expect that even totally different expressions of that desire would share the same core values, especially since in this scenario God is the grounding of moral duties.

Again, though, there are some huge differences that tend to get ignored in discussions like this, and the similarities are not that surprising, with no need for borrowing. The sun, as another example, is powerful, the sustainer of life on Earth, and seems to move through the sky. It doesn't take borrowing for multiple cultures to include a sun god in their creation myth.

Just to use use the 3 major religions, as an example, we see a LOT of similarities, so why is it so hard to believe that they didn't borrow from an ancient Sumerian (or other) "religion" even if it was polytheistic? Where else could these events or beliefs have come from?

Well, this one's pretty easy.

Christianity is explicitly an offshoot of Judaism, and Islam is explicitly an offshoot of the first two, so any similarities are totally intentional.

I believe that going as far back in time as possible is a must when trying to determine "how we believe" or "how religion evolved" -- which is why I asked if anyone had anything on religion before the Sumerians.

The problem here is that the further we go back, the shakier the data, and the tougher it is to make any conclusions. If you're bothered by the less than 100% certainty that comes with the cumulative case for theism generally and Christianity specifically, I don't really understand how you would be able to take a leap of faith on much less data, even if it is an apparently naturalistic phenomenon you're positing.

[brandymac27]

Techboy: It doesn't take borrowing for multiple cultures to include a sun god in their creation myth.

But the myth began somewhere. In your opinion, how would the myth have been transmitted through generations and cultures without borrowing from the originator of the myth?

Christianity is explicitly an offshoot of Judaism, and Islam is explicitly an offshoot of the first two, so any similarities are totally intentional.

Absolutely agree. Judaism is the oldest of the 3. So, what predates Judaism that has similar elements that could explain the origin of it? I just don't think you can completely discount the idea that polytheistic religions could be the foundation of subsequent monotheistic religions.

The problem here is that the further we go back, the shakier the data, and the tougher it is to make any conclusions.

This is the exact opposite of every argument I've read by any Biblical scholar concerning the New Testament, Gospels, life of Jesus, etc. I honestly can't remember reading anything that specifically states that John is less shakier than Mark (for example) b/c John isn't as old. The opposite is true. Mark is the oldest of the Gospels, was written closer to the time of Jesus, and is known to have been a source for the authors of Matthew and Luke. You already know this but: Bible translators consider the earliest manuscripts to be the most accurate, because they are less removed from the original manuscripts. So basically there was less opportunity for copyists to alter the original text.

So why shouldn't we apply the same logic when it comes to this?

[Enzo]

I don't know if there is a God or not or if there is a heaven & hell. But I do know that there is life after death because I know a couple people that have seen ghost. I'm not talking about a spot of light, both of them can describe a ghost standing next to someone & the person will say that is my uncle or my dad or my mom, etc., etc., ect that died back in 19??.

[techboy]

But the myth began somewhere.In your opinion, how would the myth have been transmitted through generations and cultures without borrowing from the originator of the myth?

Who says there's just one story that "began somewhere"? There's virtually no evidence of that beyond some surface similarities, which ignore a lot of rather significant differences, and as the sun example shows, it's easy to see how cultures could independently come up with similar creation myths.

Moreover, as I noted, if God exists and made us with the natural desire to seek Him, you might expect that even totally different expressions of that desire would share the same core values, especially since in this scenario God is the grounding of moral duties.

Humans are imperfect, and so that imperfect nature could well lead to their apprehending the truth to some degree (the similarities), and messing some things up, or imposing their own cultural and personal views (the differences).

Absolutely agree. Judaism is the oldest of the 3. So, what predates Judaism that has similar elements that could explain the origin of it?

God.

Of course, even if it was just something the Hebrews made up, again, there is virtually no evidence to support the idea that it was just a whole-cloth evolution of a previous idea.

It sure seems to me like you've already decided to believe the idea that all religions came from a single story, and are asking questions which assume that fact (like this one, assuming it had to come from somewhere earlier, so where?)

I just don't think you can completely discount the idea that polytheistic religions could be the foundation of subsequent monotheistic religions.

No, of course I can't. It's all lost in the shrouds of time, so there's no real way to know.

On the other hand, there's no real good reason to believe it, either, and certainly nothing to commend it as preferable to alternative theories.

This is the exact opposite of every argument I've read by any Biblical scholar concerning the New Testament, Gospels, life of Jesus, etc. I honestly can't remember reading anything that specifically states that John is less shakier than Mark (for example) b/c John isn't as old.

