New-Atheist Spergitude

Why are so many new-atheist and scientific-materialist critiques of Abrahamic scripture so...autistic? Bereft of context?

Example A: The Tower of Babel. The oft-repeated line to establish the supposed illegitimacy of the Tower of Babel narrative is that, if these fellows were truly trying to reach Heaven, why wouldn't they build a few hundred miles away in the Iraqi highlands where they would be vertically closer to the sky?
This line of questioning totally ignores the very real historical and cultural context of the scene depicted in the book of Genesis, wherein the Tower of Babel was likely merely some early, prominent Ziggurat constructed by a some Mesopotamian priest-king and the part about reaching heaven from its peak corresponds to what we know about the ritual function of the Holy of Holies at the highest level of a ziggurat.

Example B: The supposedly contradictory nature of the Old Testament deity and the various commandments given by Him/It.
This of course ignores the recurring theme in the OT of strife and conflict between the castes, namely the military leaders and ruling families and the state priests and quasi-ascetic prophets, all of whom held different theologies and in some cases worshiped entirely separate deities, all of which were reconciled into a singular culture and theology during a later period.

Can you guys give any other examples of new-atheist critique of religious scripture relying on a sort of static, stagnant view of Biblical history?

>Holy of Holies
That was something in the Jewish temple, not some ziggurat

The worst are the ones that betray a really childish view of the topics presented

>god punished Adam because he disobeyed him xppp

>Example A: The Tower of Babel.

There are Christians who believe the Tower of Babel is much more than a metaphor for a Ziggarut

>
Example B: The supposedly contradictory nature of the Old Testament deity and the various commandments given by Him/It.
This of course ignores the recurring theme in the OT of strife and conflict between the castes, namely the military leaders and ruling families and the state priests and quasi-ascetic prophets, all of whom held different theologies and in some cases worshiped entirely separate deities, all of which were reconciled into a singular culture and theology during a later period.

Except that is not what most Christians believe or how it has traditionally been interpreted. The very fact that it is as you described makes the text and everything build on it suspect.

The shrine at the peak of the ziggurat served an identical purpose and was constructed almost identically

>There are Christians who believe the Tower of Babel is much more than a metaphor for a Ziggarut

Well yeah, it's a characterization of the modes of worship associated with the ziggurat and the type of culture from which that mode of worship arises.

>
Except that is not what most Christians believe or how it has traditionally been interpreted. The very fact that it is as you described makes the text and everything build on it suspect.

Suspect of what? "Suspect" is subjective.
Simply because adherents of the religions purportedly built upon the foundation of a given religious text have contradictory interpretations of the scripture does not mean there's any excuse for critics of those religions to not have a firm grasp on the historical context of the religious literature itself.

>Why are so many new-atheist and scientific-materialist critiques of Abrahamic scripture so...autistic? Bereft of context?
For the same reason your questions are loaded and condescending.

they pick and choose things that are easily attacked or made fun of

they have to take it literaly to do this, but also because they cannot accept any of it could have any 'deeper meaning' since they negate this

realy its all a circlejerk, most of them dont realy know much about either the bible or any scripture of other religions, even if they read them they just look for logical or historical erors and other such crap

>Well yeah, it's a characterization of the modes of worship associated with the ziggurat and the type of culture from which that mode of worship arises.

No many Chirstians believe everyone literally spoke the same language and God literally changed that, all around 2000BC

>Simply because adherents of the religions purportedly built upon the foundation of a given religious text have contradictory interpretations of the scripture does not mean there's any excuse for critics of those religions to not have a firm grasp on the historical context of the religious literature itself.

Most Christians dont have a firm grasp on the historical context, the very fact as you said that the writers might not have agreed on whether God is Yaweh or Baal, or even the number of gods, and then those stories and texts were later reformed to Yawehism is a huge redflag if what you were expecting is an unbroken chain of contact between God and the Israelites, as the bible implies and Jesus implies when referring to figures in the past.

You might simply disagree that is a redflag, but In that case I would say you're being obtuse

Weren't there Chinese in China speaking Chinese when Tower of Babel supposedly happened?

>they have to take it literaly to do this, but also because they cannot accept any of it could have any 'deeper meaning' since they negate this
Are you implying that it was not historically taken literally.