Why would god hate an athiest?

[Salandriagado]

Actually ... At the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, sea level was considerably lower than it is today. The entire Persian Gulf was dry, with a river running down the middle of it. Seacoasts are good places to live, there's a lot to eat. Melt all that ice and the sea rises, quickly in places (in the Persion Gulf a kilometer a year has been hypothesized). That would certainly generate legends about floods, not only in the Middle East but around the world.

Do you have a source for sea levels being a kilometer lower than present in the middle east any time in the last oh 25,000 years.

She's talking about a horizontal kilometre. As in, the coast gets a kilometre closer in a year.

[The Alma Mater]

Not to mention, the greatest of early civilizations were along rivers that were prone to flooding - the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, to a lesser extent the Orontes, etc

Rivers flooding doesn't sound like the kind of thing that matches a myth of a flood that covers every mountain on earth, and most river floods do not cover an area wide enough, deep enough to suggest any such thing.

If "your whole world" consists of "your village, the neighbouring one and that other one far away" - your world getting flooded is easy.
Ask the victims of the tsunami in India from a few years back.

[Demonatrix]

Not a kilometer lower. The rising sea probably advanced inland as much as a kilometer a year. Distance, not depth.

In "Early State Formation in Southern Mesopotamia: Sea Levels, Shorelines, and Climate Change," Kennett & Kennett, Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 1:67-99, 2006:
"Most notable rapid rises in sea level in the Arabo-Persian Gulf occurred between 12,000 and 11,500 BP and again from 9500 to 8500 BP, and during these periods the lateral transgression probably exceeded 1 km per year (Teller et al. 2000:
306)." It's a PDF but only 1.4 MB. Search for the last phrase in the sentece. An Interesting article, too.

The distance not depth thing wasn't clear in your post, and makes a big difference in interpretation.

[Farnhamia]

Not to mention, the greatest of early civilizations were along rivers that were prone to flooding - the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, Indus, to a lesser extent the Orontes, etc

Rivers flooding doesn't sound like the kind of thing that matches a myth of a flood that covers every mountain on earth, and most river floods do not cover an area wide enough, deep enough to suggest any such thing.

"Grandpa, tell us the story of the flood again."
"Again?"
"Please!"
"Well, once upon a time, the gods Anu, Enlil, Ninurta, Ennugi, and Ea decided to cleanse the whole world by washing it with a huge flood, so they started it raining. It rained and it rained and it rained until the little streams filled up. It rained and it rained and it rained until the rivers filled up. It rained and it rained and it rained until the Ocean itself filled up. It rained and it rained and it rained until the whole wide world filled up!"

[Farnhamia]

Not a kilometer lower. The rising sea probably advanced inland as much as a kilometer a year. Distance, not depth.

In "Early State Formation in Southern Mesopotamia: Sea Levels, Shorelines, and Climate Change," Kennett & Kennett, Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 1:67-99, 2006:
"Most notable rapid rises in sea level in the Arabo-Persian Gulf occurred between 12,000 and 11,500 BP and again from 9500 to 8500 BP, and during these periods the lateral transgression probably exceeded 1 km per year (Teller et al. 2000:
306)." It's a PDF but only 1.4 MB. Search for the last phrase in the sentece. An Interesting article, too.

The distance not depth thing wasn't clear in your post, and makes a big difference in interpretation.

Which is why I was happy to clarify it for you.

[Demonatrix]

Rivers flooding doesn't sound like the kind of thing that matches a myth of a flood that covers every mountain on earth, and most river floods do not cover an area wide enough, deep enough to suggest any such thing.

If "your whole world" consists of "your village, the neighbouring one and that other one far away" - your world getting flooded is easy.
Ask the victims of the tsunami in India from a few years back.

Well nomads would have had fire wider ranges of knowledge, in terms of area covered, and even the settled peoples were trading over quite long distances...

This all sounds like people reaching to justify a claim for a biblical flood being True, when evidence doesn't support that...

Talk of a rise in sea levels and the mention of a kilometer a year, and all those major rivers with civillisations on them, but then saying the civillisations were people who thought 20 miles was the other side of the world, despite migrating 10 miles a day with their herds.

