yeah, not like Jesus is a rip off of Mithras or anything
Adam and Eve are a rip off of Enkidu and Shamhat.
Noah is a rip off of Gilgamesh.
Satan is an evil retcon of Baal.
Yawveh was just one of many canaanite gods, and a rip off of Marduk anyway.
Can you provide evidence for these claims? 
I'm not sure what "evidence" means in the context of mythologies but... there's been a ton of stuff written about comparative studies of religions.
Enkidu, for instance, from the Epic of Gilgamesh, was a wild man created by gods from clay, who lived in the "edin", was friends with beasts and basically grazed just like them, ended up being tempted by Shamhat, had sex with her, and got initiated to the ways of the gods (in this context, eating bread and wearing clothes and shit - yes, Enkidu was roaming the edin butt-naked before this point). As a result, the beasts rejected him, he left the edin, he became pals with Gilgamesh.
I mean you could view these as incredible coincidences, but considering that this story was written in the same part of the world and predates the bible by several centuries, it's rather difficult to not see these as the basis for the story about Adam and Eve.
This only matters if you consider Adam and Eve and Noah to be literal.
I think you'll agree that these are religions in the same area. There is zero evidence of which story came first. And which story came first doesn't matter. You are also assuming that through similarities that these stories are actually telling the same story. These were stories that were told orally and since they happened to exist in the same region they were well known and were memes. These stories are often told in parables. They'll start off with how the story is usually told, but then warp it to change societal expectations. For instance, in Jesus' parable for the Prodigal Son. It was common in those times for Jews to revere their parents. When the prodigal son comes home to his father, and, for the sake of this experiment pretend you're 1st century Jew, it's expected for the son to run to his father for forgiveness. That is the societal expectation. But what happens? The father runs to the son - forgiving him in full and embracing him with love, and in doing so, flipping the expectation of the story. That is how a lot of Jewish parables and storytelling functioned: by taking previous knowledge and flipping it.
Speaking of Hebrew storytelling, you mentioned Noah but neglected that there are over 200 flood myths in the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths Coming to the conclusion that Noah rips off Gilgamesh is a stretch. These stories spread wide and fast. Given the sheer amount, what evidence do you have that Noah rips off Gilgamesh?
Also, you mentioned Satan is Baal when Baal is mentioned in the Bible with both being mentioned as two separate figures. The people who worshipped Baal did not consider him bad so saying he's a rip off of Satan is also a stretch.
None of your points have much credence beyond an atheistic "gotcha". Which funnily, has a fundamentalist ring to it. Used in an example, you lash out at religious fundamentalists, but you are offering an argument that rests its laurels on fundamentalism being the only valid interpretation.
I asked for evidence of your claims and you provided none. You literally said that characters of the Torah are rip offs of other characters. Making such a claim, you should be able to provide evidence that the other stories came before the Torah. You didn't. Your only argument is that they are similar. But even with those similarities, they aren't even remotely the same stories nor are they arguing similar things. Your arguments against Christianity - and by further extension, Judaism - are weak. Can you prove that the Hebrew stories did not come first? And if they didn't, does it matter? And since you posit literalism, the only way make your argument credible is to prove - with evidence - that these other stories were imported to the Hebrews.
I always find it funny how atheists as fundamentalist as the religious people they critique.
Lovely moving of the goal posts!
The Epic of Gilgamesh is an epic poem from ancient Mesopotamia that is often regarded as the earliest surviving great work of literature. The literary history of Gilgamesh begins with five Sumerian poems about 'Bilgamesh' (Sumerian for 'Gilgamesh'), king of Uruk, dating from the Third Dynasty of Ur (circa 2100 BC).
So you're telling me that the bible might have been first to tell that story? You could have taken 10s to check when the Epic of Gilgamesh was written.
It seems quite obvious that your knowledge of religions is incredibly lacking - not that I'm surprised, many studies have shown that atheists are actually generally more knowledgeable on the topic that religious folks. But please, by all means continue to pretend that maybe the hebrews predated the sumerians. The evidence is that we have sumerian texts dating CENTURIES earlier than any hebrew texts.
Satan, AKA Beelzebub (Lord of the Flies), is widely accepted to be a corruption of Ba'al Zebul (Lord of the Heavens). Like many things in religion, this was done for political reasons - mocking other gods, which are apparently not the real one true god. Or similarly, how Yawveh, the god of war of a pantheon with many gods, was over time turned into the Only One True God by people with an agenda - Extremist Yawhists. This was mostly started around the time Babylon conquered Judah, primarily by the prophet Jeremiah, and finalized when hebrews were exiled, by the prophet Isaiah (the second one).
You're asking for details and evidence, but then dismiss it, and preempt by saying "well even if you give me evidence it doesn't matter". Typical of strongly religious people, who will make claims, get debunked, and go on to say well it doesn't matter. You don't seem to be open to any sort of discussion and new knowledge. If you somehow still are a bit, I suggest "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong, that's a good place to start.
I haven't moved a single goal post and it's funny how you lot keep using that phrase when it's not even happening. I asked for evidence, you didn't give me any. I'm fully aware of the claim being made. I was an atheist for ten years. I have been conducive to conversation, but you are not willing to discuss. Just throw out things like "young Earth creationist" and "not that I'm surprised, many studies have shown that atheists are actually generally more knowledgeable on the topic that religious folks". You never really debunked me, as the question I asked for was evidence.
I didn't dismiss details and evidence only to dismiss it. You did not provide evidence. You said "Adam and Eve is a rip off of Enkidu". I asked for evidence. Talked about Gilgamesh myths. You provided the similarities, true. But you did not provide evidence that Adam and Eve "ripped off" Enkidu. Again, since you dismissed my entire point and post, Hebrews told stories in a specific ways. Have you read the stories of Enkidu and Adam and Eve?
