Theories regarding the creation and evolution of Abrahamic religion

This thread mostly concerns those that oppose theism, though not exclusively. Theists are still welcome to share their theory. But what I mostly want to know is what your interesting theories are for the creation of Abrahamic religion and how and why it evolved to become the world-wide phenomena it is today? Did it begin as some nefarious conspiracy involving a secret cabal to take over the world? Or did it all just come about by accident?

I will give an example of a theory.

Based on the Wikipedia link below, one might conclude that Abrahamic religion began as an alternative means to conquering Canaan, and perhaps even usurping power away from the Egyptian pharaohs.

So what are your theories regarding how it all began, and why?

Some people had some ideas about how to live life well,

Their culture included stories, history, poetry, philosophy,

The people had a rich and powerful cultural identity, and many of their ideas were appreciated by others,

Humans perhaps have a predisposition to religion,

"History becomes legend, Legend became myth" - Lord of the Rings

I think religion makes 'more sense the more you study it, becomes more powerful, rational, and invoking of spirit. . . But I'm satisfied with my atheistic, nihilistic, materialistic conclusions.

I sometimes think that neither Atheism or Theism, make more sense than one another, and that it's simply a matter of which one you spent time in understanding their reasonings, motivations, justifications.

We were a lot less informed and more gullible back in the day.

If today, a person says they're the son, daughter or genderfluid child of God that has been specially chosen as his spokesperson and prophet, we'd treat them for schizophrenia at the very least. 

All prophets of the Abrahamic religions, in particular Muhammad, showed many signs of narcissistic personality disorder on top of schizophrenia. It was all about them and their special role in a story they told everyone was the absolute truth.

Many physical things have been proven wring since then, regarding scientific facts but fubnily enough the one thing that may be true is that we live on a stationary flat disc, as the Bible old testament (which is identical in storyline to the Torah) strongly implies. The Qur'an also implies this at certain points since it supports the old testament Bible being true.

Do you mean Judaism or all the Abrahamic religions? Cause Judaism is still a fairly closed religion. You get converts but most are born into the faith and it's still strongly tied to the Jewish people. 

Polytheist Witch wrote...

According to the book "formed from this soil", all Abrahamic religions take their roots from Judaism. Therefore Judaism would most likely be closest to the roots of Abrahamic religion?

it began when God created Heaven and the Earth

Doc, 

As I have stated before ad infinitum to you, please state in which God you are talking about to show respect, okay? It's not that hard to do, whereas our God separated from the many other Gods and their creation stories throughout history, is our serial killerJesus as Yahweh God incarnate, understood?   Thanks.

the Christian God

Right time, right place.....And a substance enhanced creation hypothesis expounded by charismatic shamans....Notably the guy who went up a mountain, tripped, and reputedly chatted with a GOD.

If it happened today we would laugh them out of town.....The laughable thing is though, people are still desperate to believe the tosh of a mystical past.

Such is the power of data transfer......And such is the need of people, for supernatural salvation.

>>> RM

As you state the flat earth theory to derive from the holy writ of the Abrahamic religions, I'd be curious to know of your sourcing from each that such is suggested. It is a sufficiently definitive claim, with definitive sourcing; enlighten, please.

Will you accept links instead of my own original writings for you on this account? I don't want to waste effort.

@RatMan.

"Fubnily enough"

People did once believe that the Earth was a flat disc.

But people did eventually work out, that the Earth was in fact  a spheroid.

Just liked sensible people, also worked out, that the Arabian Tales were a naive and illogical creation hypothesis.

Just like people have worked out and done all sorts of other things, that were never mentioned in Tales from Arabia.

Absolutely. Thanks

PS. that's a lot of info. Give me time to absorb, but it looks at first glance to be very interesting material.

From RM's first link:

Admittedly, I have never delved deeply into flat-earth theory, and RM has graciously given me some information to digest, particularly in linkage to holy writ, but in the brief exposure I've had, I've not run across idea that a flat earth is also an immovable earth. My first thought is that by "immovable," at least in a biblical perspective, may be saying that it cannot be moved out of its place, i.e., its position in the solar system, and not that it does not, itself, move, as in orbit about the sun, or by any other means, such as revolution on its axis [which even a flat earth would have, imo].