Then it turns out that it's not a 1 km rise, it's a 1 km advance inland per year which is significanly less dramatic, especially in a time when most of the populations would still have been nomadic anyway, and thus would not have villages to lose.

This looks like a lot of overly defensive hyperbole to me. Noah's flood is a myth, not history.

[Demonatrix]

Rivers flooding doesn't sound like the kind of thing that matches a myth of a flood that covers every mountain on earth, and most river floods do not cover an area wide enough, deep enough to suggest any such thing.

"Grandpa, tell us the story of the flood again."
"Again?"
"Please!"
"Well, once upon a time, the gods Anu, Enlil, Ninurta, Ennugi, and Ea decided to cleanse the whole world by washing it with a huge flood, so they started it raining. It rained and it rained and it rained until the little streams filled up. It rained and it rained and it rained until the rivers filled up. It rained and it rained and it rained until the Ocean itself filled up. It rained and it rained and it rained until the whole wide world filled up!"

All that shows is who the jews stole the story from, but you can guess that from who they stole most of genesis from, same source...

However, the myth still doesn't match the reality of river floods in that region. black sea basin, maybe, but thats a long ways north of the levant, and even that wasn't exactly the kind of flood you needed an ark for.

[The Alma Mater]

If "your whole world" consists of "your village, the neighbouring one and that other one far away" - your world getting flooded is easy.
Ask the victims of the tsunami in India from a few years back.

Well nomads would have had fire wider ranges of knowledge, in terms of area covered, and even the settled peoples were trading over quite long distances...

This all sounds like people reaching to justify a claim for a biblical flood being True

Actually, it is an argument against

[Farnhamia]

If "your whole world" consists of "your village, the neighbouring one and that other one far away" - your world getting flooded is easy.
Ask the victims of the tsunami in India from a few years back.

Well nomads would have had fire wider ranges of knowledge, in terms of area covered, and even the settled peoples were trading over quite long distances...

This all sounds like people reaching to justify a claim for a biblical flood being True, when evidence doesn't support that...

Talk of a rise in sea levels and the mention of a kilometer a year, and all those major rivers with civillisations on them, but then saying the civillisations were people who thought 20 miles was the other side of the world, despite migrating 10 miles a day with their herds.

Then it turns out that it's not a 1 km rise, it's a 1 km advance inland per year which is significanly less dramatic, especially in a time when most of the populations would still have been nomadic anyway, and thus would not have villages to lose.

This looks like a lot of overly defensive hyperbole to me. Noah's flood is a myth, not history.

Of course Noah's flood is a myth. I don't think anyone here, least of all me, is trying to say otherwise. My mention of sea level rises and all was simply to show that they might have been the source of legends about a nice place to live being wiped out by the sea. The stories came from somewhere, after all, and floods are ubiquitous enough in world mythology that there ought to be a reason for it. But hey, believe it, don't believe it ...

[Demonatrix]

Well nomads would have had fire wider ranges of knowledge, in terms of area covered, and even the settled peoples were trading over quite long distances...

This all sounds like people reaching to justify a claim for a biblical flood being True

Actually, it is an argument against

No, it's an arguemt for claiming the bible isn't WRONG when it tells of something that did not happen... Thats not the same thing at all

[Farnhamia]

Actually, it is an argument against

No, it's an arguemt for claiming the bible isn't WRONG when it tells of something that did not happen... Thats not the same thing at all

I don't know about those other guys but that's certainly not what I was arguing. That may be what you read into it, but that's your problem.

[The Alma Mater]

Actually, it is an argument against

No, it's an arguemt for claiming the bible isn't WRONG when it tells of something that did not happen... Thats not the same thing at all

Really ? How so ?
It merely states that if a flood happens to wipe out your local village, people will remember it.
And since humans have a tendency to build villages near bodies of water, it is not surprising that almost every culture has such tales.

[Farnhamia]

No, it's an arguemt for claiming the bible isn't WRONG when it tells of something that did not happen... Thats not the same thing at all

Really ? How so ?
It merely states that if a flood happens to wipe out your local village, people will remember it.
And since humans have a tendency to build villages near bodies of water, it is not surprising that almost every culture has such tales.

