My point with the question is that you rail on about atheists not being able to define god, but neither can you. In fact, the vast majority of your posts in this and other threads contain nothing more than empty words. Trying to discuss something with you is pointless because you cannot say anything meaningful.Thanks Darron. I was hoping Mike would catch his own slip up there. He quite clearly states how easy it is define God, replacing it with the word "knowledge", then going on with unsubstantiated ideas about what Gnosticism is or was. He does this after saying how silly atheists are for not being able to do that, then later he says, "yeah, I've been thinking about that, it's hard". I'm not sure if he has Alzheimer's, a drug problem, or just doesn't care. Any one of those would have the same affect. I guess at some point we'll catch up to him as he "spoon feeds" the information to us. That's sarcasm by the way Mike, really, were not taking whatever you're spooning up. We're quite clearly explaining why, and we're quite clearly asking for clarification on specific items. Mike; I don't remember any specific thread where Tim stepped in and things seem to clear up, but I'm sure that's happened. Although I suspect he took the conversation in a different direction because you rarely present data that can be reworded. What also likely happened is that I started ignoring you and interacted with whomever had something worthwhile and coherent. There's really nothing coherent going on in this thread. We've all done the "define God" thing. I assume that's why no one responded to grandpa except you. Granpa usually comes in with his brief drive-by posts and leaves for months at a time anyway, another reason to not respond to him.
For sure, 100,000 years ago knowledge existed in the Homo branch of species.
The Gods - We don’t know what race or races of people they were but are pretty sure they were part of the Homo branch of species.
Genesis – The domestication of earth and animals took place by the gods.
White skin people – came to be about 8,000 years ago.
Major loss of knowledge and history – about 5,000 years ago.
Age of Deities – about 4,000 years ago the term god changed from people to mean “knowledge" and the Deities were also known as gods. Most likely not to the people back then but to us latter on in time.
Knowledge becoming part of one Christian god - 12thcentury
I’m shocked that an atheist can’t give the history on or define god other than a fairy tale.How are we to define something that does not exist? Darron, I must have ask myself that same question a million times. And it is hard because we communicate and learn by relating to things we know and we keep expanding our ability to relate. And we lack the relating items needed to describe god. So, looking back at history, it seemed that people in the past did not have the same problem we are having. It seemed that it was something that was so well understood by everyone that it never had to be explained. In Egypt for example. You want knowledge. You pray to god. You pray during the daytime so your message can travel to the god RA, (the sun). The god RA answers your prayer during the daytime by sunlight. The sunlight goes into your eyes with the knowledge from god and ends up in your heart. Therefore the knowledge was physical and did exist. Now, fast forward to 300 A.D. in Rome. The church painting were still using the Gnostic clouds of knowledge sending out knowledge in the form of light. Except the knowledge went to the brain and not the heart. Some of the thinking was changing. There were ideas that the eyes omitted the light and that’s how people could see. But either way it was still a physical action that did exist to the people back then. Thanks for clearing that up. Not. My point with the question is that you rail on about atheists not being able to define god, but neither can you. In fact, the vast majority of your posts in this and other threads contain nothing more than empty words. Trying to discuss something with you is pointless because you cannot say anything meaningful. Old dogs don’t change. Just what I expected from you.
Mike I did define god. What is your definition?