That's a totally different issue. Sources that are written closer to the events are, of course, better than those written further away (all else being equal, of course), and earlier copies are better than later ones.

What I am talking about here is that we don't have much from that early time period at all.

When we're talking about the New Testament manuscripts, we have literally thousands of manuscripts and fragments, and the writings of the early church fathers, and lots of other texts in Greek, and other writings of the day, and rich archaeological treasures, and so on. We can put all of this together and get a pretty good (though still not perfect by any means) picture of what was going on. Thus we have Dr. Witherington talking about Jesus' essential Judaism, and comparing it to the Greek philosophy of the day.

By contrast, the Sumerian story you seem so intrigued by comes from precisely one find, in Nippur, and it's one copy (a set of tablets, technically), and they're not even complete.

We can date the various texts of the New Testament with pretty good accuracy, because of the richness of the surrounding historical material, and even then we end up with ranges like Mark: 50-70 AD.

With the Sumerian tablets, nobody knows when they were originally written, or if there was a preceding oral tradition, how old that was, or where it came from. Scholars can make educated guesses, but they are only that. The range of dates scholars put on these tablets is anywhere from 1800 BCE to 1100 BCE, roughly. Almost 700 years! And that's just for that copy. Who knows when the original was written?

There are similar problems with the Old Testament texts. When you go back that far, there just isn't much to work with. Much of what was written was probably lost, and a lot was never written in the first place.

That is what I was referring to.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Thanks for clarifying.

This is about applying a particular method, not about excluding a particular outcome. To use your example, it would be like saying that my method of car color evaluation shall exclude the color pink. That method does not seem to make much sense - one could make a compelling argument that it makes sense to include all possible colors.

Sure, it doesn't make much sense to you because you think that you are being fair and judicious in your evaluation, but to us we look at the denial of personal experience and the denial of divine revelation as the denial of pink cars.

[PeterMP]

I look at it like the Mesopotamians, Akkadians, Egyptians, Hebrews, and Persians were/are the Sumerians who in turn are Africans. Humans branched out, covered the Earth and our greatest or most horrific events traveled with us.

We now know the last ice age ended about 10,000 BC and that our planet was flooded right around then or shortly before. Any Flood epic that's still being told today had to have occurred then. The oldest civilization we currently have records on is Sumer. They have the longest, most detailed accounts of what we now refer to as Genesis. They must have also inherited the stories of man's creation, tribulations, domestication, etc. from an earlier culture who also inherited them.

I don't think you even really needed a true flood. Distribution of land masses used to be different. Places that are now above sea level used to be under water, including things like in land seas.

However, in the cliffs in mountains in the like, you can see evidence of the watery past, like sea shells. However, early people didn't understand ideas related to mountain formations and movement of land masses. To them, the only explanation was that at some point the Earth was flooded and water levels at least reached high into mountains/cliffs that they knew.

[DRSmith]

Islam also finds homosexuality to be a deviant, disgusting, sinful, activity. Which is why I look at the current assault on religion as another attempt by the godless here and abroad to try to destroy the moral foundation of the nation. And we see it being down with a well coordinated brainwashing of the children with cute cartoons in school and PSAs during family time as well as progressives using propaganda to convince children they are smarter than their parents when it comes to social issues.

Even if homosexuality is or is not a choice why is there always outrage when someone suggests trying to find out if its a chemical imbalance,gene, or chromosome issue in hopes of finding a cure that can be applied while in the womb to future humans?

Back in those days there were no refrigerators or pasteurization process so yeah eating ham sammiches, bacon and ribs could result in people taking a permanent dirt nap.

What I find interesting espicially from those with more right wing tendancies is the focus on sins of sexual nature

It reminds of the passage in John where they were planning to stone the woman and how the religous leaders were quick to point out the sins of everyone else but ignore their own greed and injustice.

Celeberating or glorifying greed, violence or sexual immorality is all the same in the eyes of God.

[CrabR]

Back in those days there were no refrigerators or pasteurization process so yeah eating ham sammiches, bacon and ribs could result in people taking a permanent dirt nap.

there were no refrigerators or pasteurization during Pauls ministry and he seemed to think it was Ok to eat the same thing.