In the old Mesopotamian myths, Enkidu is created as a rival God to Gilgamesh.
Let me quote the basics of the stories for you:
The people of Uruk complain to the gods that their mighty king Gilgamesh is too harsh. The goddess Aruru forms Enkidu from water and clay as rival to Gilgamesh, as a countervailing force. Enkidu lived in the wild, roaming with the herds, and joining the game at the watering-hole. M.H. Henze notes in this an early Mesopotamian tradition of the wild man living apart and roaming the hinterland, who eats grass like the animals and like them, drinks from the watering places.[2] A hunter sees him and realizes that it is Enkidu who is freeing the animals from his traps. He reports this to Gilgamesh, who sends the temple prostitute, Shamhat, to deal with him.[3]
Enkidu spends six days and seven nights making love with Shamhat, after which, sensing her scent upon him, the animals flee from him, and he finds he cannot return to his old ways.[4] He returns to Shamhat, who teaches him the ways of civilized people. He now protects the shepherd's flock against predators, turning against his old life. Jastrow and Clay are of the opinion that the story of Enkidu was originally a separate tale to illustrate "man's career and destiny, how through intercourse with a woman he awakens to the sense of human dignity, ..."[5]
Shamhat tells him of the city of Uruk and of its king Gilgamesh. He travels to Uruk and engages Gilgamesh in a wrestling match as a test of strength. Gilgamesh wins and the two become fast friends.
and
In the Book of Genesis of the Hebrew Bible, chapters one through five, there are two creation narratives with two distinct perspectives. In the first, Adam and Eve are not mentioned (at least not mentioned by name). Instead, God created humankind in God's image and instructed them to multiply and to be stewards over everything else that God had made. In the second narrative, God fashions Adam from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden. Adam is told that he can till the ground and eat freely of all the trees in the garden, except for a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Subsequently, Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs to be Adam's companion. They are innocent and unembarrassed about their nakedness. However, a serpent deceives Eve into eating fruit from the forbidden tree, and she gives some of the fruit to Adam. These acts give them additional knowledge, but it gives them the ability to conjure negative and destructive concepts such as shame and evil. God later curses the serpent and the ground. God prophetically tells the woman and the man what will be the consequences of their sin of disobeying God. Then he banishes them from the Garden of Eden.
To say that Adam and Eve ripped off Enkidu is disingenuous. As said, these are two completely different stories coming to two completely different conclusions. Much like in my example for Jesus' parables and flood myths, these stories were spread orally. It's extremely likely the Hebrews knew of Gilgamesh. The molding of clay is used to set the tone of the story. If ancient Hebrews knew of Enkidu and his being molded of clay, then when they hear this story, they'll come to expect the same thing. Instead, the story flips it. This is a commonality among a lot of Hebrew story-telling. In this case, the Goddess Aruru molds Enkidu. Yahweh molds Adam from dust. Both stories use temptation. This is acknowledged. Very similar, but reading about Enkidu reveals that the story is about man fulfilling his destiny; Adam and Eve is about man trying to fulfill his destiny, thinking that's okay, and falling out of favor with God. In Gilgamesh, the story is used to show that man has his own destiny through his own will. In the book of Genesis, the Hebrews used the archetype, or
trope of that same story, to tell
their perspective: that man's attempt as finding his own destiny results in sin and separation from God. In one story, human determination is valued; in the other it is scorned. Jewish religious text was very good at doing this type of "you think it's one way, but it's the other way" type of story telling. But, given how much you know about religion, I'm sure you're already familiar with this.
This is what I was basically saying: that similarities does not necessarily mean that they are inherently ripped off. You are angling this argument in a highly literalist manner.
Anyways, regarding your claims. The quote you posted says "earliest surviving". It's what we currently know is the oldest surviving. I have also provided a link to flood myths. My point is that Gilgamesh is hardly unique on this point, especially given those aforementioned flood myths. Basically, you could come to the conclusion that all flood myths come from the same source and ripped Gilgamesh off. That's not to say I think that the book of Genesis was written before Gilgamesh. Honestly, even if it was, it's not relevant to my faith. I'm just making sure that you are aware that you don't actually have evidence of which came first. Given your claim that ____ ripped off _____ you would have evidence of this. Archaelogy is a peculiar thing. We have cities made now and can't necessarily excavate everywhere. However, we do know that there's evidence of Hebrew religion at least 3,000 years old. [source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/30/israel.ancient.text/index.html] All I'm saying, is that you shouldn't make claims of authority when the text you even quoted states "earliest surviving." It is a position of knowledge regarding a subject that renders very, very inconsistent results especially given that early religion - as you would probably know - was generally handed down orally. [source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition][source:
http://www.jweekly.com/2016/02/26/its-no-myth-jews-storytelling-and-the-oral-tradition/]
As for Beelzebub, I need clarification on this point. When you speak of Baal are you talking about NT or OT?
As for Karen Armstrong's History of God, I read it ten years ago. I am well versed in most atheist arguments, as I was one for a decade. You are misunderstanding my arguments being made and are claiming authority and saying I'm ignorant when I'm anything but. I've heard these claims. All I asked for was evidence.
Your tone is coming off highly arrogant. You should tone it down and actually try to discuss things. You have been insulting me since page 1. I'm willing to discuss things but you have not. I don't think there's much dispute on that. You've been arguing like a typical "new atheist". Come down the rabbit hole, and I'll fight you like a philosopher atheist. Aside from your quote about Gilgamesh and Enkidu you have provided zero evidence. Just factoids and summaries.
And this ignores that again, this only matters if you consider the story of Genesis literal.