Also, the "never be shaken" routine also seems to me to be reference to it's not being shaken by an external force, but can and does shake itself, as in by earthquake, which once being a long-term resident in both northern and southern CA, I have experienced many, up to a 7.1 on one occasion.

re: the materials you provided in your #12 appear to draw a significant distinction between astronomy [the study of all that is encompassed by the universe and its systemic behavior] and cosmology [study of the physical universe as perceived]. Not so much by the brief singular mention of astronomy, and the many, many mentions of cosmology, but more by the utter lack of suggestion that, as I have earlier suggested in another related thread, that at least the biblical, if not by Talmud and Qu'ran, the Genesis description of creation was not meant to be an astronomy lesson [or cosmology] of the factual structure of "heaven and earth" for Moses, but a description of sequence and purpose of creation. Therefore, to make it easier for Moses to understand the astronomy/cosmology [the not-intent of the Genesis lesson], God's description is the cosmological geocentric [and flat-earth] perspective, since that was the perspective Moses physically saw. Since the science wasn't the point, God made it easy for Moses to capture what he could actually see: an apparent flat Earth and vault [dome] of sky [heaven]. In other words, God was being poetic by metaphor, for convenience, not scientific, for accuracy, by empiric evidence.

After all, the N.T. is replete with the same kind of description: by then, called "parable," for the same reason: easy understanding in order to capture, not the science, but the lesson itself, whatever it was: that we should be merciful, meek, pure in heart, peacemakers, etc. Everyone on Earth, wherever on Earth, mainly perceives it to be flat, to be surrounded by horizon, whether with mountains or seas, in desert or forest... The point for Moses was not that Earth was the third rock from the sun, but rather, wherever we happen to be under the sun, we have needs and wants and joy and misery, purpose and redemption. The whole matter of the "vault" means nothing to the discussion of flat-earth because even on a sphere, there appears to be a vault of heaven overhead that is centered on Earth. just as that vault appears to the men who have been on the Moon to be centered on the Moon, whether it is a flat plane or a sphere. So, what?

You're the one worked up about it. I'm actually not a flat-earther based on scripture, I just find it ironic that of all the scientific fallacies in the Bible, with regards to Noah's Ark, evolution, tales of turning water into wine, walking on water, curing diseases with a touch etc. The one that could be true is geocentrism.

^ compoetely disable your adblocker for this to show if you're on a computer, it keeps bringing up the warning/request even if you click to allow ads on the extension/addon

In my experience, I have been high enough [well above commercial aircraft typical altitude, which is actually moderately sufficient] to see the spherical nature of earth, and not an illusion through the DV window [optically flat] because, on the ground, through said DV, a flat plane is flat, and a ball is spherical.

I can explain why that would be seen on a flat Earth if you want me to.

There is a maximum circle of vision due to light refraction and limitations of the human eyeball.

Good point, but the point is defeated by OTH [Over The Horizon] radar systems, which would not be necessary with a flat-earth. common horizon across the entire plane scenario [except as obstructed by mountain ranges, but also overcome by OTH.

I'd rather not go to the trouble of defeating my adblocker.

Can you explain more please? About OTH radar systems?

OTH sends a low-frequency signal into the ionosphere on a angular trajectory. It bounces off the ionosphere back to Earth, extending the range of the radar over a physical horizon, thus demonstrating [by a coincidental phenomenon not directly related to the need of the radar system], by calculation of the return signal by the same path, the curvature of Earth's shape.

Are you a flat Earther?

So cool. 

We should chat more.  I am not one but am intrigued that someone is. 

Doesn't that prove that the horizon is at a certain distance (true regardless)?

Typically, lacking obstructing mountains, yes, but what OTH demonstrates is that the horizon does not equate with an edge, and one can, theoretically, given the transportability of OTH, circumnavigate the globe in a singular direction with iterative readings, returning to an origin point and demonstrate that there is no edge as a flat plane would have, ultimately and rather quickly.

do you understand how the flat Earth works map-wise?