My point with the question is that you rail on about atheists not being able to define god, but neither can you. In fact, the vast majority of your posts in this and other threads contain nothing more than empty words. Trying to discuss something with you is pointless because you cannot say anything meaningful.Thanks Darron. I was hoping Mike would catch his own slip up there. He quite clearly states how easy it is define God, replacing it with the word "knowledge", then going on with unsubstantiated ideas about what Gnosticism is or was. He does this after saying how silly atheists are for not being able to do that, then later he says, "yeah, I've been thinking about that, it's hard". I'm not sure if he has Alzheimer's, a drug problem, or just doesn't care. Any one of those would have the same affect. I guess at some point we'll catch up to him as he "spoon feeds" the information to us. That's sarcasm by the way Mike, really, were not taking whatever you're spooning up. We're quite clearly explaining why, and we're quite clearly asking for clarification on specific items. Mike; I don't remember any specific thread where Tim stepped in and things seem to clear up, but I'm sure that's happened. Although I suspect he took the conversation in a different direction because you rarely present data that can be reworded. What also likely happened is that I started ignoring you and interacted with whomever had something worthwhile and coherent. There's really nothing coherent going on in this thread. We've all done the "define God" thing. I assume that's why no one responded to grandpa except you. Granpa usually comes in with his brief drive-by posts and leaves for months at a time anyway, another reason to not respond to him. I still respect your postings. Because they are sometimes helpful in getting another point of view and I think you’re a brilliant guy. But you never seem to contribute to the subject. So far the only thing that you have stated other than bitching is that you believe in evolution. Even the father of evolution Darwin worked from domestication backward in time to pre-domestication or the wild species. It would be good if you would help the CFI site. What I am seeing is a lot of people like Darron who are using this site to sharpen their skills in derogatory language and use the site like a private computer game to disrupt and misdirect any rational thoughts. This does nothing but keep people away. And is most likely the reason so few respond on this site as a whole. But it is what it is, and your world is going to be what you make it. Right now my life is great and I am happy. Communicating and talking about our past history is something I enjoy. Dialoguing and learning new things I also enjoy. Just a suggestion, try changing directions and look for the good in things and try working with people.
Mike don"t tell people what I was talking about. And how did you become a senior member? You claim to know a lot about god but have no definition. I as least came up with a definition of where thoughts form. Please define your god?
Mike I did define god. What is your definition?Hey, good to hear from you. And you are right on the money for god in American in 2015. I put it in the context of past history. And that was “knowledge". And knowledge being the ability to relate to one item or idea to another item or idea. I have a question for you. The human brain has what they call the cerebellum, the little brain or the primitive brain. And it seems to make action by itself, things like breathing. Is your thinking that god is in this part of the brain?
Mike don"t tell people what I was talking about. And how did you become a senior member? You claim to know a lot about god but have no definition. I as least came up with a definition of where thoughts form. Please define your god?What I said was the term god has changed meanings in past history. Read post #41 to get a quick timeline. And in history god has went from a people to a physical substance referring to knowledge, to an idea in the brain. Do you agree that the meaning of god has changed over time in history? At one time in history we have two meanings. Knowledge and deities. I don’t think there was confusion at that time. I think the translations we have today make it confusing. The oldest Genesis stories defiantly talk about gods as a people.
MIke; I appreciate that you actually put some dates to the things you have been talking about and kept it succinct (tip of the hat to the memory of Occam). When you do that, it makes it easier to “engage", as you ask. When ramble, I’m not going to respond to everything you say because too much of it seems to be total junk. When I do ask for clarifications, you don’t give them anyway.
Anyway, I can’t “contribute to the subject" as you ask BECAUSE you don’t have one. You introduce things that can’t be confirmed by any normal means. You introduce terms like “domestication" without defining them. I know what domesticating a cow means, but you apply it to gods and men and white skin. From post #41, here are examples of things that only you know what they mean:
The Gods - We don’t know what race or races of people they were
Major loss of knowledge and history – about 5,000 years ago.
about 4,000 years ago the term god changed from people to mean “knowledge"
Either you’re so far ahead of the rest of us that we can’t keep up, or (option #2) you’re just pulling stuff out of various un-authoritative sources and combing them in ways they shouldn’t be. I’m pretty good at looking at something I don’t understand, like a scientific paper, and checking it against other resources to determine if it is BS or not. So I’m kinda leaning toward option #2. You might sincerely believe that you are right, that doesn’t change how I evaluate information.
“It would be good if you would help the CFI site."
I’m trying to help the CFI site by keeping you busy and keeping you away from messing up other threads.
Interesting that granpa ray has returned to set you straight. I’ll let that play out a little.
Mike please read Sam Harris, he knows what he is talking about.
Mike please read Sam Harris, he knows what he is talking about.FYI "senior member" is from sheer numbers. It's not a promotion based on merit.