[MartinC]

Islam also finds homosexuality to be a deviant, disgusting, sinful, activity. Which is why I look at the current assault on religion as another attempt by the godless here and abroad to try to destroy the moral foundation of the nation. And we see it being down with a well coordinated brainwashing of the children with cute cartoons in school and PSAs during family time as well as progressives using propaganda to convince children they are smarter than their parents when it comes to social issues.

Even if homosexuality is or is not a choice why is there always outrage when someone suggests trying to find out if its a chemical imbalance,gene, or chromosome issue in hopes of finding a cure that can be applied while in the womb to future humans?

Back in those days there were no refrigerators or pasteurization process so yeah eating ham sammiches, bacon and ribs could result in people taking a permanent dirt nap.

After reading the comments above I feel very content with being Godless. Simply amazing.

With comments like this I'm also out of this thread. See you all in the next life - or not?

[NavyDave]

After reading the comments above I feel very content with being Godless. Simply amazing.

With comments like this I'm also out of this thread. See you all in the next life - or not?

Am I supposed to be upset? Ok I'll pretend to care.

Sniff sniff, please don't go, let's converse over bland English food and tea with milk in it while talking about the worlds most famous Welfare recipients, British royalty, as well as blokes over there accepting their bullock status in the era of political correctness.

---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 10:00 AM ----------

Do you think ALL homosexuals are atheists? Do you think that democrats can be Christian? Just wondering...

No and yes after all I was brought up in a black church and I saw both.

---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 10:10 AM ----------

What I find interesting espicially from those with more right wing tendancies is the focus on sins of sexual nature

It reminds of the passage in John where they were planning to stone the woman and how the religous leaders were quick to point out the sins of everyone else but ignore their own greed and injustice.

Celeberating or glorifying greed, violence or sexual immorality is all the same in the eyes of God.

What I find interesting how liberals ignore how the majority of black liberals that democrats also find homosexuality to be sinful or do you have amnesia when proposition 8 went up for a vote.

The left always want to excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior or using the lame catch phrase open minded when it comes to unnatural acts.

[Thiebear]

SS,

From what I've seen me and you believe in quite a few of the same things.

Except this one, why would you feel sad for me?

The love you and others feel towards Jesus etc.

The love i feel towards the wonders of the universe and the deep and all aound.

Its like saying you feel sad for gay people, but odds are we've experienced what you have...

And moved on. its okay.

[PeterMP]

Thanks for clarifying.

This is about applying a particular method, not about excluding a particular outcome. To use your example, it would be like saying that my method of car color evaluation shall exclude the color pink. That method does not seem to make much sense - one could make a compelling argument that it makes sense to include all possible colors.

Simiarly, one may adopt a method of evaluating evidence that relies solely on natural explanations. Compelling arguments could be made for, as well as against, this method. At this point I find arguments for this method more convincing. There are several reasons for this. For example, I see no viable way of resolving conflicting supernatural claims, or even assessing individual claims, for that matter.

For what it's worth, I am very much open to existence of an unknown force, a pattern, some kind of a connection between all things, etc... I would have no problem acknowledging existence of something like that, should the evidence point in that direction.

The reasons for excluding the methodologies is irrelevant.

ONLY methods that allow you to find support for something also allow you to find evidence against something. If you refuse to use methods that would allow you to say there are pink cars, you can not conclude anything about pink cars.

Since you are essentially talking about science when you talk about your methods, until somebody can formulate and test a hypothesis with respect to the existance of God (keeping in mind that many people believe that the Bible is not all completely true and that idea actually pre-dates modern science (I know this makes the task difficult, but it is the task)), then there is no evidence in support or against God without using other methods.

The other part of this becomes bias. As you've recognized, your beliefs bias your logic and your logic biases your beliefs. I think we can see that in two places easily in this thread:

1. Your use of language. Using your own logic and language, you should be willing to state things like:

The Universe almost certainly does not exist. Matter almost certainly does not exist. Yet, I doubt you ever say those things or even think them, and I have never seen any evidence that such thoughts are present in your arguments. Suredly, the idea of a god(s) that created humans, interact with humans, and are interested in seeing humans behave in a manner that are "good" in exchange for some larger "reward" are older and more stable than any current concepts related to matter and the universe. The fact that we have seen alterations in religion over the millenia cannot be taken as good evidence that certain mantained themes are not true (and you seem to reject those themes), without rejecting the vast majority of our understanding related to matter and the universe, which are much more recent.

