The assertion was discussed due to the Quora site question, Since the Bible says that humanity was destroyed by a flood, are we technically biblical humans?
Charles Fiott (whose self-description is, “studied The Bible”) replied:
Since the Bible says that humanity was destroyed by a flood, are we technically biblical humans?
The Bible is not history. It’s mythology. So if we were “biblical humans” we would not be real humans. We would be mythological characters just like Noah.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Friend, that “The Bible is not history. It’s mythology…would not be real humans…mythological characters” is just a list of assertion, they are positive affirmations so you must prove them.
Charles Fiott:
Friend, the Bible is not history. Neither is the Quran. Or Bhagavad Gita. or any other scripture. That’s by definition.
Ken Ammi:
How is doubling down on positive affirmations without proof any sort of intellectual reply? BTW: I don’t accept your self-appointed (pseudo) authority to merely assert, “That’s by definition” as a manner whereby to escape the fact that you have no proof?
Charles Fiott:
You can be as malcontent as you want to be about it, Ken, but you are not going to find Noah or any other pre-Davidian character of the Bible in any modern history book.
Ken Ammi:
So then you’ve surveyed every modern history book (of course, you’re merely asserting that modern history books are the standard)?
But you’re just punting: how is tripling down on positive affirmations without proof any sort of intellectual reply?
BTW: I don’t accept your self-appointed (pseudo) authority to merely assert, “That’s by definition” as a manner whereby to escape the fact that you have no proof?
Charles Fiott:
Here are a few things you should know, Ken, if you want to make this meaningful. Modern historians, like modern scientists, are peer-reviewed. People can’t write whatever their imagination tells them to any more. They have to keep notes and references and prove that they have the necessary evidence and documents before they publish anything.
In ancient times it wasn’t like that. Josephus could write anything he wanted with little or no scrutiny. Same for the biblical writers. The unknown authors of the gospels could say that Jesus said this and Jesus did that without any evidence or documentation or witnesses or anything.
So I am not asserting my own authority. I am asserting the authority of serious, responsible historicity as opposed to the quackery of the Bible
If you think I am incorrect when I say that Noah is a mythological character and the great flood is a myth, you have to provide evidence. You have to provide facts. Without those, your opinion means absolutely nothing.
The only thing factual about the myth of Noah is that it was copied from Gilgamesh.
Ken Ammi:
Well, that caricature of peer-reviewed is clearly idealistic. I’d love to believe it but there are some very, very well known problems with anything put into human hands such as schools of thought biasedly ruling journals as gate-keepers.
As for “without any evidence or documentation or witnesses or anything”: you’re just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative but how so, on your worldview?
Also, how are the documents nor documentations? And they do appeal to many witnesses.
I’ve had discussions with various secular history professors who utterly debunk the typical pseudo-historical methods of people who, contextually, say thing such as, “quackery of the Bible.”
You don’t get to just make a positive affirmation and then ask me to prove you wrong, you made the positive affirmation and now realize you can’t prove it so, a best practice is to stop positively affirming things you can’t prove.
You also demand, “You have to provide facts” but as a merely asserted jump to a conclusion based on hidden assumptions so how and why, on your worldview?
As for “The only thing factual about the myth of Noah is that it was copied from Gilgamesh” have you ever done any reading on that subject on a scholarly level? Besides, that’s just a genetic logical fallacy (not that it matters on Atheism).
Charles Fiott:
Jesus once reportedly said, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast. I think this applies to you, Ken. You find fault with serious, peer-reviewed, documented histories based on evidence and written by qualified people while accepting without question totally unproven writings by uncertified, mostly anonymous iron-age and first-century authors! You don’t see anything wrong with this picture?
That said, I will answer all your questions.
Question. As for “without any evidence or documentation or witnesses or anything”: you’re just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative but how so, on your worldview?
Answer. That IS actually a universal imperative, yes. All judicial systems around the world are based on evidence and witnesses. Are you saying that all courts are wrong?
Question. You also demand, “You have to provide facts” but as a merely asserted jump to a conclusion based on hidden assumptions so how and why, on your worldview?