Makes me think of the Sam Kinnison routine about people living in the desert, only the opposite. "This is a flood plain! Your house gets washed away EVERY TIME IT RAINS!"

[Serrland]

Actually, it is an argument against

No, it's an arguemt for claiming the bible isn't WRONG when it tells of something that did not happen... Thats not the same thing at all

That's certainly not what I was arguing...

[United low territories]

People always say that if your an athiest your going to hell.This got me thinking.Why (if he exists) would he send me to an eternity of suffering in a fighery hole of dispaire.Doing this horrifying act just because I don't think he existed.There was no evidence to support the fact he exist.I never did anything terribly wrong compared to the next guy.If god is real in this manner he is a evil villianous charector sending me and my closest friend to an eternity of suffering worse than death itself.

I'm not scared by this since he doesn't exist.

Try to look at it this way: allmost all religions warn for false gods, the blieve in those obviously fake beings should be fought. If you are an agressive atheïst you are fighting all of them (and the right on too but we'll ignore that for a moment). What's better than that right? Save your soul, fight religion!

[Farnhamia]

People always say that if your an athiest your going to hell.This got me thinking.Why (if he exists) would he send me to an eternity of suffering in a fighery hole of dispaire.Doing this horrifying act just because I don't think he existed.There was no evidence to support the fact he exist.I never did anything terribly wrong compared to the next guy.If god is real in this manner he is a evil villianous charector sending me and my closest friend to an eternity of suffering worse than death itself.

I'm not scared by this since he doesn't exist.

Try to look at it this way: allmost all religions warn for false gods, the blieve in those obviously fake beings should be fought. If you are an agressive atheïst you are fighting all of them (and the right on too but we'll ignore that for a moment). What's better than that right? Save your soul, fight religion!

Atheists tend to believe souls don't exist, either.

[Demonatrix]

No, it's an arguemt for claiming the bible isn't WRONG when it tells of something that did not happen... Thats not the same thing at all

Really ? How so ?
It merely states that if a flood happens to wipe out your local village, people will remember it.
And since humans have a tendency to build villages near bodies of water, it is not surprising that almost every culture has such tales.

Hmm so noah's flood is a slightly off retelling of a family anecdote about how their hut fell down when the river burst its banksat the end of the ice age, 9000 years before the family decided to learn writing from the tribe next door and make a note of it for future generations to enjoy.

Right.

[United low territories]

Try to look at it this way: allmost all religions warn for false gods, the blieve in those obviously fake beings should be fought. If you are an agressive atheïst you are fighting all of them (and the right on too but we'll ignore that for a moment). What's better than that right? Save your soul, fight religion!

Atheists tend to believe souls don't exist, either.

Atheïsts tend to think it's statistically highly unlikely for those to exist, for ridiculously high values for highly. However, this topic is about why atheïsts would go to hell. For souls to go to hell they have to exists, therefor in this scenario you have to count on them existing.

[The Alma Mater]

Really ? How so ?
It merely states that if a flood happens to wipe out your local village, people will remember it.
And since humans have a tendency to build villages near bodies of water, it is not surprising that almost every culture has such tales.

Hmm so noah's flood is a slightly off retelling of a family anecdote about how their hut fell down when the river burst its banksat the end of the ice age, 9000 years before the family decided to learn writing from the tribe next door and make a note of it for future generations to enjoy.

Right.

I am certain that in those 9000 years loads of other floods happened. So it is a logical story to tell.
Similar as to how all the plagues of Egypt were things that happen often.

"Locusts will come and eat your fields".
"Well, eeehm, yeah. They have been doing that for thousands of years. "

"Snow will one day fall !"
"Well gee. Let me guess - during the winter ?"

[Ceannairceach]

Try to look at it this way: allmost all religions warn for false gods, the blieve in those obviously fake beings should be fought. If you are an agressive atheïst you are fighting all of them (and the right on too but we'll ignore that for a moment). What's better than that right? Save your soul, fight religion!

Atheists tend to believe souls don't exist, either.

Tend to. Not all atheists believe this.

[United low territories]

Atheist don't really exist anyway, they're just agnostics that followed statistics 101.