2. Your insistence that "decisions" by humans are in fact "real" despite the complete lack of an explantory mechanism by which evolution would produce such an ability. There is no reason to believe that evolution would produce free will. From solely an evolutionary point of view, you do not have free will and as such do not make real decisions. Your "decisions" are a function of your genetic material and stochastic processes, which are both things you have no control of. You have the illusion of free with due to the complexity, self-containment, and emergent properties of the system. Of course, bacteria do too, which is why you are seeing people openly use words like, memory, think, and decisions with respect to bacteria.

[DRSmith]

What I find interesting how liberals ignore how the majority of black liberals that democrats also find homosexuality to be sinful or do you have amnesia when proposition 8 went up for a vote.

The left always want to excuse bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior or using the lame catch phrase open minded when it comes to unnatural acts.

Well that is fine but I did not say one bad act excuses another and I talked about from the stand point of God

But at the end of the day I am not a fan of making laws to try and enforce certain biblical teachings while ignoring others.

And if the law code taught us anything you can have as many rules as you want but it is still up to the indivual to choose to follow or not, having laws does not make people act moral and the law code already had proven it;s point we can not lead perfect lives.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Am I supposed to be upset? Ok I'll pretend to care.

Sniff sniff, please don't go, let's converse over bland English food and tea with milk in it while talking about the worlds most famous Welfare recipients, British royalty, as well as blokes over there accepting their bullock status in the era of political correctness.

Why? Why do you have to respond this way? Why does everything have to be an insult?

Seriously NavyDave if you are making an argument for a faithful life in Christ then you are doing a very poor job of it, not because of the argument you make but in the way you treat others.

[PeterMP]

After reading the comments above I feel very content with being Godless. Simply amazing.

With comments like this I'm also out of this thread. See you all in the next life - or not?

The funny thing is in the absence of god, there is nothing "wrong" with his comments. Nothing to be upset about, or disgusted by. There is no reason to believe that he has free will to control his comments.

He is just the product of the evolutionary information that he contains, which may or may not make him fit, and may or may not result in him producing fit off spring. Nothing more and nothing less.

[alexey]

Sure, it doesn't make much sense to you because you think that you are being fair and judicious in your evaluation, but to us we look at the denial of personal experience and the denial of divine revelation as the denial of pink cars.

The word "denial" suggests ignoring something, failing to deal with it. This about using a particular approach to evaluating the evidence, not about denying the existence of evidence.

---------- Post added January-22nd-2011 at 11:45 AM ----------

The reasons for excluding the methodologies is irrelevant.

ONLY methods that allow you to find support for something also allow you to find evidence against something. If you refuse to use methods that would allow you to say there are pink cars, you can not conclude anything about pink cars.

Since you are essentially talking about science when you talk about your methods, until somebody can formulate and test a hypothesis with respect to the existance of God (keeping in mind that many people believe that the Bible is not all completely true and that idea actually pre-dates modern science (I know this makes the task difficult, but it is the task)), then there is no evidence in support or against God without using other methods.

Science is just one component. As you poined out, I also need an ability to assess claims that are not covered by science.

I think the underlying question is whether I am satisfied with an explanation for the evidence which does not include a God (as envisioned by major religions). Yes I am.

The other part of this becomes bias. As you've recognized, your beliefs bias your logic and your logic biases your beliefs. I think we can see that in two places easily in this thread:

1. Your use of language. Using your own logic and language, you should be willing to state things like:

The Universe almost certainly does not exist. Matter almost certainly does not exist. Yet, I doubt you ever say those things or even think them, and I have never seen any evidence that such thoughts are present in your arguments. Suredly, the idea of a god(s) that created humans, interact with humans, and are interested in seeing humans behave in a manner that are "good" in exchange for some larger "reward" are older and more stable than any current concepts related to matter and the universe. The fact that we have seen alterations in religion over the millenia cannot be taken as good evidence that certain mantained themes are not true (and you seem to reject those themes), without rejecting the vast majority of our understanding related to matter and the universe, which are much more recent.

All kinds of things can be said, as long as there are proper disclaimers. Words are only meaningful in a context. When I say that matter exists, I am making that statement in a default context. Outside of that context I do recognize that matter almost certainly does not exist in a way that I conceptualize it.

