The fact that skeptics and atheists have shown extreme biased and dislike towards Christians tells me which side is truly being dishonest.
But they aren’t “remembering an event”-they have woven different half-remembered events into different fables.
That makes no sense.
No conspiracy needed. Why has Hinduism survived unless all of the stories are true? If I give you a list of myths that have survived for millennia, will you change your mind?
You keep making this nasty claim-Why don’t you put up or shut up about the dishonesty on the part of secular science when it comes to this debate?
They aren’t. The fact that you disagree does not mean the subject is in any way unsettled.
Because it explained something about the world that made sense to them - like “if we become too wicked, God may make the river overflow and wipe us out.” Or because it told them that catastrophic floods were survivable. Or simply because it related an event they remembered hearing about. You’re assuming they would have known it was fiction, and that’s not necessarily the case.
This is a strawman argument, and a really ridiculous one at that.
And here we go with this again.
Still debating what?
Out of interest, how is it you determine that it’s the Bible that’s (effectively) the source of all these things? I mean, you’ve suggested that lots of worldwide myths have some similarities, including those to be found in the Bible - but how is it you’re moving from there to “therefore, this is evidence the Bible is correct”? Why isn’t it evidence that (say) the Maasai legends are correct?
Particularly if the Babylonian myth is older.
There is no scientist in any relevant discipline who still “debates” the occurrence of a worldwide flood. None. It did not happen and we not only have no evidence that it happened, but a lot of evidence that it did not.
Ya think? 
(And you continue with your strawman argument against “atheists” when the reality is that the majority of Christians, (although, unfortunately, a bit less than half the Christians in the U.S.), accept science on all the points you are arguing rather than the views of Biblical Literalists. I have already noted that I am Christian and I note in reviewing the thread that a number of other opponents of your odd views are either Christian or Jewish.)
The fact that many cultures have a flood story could also mean that the entire earth did not flood at once, as the Bible story tells. Of course there were floods, no one doubts that, but not that the entire earth was flooded as the Bible tells. If 29,000 feet of water covered the earth and the Ark sat on top of Moutn Ararat which is 15,000 feet high it would mean that there was that much water for nearly a year, and no palm tree let alone any tree would survive that kind of water pressure. And wouldn’t the llamas have a hard and long swim to South America let alone all the other animals from other Continents!
One has to realize that there it can be proven that there is ‘nothing’ ever read, written, taught, or said, that wasn’t of a Human hand or mind, so in reality one is not believing in God, but believing what some human said was of God. That of course is one’s choice and if they choose to believe it I say," that is their right, but belief isn’t fact".
I wonder why some Christians think others of different beliefs think others are biased? We do know tthat humans wrote the stories and that humans do exaggerate. I am not Christian, and have many Christian relatives and friends and even they admit that many of the stories are just Myths used to teach people why not to be evil.
Really, so if you don’t take the Bible literally, how do you decide which parts are true, and which parts were simply made up? If you are a Christian then I assume you believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ believe in the Noah story:
Matthew 24:37-39
So did Peter:
I Peter 3:20
Are you saying Jesus and Peter were liars?
The game of Bible literalcy is a game few, if any, Christians can win. Everyone interprets the Bible to suit their needs, including you.
Here lies the extreme unfairness that atheists apply to the Bible. They perfectly accept other events as recorded history yet when that same measure stick is applied to the Bible, it is disregarded.
The Bible hits all the acceptable points of evidence. Archaeology backs it up, it contains detailed geneologies, fullfileld prophecies, and historical facts that line up perfectly with other ancient cultures.
Yet, for some reason, that’s not good enough. If such things are not sufficient to determine an ancient event, it is only fair to regard all ancient history as possible myths. You just don’t see such things in other myths. The closet thing would be Lords of the Rings, and that book was clearly presented as a work of fiction.
If the Bible is fiction, you have to wonder about the motives of the authors. Why would they present every great leader in the OT as flawed and weak? Even the great King David had a man murdered so he could have sex with his wife. That’s pretty low down dirty. The real answer is because the events did occur.
No one here has done this.
None of this is true.
Most good fictional authors write imperfect heroes.
Every bit of history is accepted wholesale by every athiest, and none of the bible is accepted? Really?
Or maybe it’s a sliding scale depending on the historicity of the relevant documents. Those who are meaning to write history are more reliable than those that are trying to write myths or fables. Which isn’t to say that those cannot contain a message, just that any historical truth is a coincidence.
No one takes the entire Bible literally. There are simply varying levels of honesty about how much people are picking and choosing.
Show me an event comparable to a worldwide flood that is accepted as history despite the evidence against it.
You realize you don’t get to the judge of what’s reasonable, right? Archaeologists and historians get to make those kinds of determinations. There is evidence that in some places the Bible describes real events or gives versions of real events. You can’t apply that to the entire book (“if some parts are trueish, they all are!”) and you definitely can’t apply it to a myth about a global flood that is contradicted by all kinds of evidence. You seem to be biased pro-Bible scholars on par with scientists who don’t have that kind of agenda, and I hate to be the one to tell you, but you’re wrong. Sorry.
Since we know very little about the authors, it’s very difficult to make any kind of informed speculation about why they wrote what they wrote.
A more accurate answer would be that they thought it occurred. That doesn’t guarantee that it did.
They both used doves in their story because a dove was used in the original story…keyword being story. Mary had a little lamb in her story and its been a lamb since the story began that doesnt mean Mary or her lamb existed but the story has been around for years and so has the story of Noah’s ark. How the hell did Noah get alll those animals on the ark and keep them from eating each other? And you mean to tell me that Noah and his family were the only people who believed in God and followed his ways and God just killed everybody else?
Interesting that the Epic of Gilgamesh is usually used as evidence against the Biblical flood story. The Epic is about a thousand years older than Genesis, and everyone accepts it as mythical. Plus, every major detail from Gilgamesh is copied in the Genesis flood story. Doesn’t that indicate that you should accept the Genesis story as just mythical as well?
Others have already pointed this out, but you haven’t answered it: there is NO debate about this. People in all the relevant fields accept that the global flood never happened. I hope your lack of response indicates that you’re out looking for some actual debate about it, and coming up empty-handed.