I’m not sure if LW is the best place for this. Right now, it won’t drown out any other discussion, but I fear that the whole atheist debate might creep in and then LW becomes just another skeptics blog full of science fanboys and trolls. A one-time post or advertisement of another blog/forum to have the discussion seems acceptable, though. There have been many cases of theists becoming useful rationalists.
Personally, I’m not interested in the whole Mormon thing at all. It’s just way too silly. The mere requirements to make Mormonism even an idea worth thinking about aren’t met in any way. (e.g., the world doesn’t look supervised, Old Testament is entirely unhistorical nonsense, New Testament is at best the product of political propaganda and at worst Sai-Baba level myth, the texts aren’t in any way compatible with each other (“god” in Amos, Deuteronomy, Mark, John and Revelation means entirely different things), “let’s tell a small tribe and ignore the majority of humanity for thousands of years” is totally how a benevolent god would act and so on). I mean, try to step back, ignore everything you know about religion and history and ask yourself, if there were a very powerful and interested entity, predating all of humanity, what would it do? How would it act? Compare that to the much weaker variant of FAI and how it’s typically depicted of acting. After you’ve made predictions based on this belief, does the world look anything like that at all? (Seriously, it tells a dude to write a book? And not even a good one?!)
(Also, if you have to write ancient mythology fan-fiction, please don’t just rip off the Sumerians and claim it’s original. I’m looking at you, Hebrews.)
(Also, if you have to write ancient mythology fan-fiction, please don’t just rip off the Sumerians and claim it’s original. I’m looking at you, Hebrews.)
On a tangential note, it seems that the author of that article is seriously confused about the chronology of the Ancient Near East. The earliest Sumerian cuneiform documents date from circa ~3100BC, and the earliest examples of Middle Eastern proto-writing are at most 300-400 years older than that. The literalist Biblical chronology used by the young Earth creationists places the date of the creation much earlier, around ~4000BC. So while creationism obviously has many problems, its alleged inconsistency with the Sumerian civilization is not one of them.
(On the other hand, there are extant examples of undeciphered proto-writing much older than 4000BC, most notably the Vinca,Tartaria, and Dispilio symbols, but none of these has anything to to with the Sumerians. However, the exact nature of these symbols, and how close they were to a real writing system, is unknown.)
Sumer was first settled between 4500 and 4000 BC by a non-Semitic people who did not speak the Sumerian language. These people now are called proto-Euphrateans or Ubaidians, for the village Al-Ubaid, where their remains were first discovered. The Ubaidians were the first civilizing force in Sumer, draining the marshes for agriculture, developing trade, and establishing industries, including weaving, leatherwork, metalwork, masonry, and pottery. After the Ubaidian immigration to Mesopotamia, various Semitic peoples infiltrated their territory, adding their cultures to the Ubaidian culture, and creating a high pre-Sumerian civilization.
I don’t really understand how this is relevant for my point, especially since you cut off the quote right before the following sentence:
The people called Sumerians, whose language became the prevailing language of the territory, probably came from around Anatolia, arriving in Sumer about 3300BC.
In any case, the linked Onion article makes fun of creationists based on the premise that the Biblical literalist date of creation falls after the invention of the Sumerian cuneiform and the beginning of documented history. This is simply incorrect, as the standard creationist chronology leaves plenty of time between the creation and the earliest Sumerian writing. (Thus providing another data point for my observation that while creationists themselves are silly enough, most people who rail against them in the contemporary public discourse usually do it from a position of even greater ignorance.)
Thus providing another data point for my observation that while creationists themselves are silly enough, most people who rail against them in the contemporary public discourse usually do it from a position of even greater ignorance.
While I agree that some militant atheists overplay their hand, I think it’s still a bit of a stretch to call them even more ignorant than creationists.
Yes, it’s simply shocking that the Onion, a parody newspaper, simplified the facts to make a joke. The point is that archaeological data shows there was a civilization already flourishing in Sumer at the supposed time of young Earth creation, regardless of the existence of written language.