2. Your insistence that "decisions" by humans are in fact "real" despite the complete lack of an explantory mechanism by which evolution would produce such an ability. There is no reason to believe that evolution would produce free will. From solely an evolutionary point of view, you do not have free will and as such do not make real decisions. Your "decisions" are a function of your genetic material and stochastic processes, which are both things you have no control of. You have the illusion of free with due to the complexity, self-containment, and emergent properties of the system. Of course, bacteria do too, which is why you are seeing people openly use words like, memory, think, and decisions with respect to bacteria.

Evolution would produce such an ability because animals operate in a complex environment. There is a clear benefit in allowing the animal to select a particular behavior from several available behaviors.

More complex animals have more available behaviors and more executive function over them.

In that light, "Free Will" is not a thing that you either have or you do not. It is a continuum. A stink beetle has very little free will, if any. An aligator has a bit more free will. A rabbit has more free will, and so on.

[brandymac27]

techboy:Who says there's just one story that "began somewhere"? There's virtually no evidence of that beyond some surface similarities, which ignore a lot of rather significant differences, and as the sun example shows, it's easy to see how cultures could independently come up with similar creation myths.

They could have, absolutely. I just see how it's possible that they didn't come up w/ these ideas on their own. Now, when you start asking questions like "where it all started", I haven't a clue. That's something I'm interested in learning about though (if it's even possible).

Moreover, as I noted, if God exists and made us with the natural desire to seek Him, you might expect that even totally different expressions of that desire would share the same core values, especially since in this scenario God is the grounding of moral duties

.

God is the foundation of moral duties if we are assuming that polytheistic religion had no bearing on later monotheistic religions. If it didn't, you could be right. If it did, and everything was passed on via oral tradion etc, and stories were morphed into beliefs that fit into a specific culture, it's possible that morales and what we all define as good or bad is something that evolved over a long period of time.

Humans are imperfect, and so that imperfect nature could well lead to their apprehending the truth to some degree (the similarities), and messing some things up, or imposing their own cultural and personal views (the differences).

I agree.

God.

I can't discount that idea, b/c I don't really know one way or the other. All I'm saying is that it's possible something else started all of this.

Of course, even if it was just something the Hebrews made up, again, there is virtually no evidence to support the idea that it was just a whole-cloth evolution of a previous idea.

I guess this is where we disagree. I think there are some reasons to believe that some of the ideas were based off of older religions. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be. Almost every religion (at least the major ones) are based off of or share similarities with an earlier religion. Again, I'm not saying everything was borrowed, but how would the first Jews even have known what religion or God was without hearing about or learning about an older cultures ideas and values? If we didn't have our parents, grandparents etc to take us to church, talk to us about God and religion, and no texts existed that we could learn from, we wouldn't know what religion is.

They learned form their parents, their parents learned from their parents, etc. I don't see why it wouldn't have happened the same way 4,000 years ago.

It sure seems to me like you've already decided to believe the idea that all religions came from a single story, and are asking questions which assume that fact (like this one, assuming it had to come from somewhere earlier, so where?)

I haven't decided anything. I can't take a stand one way or another b/c IMO there isn't enough information to say one way or another that all religions come from one starting point. All I am saying is that I think the possibility exists.

What I am talking about here is that we don't have much from that early time period at all.

By contrast, the Sumerian story you seem so intrigued by comes from precisely one find, in Nippur, and it's one copy (a set of tablets, technically), and they're not even complete.

With the Sumerian tablets, nobody knows when they were originally written, or if there was a preceding oral tradition, how old that was, or where it came from. Scholars can make educated guesses, but they are only that. The range of dates scholars put on these tablets is anywhere from 1800 BCE to 1100 BCE, roughly. Almost 700 years! And that's just for that copy. Who knows when the original was written?

I'm still not sold on the idea that we can throw out any possibility of borrowing, etc just b/c we don't have much.

There are similar problems with the Old Testament texts. When you go back that far, there just isn't much to work with. Much of what was written was probably lost, and a lot was never written in the first place.

But a lot of people regard the Bible as the infallible word of God even though there isn't much in the way of sources, etc (for the OT) to work with. If what you're saying here is true, and based off of you're previous statements above, shouldn't we disregard the OT too?

Just to make my point: I don't think we should disregard any of it b/c I believe that all of them (including the polytheistic religions) can teach us something, so we shouldn't overlook any of it regardless if we feel that there just isn't enough information available to take some of these ideas seriously.

[techboy]

The word "denial" suggests ignoring something, failing to deal with it. This about using a particular approach to evaluating the evidence, not about denying the existence of evidence

Just to clarify here, I'm pretty sure he was using the term "denial" in the context of "rejection of", not "you're in denial", or the more colorfol "Denial's not just a river in Egypt".