Mike please read Sam Harris, he knows what he is talking about.FYI "senior member" is from sheer numbers. It's not a promotion based on merit. Before you've posted 100 times you are a "junior member" at 100 posts you become a "member"; at 200 posts you become a "senior member". This happens whether your posts are rational or not. ;) Lois
MIke; I appreciate that you actually put some dates to the things you have been talking about and kept it succinct (tip of the hat to the memory of Occam). When you do that, it makes it easier to “engage", as you ask. When ramble, I’m not going to respond to everything you say because too much of it seems to be total junk. When I do ask for clarifications, you don’t give them anyway. Anyway, I can’t “contribute to the subject" as you ask BECAUSE you don’t have one. You introduce things that can’t be confirmed by any normal means. You introduce terms like “domestication" without defining them. I know what domesticating a cow means, but you apply it to gods and men and white skin. From post #41, here are examples of things that only you know what they mean: The Gods - We don’t know what race or races of people they were Major loss of knowledge and history – about 5,000 years ago. about 4,000 years ago the term god changed from people to mean “knowledge" Either you’re so far ahead of the rest of us that we can’t keep up, or (option #2) you’re just pulling stuff out of various un-authoritative sources and combing them in ways they shouldn’t be. I’m pretty good at looking at something I don’t understand, like a scientific paper, and checking it against other resources to determine if it is BS or not. So I’m kinda leaning toward option #2. You might sincerely believe that you are right, that doesn’t change how I evaluate information. Interesting that granpa ray has returned to set you straight. I'll let that play out a little.Lausten, I thought I was being very plain and to the point. I explained and gave the definition of god in post #1. Then I kept giving more details and enforcement in the following posts. I felt there had to one of two things happening. One is that the posters never read post #1. Or two the concept of god being “knowledge" was too hard for people today to comprehend because today we have no items to relate that type of thinking to for comparison. I brought that up in post #35. Just like in post #25 I brought up the fact of Jesus believing in God and being an atheist. I got no response. So in post #36 I explained that in that period of time. That was quite normal for people to fit that profile. This concept took me years to really understand. When you look at the task Jesus was doing. He was destroying the deity RA and moving the religion to the Gnostic thinking. His tasks were later changed in the Christian bible. But the works of Mary and Thomas are Gnostic and today’s experts are bring these facts out to be understood. The Gods - We don’t know what race or races of people they were And we don’t, you left off the rest of the sentence “but are pretty sure they were part of the Homo Branch of species." That’s is because “knowledge" has been around a long time. And there is the possibility that one or more of three of the Homo species could have been doing the domescation. Point being who the people were called gods that had upper and lower gods? Some of the new findings are pointing out that the different species of Homo also inter breed. At this time we don’t know for sure who the people called gods were. We do know things like they may not have been able to see the color blue. And they were not built for heavy labor. When I decided to enter this post. The reason should be obvious, I felt it was an understanding that was lacking with many atheists. Next, I had to decide how much data I should try and lay out. The King James is the most widely read English book yet today. And it covers all three types of gods of history, yet never makes it clear that there are three types of gods being talked about. So I took the long shot and tried to explain to the best of my ability what I understand the three main types of gods in history are.
But the works of Mary and Thomas are Gnostic and today’s experts are bring these facts out to be understood.Real simple. If you want to be taken seriously, like you say you do, you have to name these experts. It doesn't matter if you are restating the facts well or not. If you say there are experts that back up what you're saying, name them.
Some of the new findings are pointing out that the different species of Homo also inter breed. At this time we don’t know for sure who the people called gods were. We do know things like they may not have been able to see the color blue. And they were not built for heavy labor.Okay, again, "findings". That means facts, something you are not privileged to a special version of. Facts can only be facts, i.e. they must be verifiable. I'm aware of the interbreeding, so don't need a source on that one. But who is this "we" who doesn't know for sure who the people called gods were? Who, other than you has a theory about people being gods? The other stuff about seeing blue or how they were built just seems irrelevant.
The King James is the most widely read English book yet today.I'll go slightly off topic and say that I don't believe the KJV is widely read at all. I think a lot of people buy them, it is widely sold, but very few actually read it.
I think I’ve only ever known six or seven people who actually read the Bible. Fewer that did it regularly. Most of the people I know that have them just keep them tucked away somewhere or put out for show. But I’m discounting my time in parochial school where we had to read it. And memorize parts of it!
I wish I could find actual numbers on how many people actually read the thing. Though it seems like it would be hard to accurately gauge as many people would lie to look good.