Well, there is plenty of archaeological evidence about many other civilizations that existed before that too. I even mentioned some of them in one of my above comments. My point is that it’s stupid to scoff at people from the position of supposed intellectual superiority while displaying elementary ignorance of the topics at hand. It’s not like I’m objecting about some obscure little details—anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of the ancient Near Eastern chronology and the actual claims of the creationists should be immediately aware that the premise of the joke doesn’t hold water.
John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
I’m not sure if LW is the best place for this. Right now, it won’t drown out any other discussion, but I fear that the whole atheist debate might creep in and then LW becomes just another skeptics blog full of science fanboys and trolls. A one-time post or advertisement of another blog/forum to have the discussion seems acceptable, though. There have been many cases of theists becoming useful rationalists.
Personally, I’m not interested in the whole Mormon thing at all. It’s just way too silly. The mere requirements to make Mormonism even an idea worth thinking about aren’t met in any way. (e.g., the world doesn’t look supervised, Old Testament is entirely unhistorical nonsense, New Testament is at best the product of political propaganda and at worst Sai-Baba level myth, the texts aren’t in any way compatible with each other (“god” in Amos, Deuteronomy, Mark, John and Revelation means entirely different things), “let’s tell a small tribe and ignore the majority of humanity for thousands of years” is totally how a benevolent god would act and so on). I mean, try to step back, ignore everything you know about religion and history and ask yourself, if there were a very powerful and interested entity, predating all of humanity, what would it do? How would it act? Compare that to the much weaker variant of FAI and how it’s typically depicted of acting. After you’ve made predictions based on this belief, does the world look anything like that at all? (Seriously, it tells a dude to write a book? And not even a good one?!)
(Also, if you have to write ancient mythology fan-fiction, please don’t just rip off the Sumerians and claim it’s original. I’m looking at you, Hebrews.)
On a tangential note, it seems that the author of that article is seriously confused about the chronology of the Ancient Near East. The earliest Sumerian cuneiform documents date from circa ~3100BC, and the earliest examples of Middle Eastern proto-writing are at most 300-400 years older than that. The literalist Biblical chronology used by the young Earth creationists places the date of the creation much earlier, around ~4000BC. So while creationism obviously has many problems, its alleged inconsistency with the Sumerian civilization is not one of them.
(On the other hand, there are extant examples of undeciphered proto-writing much older than 4000BC, most notably the Vinca,Tartaria, and Dispilio symbols, but none of these has anything to to with the Sumerians. However, the exact nature of these symbols, and how close they were to a real writing system, is unknown.)
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
I don’t really understand how this is relevant for my point, especially since you cut off the quote right before the following sentence:
In any case, the linked Onion article makes fun of creationists based on the premise that the Biblical literalist date of creation falls after the invention of the Sumerian cuneiform and the beginning of documented history. This is simply incorrect, as the standard creationist chronology leaves plenty of time between the creation and the earliest Sumerian writing. (Thus providing another data point for my observation that while creationists themselves are silly enough, most people who rail against them in the contemporary public discourse usually do it from a position of even greater ignorance.)
While I agree that some militant atheists overplay their hand, I think it’s still a bit of a stretch to call them even more ignorant than creationists.
Yes, it’s simply shocking that the Onion, a parody newspaper, simplified the facts to make a joke. The point is that archaeological data shows there was a civilization already flourishing in Sumer at the supposed time of young Earth creation, regardless of the existence of written language.
Well, there is plenty of archaeological evidence about many other civilizations that existed before that too. I even mentioned some of them in one of my above comments. My point is that it’s stupid to scoff at people from the position of supposed intellectual superiority while displaying elementary ignorance of the topics at hand. It’s not like I’m objecting about some obscure little details—anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of the ancient Near Eastern chronology and the actual claims of the creationists should be immediately aware that the premise of the joke doesn’t hold water.
— Isaac Asimov
:3 Thank you for demonstrating your own point; it’s well taken.
Well put.