[alexey]

Just to clarify here, I'm pretty sure he was using the term "denial" in the context of "rejection of", not "you're in denial", or the more colorfol "Denial's not just a river in Egypt".

As long as we are talking about interpreting the evidence differently and arriving to a different conclusion, rather than rejecting the evidence

[techboy]

They could have, absolutely. I just see how it's possible that they didn't come up w/ these ideas on their own.

Yes, it's possible. I think we're having a disconnect in language, here, which I will address momentarily.

God is the foundation of moral duties if we are assuming that polytheistic religion had no bearing on later monotheistic religions.

There's no reason to make this exclusion. If God is the source of our desire to seek Him, and the grounding of objective moral duties (and I'd argue that the divine is the only reasonable source of truly objective moral duties, which most of us believe exist), then it's perfectly reasonable that this desire began in a polytheistic expression, and moved to monotheism as humans developed and understanding improved (oh... the sun doesn't seem to actually care what we do, and rises and sets pretty much the same regardless... maybe it's not one of the gods).

Christian theologians (and probably those from other faiths, too) have a concept known as "progressive revelation", where God reveals himself more fully over time, presumably as people are more able to understand.

I guess this is where we disagree. I think there are some reasons to believe that some of the ideas were based off of older religions. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be.

And this is where I think we're not communicating clearly. I agree, that in a vacuum, there's no reason why some of the older ideas of polytheism couldn't have made their way into the newer monotheistic religions.

Things get a little trickier when you add the context of claiming transmission between one specific older and one specific newer religion, because then you have to establish contact between the cultures, linguistic similarities, and so on.

The larger point I am making here, though, is while you cannot reject the idea in a vacuum, as you say:

I can't take a stand one way or another b/c IMO there isn't enough information to say one way or another that all religions come from one starting point.

Which is pretty much what I am saying. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying there's not enough information to say that it happened, and thus no real reason to believe it.

And, of course, the same drastic lack of data prevents me from ruling out the possibility, as we can with Jesus/Mithras, for example (from that set of data, anyway. Establishing the truth of Christianity does it indirectly, to some extent).

In other words, we seem to be arguing with each other while holding the same position.

What I would say is, in absence of any way to make a firm conclusion, we should let it lie and turn to areas we can make conclusions in.

I mean, as I have noted, we can't rule out the possibility that God created the universe 5 minutes ago either, but that doesn't mean we should believe it.

But a lot of people regard the Bible as the infallible word of God even though there isn't much in the way of sources, etc (for the OT) to work with. If what you're saying here is true, and based off of you're previous statements above, shouldn't we disregard the OT too?

If the Old Testament was all we had, absent faith, yeah.

I'd argue, though (as you know ), that the evidence is much better for the New Testament and the events therein, and they're kind of a package deal.

Accepting the New Testament gives some credibility to the Old Testament, even if we still have to wrestle with the various genres of writing, and what's literal and what's an allegory and what still applies and what Jesus' perfect sacrifice obviated (the cleanliness laws, for example), and so on.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The word "denial" suggests ignoring something, failing to deal with it. This about using a particular approach to evaluating the evidence, not about denying the existence of evidence.

Denial does not (at least the way I was using it) suggest "failing to deal with it", quite the contrary I believe that Enlightenment thinkers dealt with personal experience and divine revelation and decided that since they are not universally experienced nor measured then they couldn't be trusted. As if everything that can be trusted can be universally experienced or measure. Love for instance is not universally experienced nor can it be measured, and yet it isn't denied. No, the Enlightenment thinkers when they wrote the rules drew the boundaries around what they wanted and they excluded what they didn't, and that is at least IMO a great loss.

[alexey]

Denial does not (at least the way I was using it) suggest "failing to deal with it", quite the contrary I believe that Enlightenment thinkers dealt with personal experience and divine revelation and decided that since they are not universally experienced nor measured then they couldn't be trusted. As if everything that can be trusted can be universally experienced or measure. Love for instance is not universally experienced nor can it be measured, and yet it isn't denied. No, the Enlightenment thinkers when they wrote the rules drew the boundaries around what they wanted and they excluded what they didn't, and that is at least IMO a great loss.

I agree. I think this unfortunate situation happened because questions of spirituality have traditionally been viewed in a religious context.