[The Common Territories]

People always say that if your an athiest your going to hell.This got me thinking.Why (if he exists) would he send me to an eternity of suffering in a fighery hole of dispaire.Doing this horrifying act just because I don't think he existed.There was no evidence to support the fact he exist.I never did anything terribly wrong compared to the next guy.If god is real in this manner he is a evil villianous charector sending me and my closest friend to an eternity of suffering worse than death itself.

I'm not scared by this since he doesn't exist.

Fully agree. If any god existed(From any of the religions) and was truly as they claim then he wouldn't send anyone to hell for not believing. Notice before bombing this with your christian ideals and religious ways; actually tell a sentence, not just a hate speech of christian imperial crazed ideas. Anyways there are plenty of stories that many went to heaven because they ether repented or were truly not evil. Only true evil goes to hell. Not people with different ideals, that's just a racist thought put into everyone's head from when Christianity controlled the known world. God in almost all context is an understanding, caring being that accepts people like his followers are supposed to do. Unfortunately there are plenty of bad seeds now that just shout "Believe or die and burn!". A way you can look is that Christianity is souly a belief system just like all religion in general. But many including you and I put fact and reason above blind faith to something making us Rationalists.

If an atheist is called evil then count how many atheists killed people in the name of Atheism. Then count those who believe in religion, then add Christianity. Your gonna get a funny number. Unfortunately some Christians have diverted from the path they swore to follow acting like Christianity is a fact and must be followed as a law or be punished by death. Such examples are here I bet. Others such as "You don't believe in Christ? Your gonna burn you know?" or "Believe in the Lord or die and burn for eternity!". Those Christians are bad examples for the whole religious community. Christians are taught to accept others for there differences and to spread peace. Same boat goes for Islam, which is actually supposed to be kinder to others and respectful in general. Yet hundreds of years later Christians started over 18 Crusades in the name of God killing thousands, many being innocent. Today crazed sects of Islamist make up terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Or make up corrupt nations like Iran. These are bad examples of intolerant religious homophobes, while there are still many good people out there that these people give bad rep for. Even now I bet you that you or someone else will post very intolerant crap about this post even though it's provided with facts.

I am a Rationalist who dose not believe in any religion at all. Simply because non-are proven real. This is my opinion like others. I can't believe in it (Religion) because non can be proven fact as real which is what I only believe in (Things that can be proven though fact, science, and reason).

So in the end a God or what ever deity if they exist wouldn't send you to hell because you simply did not believe. If they did then I'd have to agree that they are an evil corrupted being. Something like Hades of Greek miths.

[Ceannairceach]

Atheist don't really exist anyway, they're just agnostics that followed statistics 101.

That's wrong. Atheists can be gnostic or agnostic. Gnostic atheists directly claiming their to be no god, and agnostic atheists being unsure but still a nonbeliever, or doesn't give a shit/is uninformed on deities in the first place.

[Farnhamia]

Really ? How so ?
It merely states that if a flood happens to wipe out your local village, people will remember it.
And since humans have a tendency to build villages near bodies of water, it is not surprising that almost every culture has such tales.

Hmm so noah's flood is a slightly off retelling of a family anecdote about how their hut fell down when the river burst its banksat the end of the ice age, 9000 years before the family decided to learn writing from the tribe next door and make a note of it for future generations to enjoy.

Right.

Then what do you think? (Or did I miss your post giving your thoughts?)

[Demonatrix]

Hmm so noah's flood is a slightly off retelling of a family anecdote about how their hut fell down when the river burst its banksat the end of the ice age, 9000 years before the family decided to learn writing from the tribe next door and make a note of it for future generations to enjoy.

Right.

Then what do you think? (Or did I miss your post giving your thoughts?)

Babylonian priest (or whoever they stole the story from) wants a story to scare the peasants with, remembers the guy who lived in the next house when the priest was a kid, who kept his goats on a raft during the annual 4 ft river flood, so he wouldnt have to share the roof of his house with them.

Priest inflates story to a really big raft, with loads of goats not just two, and a really big flood, then uses this to scare the city folk at the temple he works at into being extra pius and extra generous with the priests free lunch offerings to the gods.

Jewish tourist steals myth for use in own tribe.