Answer. You like the word “worldview,” don’t you? I like facts because facts matter and beliefs don’t.
Question: As for “The only thing factual about the myth of Noah is that it was copied from Gilgamesh” have you ever done any reading on that subject on a scholarly level?
Answer. Yes. And you can too. You can go to the British Museum to see the original Tablet XI of Gilgamesh for yourself or you can go online like I did and compare that tablet with the biblical version.
Further to what you wrote, I did not ask you to prove me wrong. I asked you to prove yourself right. If you can prove that Noah existed, I will accept him as history. Otherwise he will stay in mythology where he was created in the first place
Ken Ammi:
Yes, I see plenty wrong with that picture?
- Friend, you don’t know nearly enough about me to merely assert that I “find fault with serious, peer-reviewed, documented histories based on evidence and written by qualified people” as if they’re omniscient and infallible, BTW, “while accepting without question totally unproven writings by uncertified, mostly anonymous iron-age and first-century authors!”
- You refer to “unproven” but haven’t bothered to establish how, on Atheism, 2.a. there’s a universal imperative to prove anything nor 2.b. there’s a universal imperative to only base our views on what has been proved.
- “uncertified” yet, God inspiring them certifies them.
- “mostly anonymous” a pseudo-standard that even secular historians would correct you on—believe me, I’ve interacted with a bunch of them.
- “iron-age and first-century authors”: genetic logical fallacy (not that it matters on Atheism).
Note that you doubled down on “just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative” by merely punting in the style of well, someone else does it so it must be okay, “All judicial systems around the world are based on evidence and witnesses” which does nothing counter the fact that you are “just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative” but only provides more evidence for it.
No, you are missing the point: this is not about me “saying that all courts are wrong?” but asking you about your worldview.
Most excellent reply that hits the utter Atheist subjectivism nail on the head, “I like facts because facts,” which are accidental on your worldview, as a subjective personal preference du jour.
You then say that you hold to that subjective personal preference du jour because accidental facts “matter and beliefs don’t” so it’s your belief that beliefs don’t matter. But when you refer to “matter” you do so as an assertion without a premise or conclusions: matters how, why, as per what, to what, etc.?
As a shortcut on what I meant by “have you ever done any reading on that subject on a scholarly level?” please see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZZzuweVEs
Another fascinating window into that you recognize, at some level, your collapsed word view is that you say “I asked” regarding “you to prove yourself right” since you know you can’t say it’s incumbent upon me, can’t say there’s a universal imperative for me to do so, I ought, I must, etc. It’s just another subjective personal preference, “I asked.”
Now, as for “prove that Noah existed” how do you suppose one would go about to “prove” (not evidence) that?
Charles Fiott:
All that is irrelevant, Ken. You complain a lot, but you have no argument. My comment was very short — so short that I will repeat it in full for you: The Bible is not history. It’s mythology. So if we were “biblical humans” we would not be real humans. We would be mythological characters just like Noah. That’s all I said. And it’s true. The Bible was written by iron-age religious solicitors, and that makes it a mythology, by definition. If you can’t understand that simple fact, get a dictionary. History, on the other hand, is written by qualified, accredited, peer-reviewed historians — not by uninformed malcontents like you. Grow up.
[This following comment displays thusly to me when I view the Quora page, “This content has been deleted and is only visible to you.”]
Ken Ammi:
So, just so that I understand, every point that utterly devastated your worldview and M.O. are irrelevant?
Indeed, you merely asserted a bunch of stuff and when called on it, can only make vague appeals to generic historians.
Lesson learned: when you can’t back your positive affirmations, just don’t make them.
And that “History…is written by qualified, accredited, peer-reviewed historians” is shockingly myopically ill-informed.
Charles Fiott:
Ken, I removed your latest comment because, again, you are neither addressing the question nor my answer. You’re just talking nonsense.
Ken Ammi:
So, you’re running away from your inability to reply by becoming a censor. Well, that’s okay I have a copy of this entire discussion on my computer and will post it on my website in whole.
BTW, “just talking nonsense” is a mere assertion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that with pointed comment, it was done since no replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.