Relating to Post #53
Lausten,
No, I will not go down that path. I tried the method before. What happens is you get the game players who mission is to interrupt the posting. They never contribute and will make the experts and any other data the issue and take away from the thought or idea I want to get out. If I put everything I have and all the backup material, the only thing left would be to list the name of a publisher is one feeling. Another is that the site is broken into different categories and different subject need to be handled differently. Another is sometime the requests for backup data is just total harassment by initiators who seem to get their jollies by disruption and seem to take on the mission of killing a subject. Another is some of my data is in paper form. I work on projects, and some projects are forty years old now. I have one office at my house full of four drawer filing cabinets. Plus another room completely full of filing cabinets. Thank god for the computer hard drives today. Another reason would be that I don’t have the data. It is hard sometimes to decide what data to keep. A year later you want that data and can’t find it on the computer, but you remember the details. I am not like you, you seem to remember the names. A great skill to have. I wish I could remember names, but I can’t. Another reason is time. When my health is down, I have time for the site. But when I am feeling good. I really don’t have time to spend on this site. So anything I do is fast and dirty.
The Gnostic writing of Mary and Thomas have been headline news in religion for the last several years and there have been many books written on the subject. Something that should not need any more backup.
The verifying of the Homo, again, this is a backup statement. And I agree that fact are facts if they can be verifiable. And in a less intense subject I can do this. But this subject is extremely large, and if the reader is wanting verification, there is nothing stopping him from getting the verification. That said, I have really gotten away from posting verification of facts. And I think it is because there is not hardly anyone who does honest communication on the posts anymore. If I am on a posting that is working proper, then yes I will post verifications. This posting is a good example. There was not one person with enough interest to really read and understand the posting. Trump, yes, of course. God, who has the time?
The “we" we are talking about is you and me. And I think I made it very clear that history is telling us there were the people called the gods. That is not a theory. It is part of history or a fairy tale. And that is one of the points I made in post #1, “let’s say the statement is true." And I have said the information comes from the older Genesis stories. As far as the KJV, I totally agree with you. I have several and I still use the computer instead of the book.
I think I have covered everything except domestication. In post #33 I talked about Variation Under Domestication by Darwin. And isn’t it pretty much understood that domestication was around and taught in schools in Europe long before Darwin’s works on evolution. But you know, I do get the feeling that domestication is not understood by the general public in American as it should be. Evolution is a branch of domestication because it is one of the few things in history that was studied backwards, from the end to the beginning of time.
Most people on this site are familiar with the Christian religion. The religion starts out with the Genesis stories. And the Genesis stories are pieces of much older Genesis stories. These stories come from India and are known as the Vedas. The Rig Veda is one of the oldest religions known to mankind that can be understood.
The word ‘Veda’ is from the root word ‘Vida’, meaning ‘knowledge’ or ‘to know’. It is pretty obvious that their name “God" and their writing of “knowledge" were passed down.
Religion was just one of many items that came from India and spread to other areas. So it is safe to say the bible starts out with the title “god" in the third century AD. Before that, the original untranslated text used the names of the gods in Genesis and there were several. This tells us that merge of “god" and “knowledge" into the Age of Deities happened well before the people of Juda put together their religious history. And that is also seen in the fact that the Juda Genesis story added deities that understood Egyptian powers to their religion. How and when we got the Genesis used the way it is today is not fully understood. It kind if falls into the same category of the camel in the bible. Stories having the camel being used before it was available.
In the book stores today. The religious sections carries a number of new books out about Jesus, Mary, Thomas and others who were Gnostic in their religious beliefs and teachings. Gnostic also means “knowledge".
Point being. The bible is all about god. Now try replacing god with knowledge. The bible is all about knowledge. There are books out matching the many of the teachings of Jesus with the same much older teachings from the books of knowledge from India.
What I think we have history telling us is that “god" stared out as the people god. Then “god" move to the meaning “knowledge". Then the Christians changed it to “belief" in the deity form. So what I see happening is when the bible is being used in older meaning, God is knowledge. When the text is taken and translated by the reader into today’s belief system, the knowledge data is changed into whatever belief is in the mind of the reader.
Simple evolution of religion when you think about it.
I think I've only ever known six or seven people who actually read the Bible. Fewer that did it regularly. Most of the people I know that have them just keep them tucked away somewhere or put out for show. But I'm discounting my time in parochial school where we had to read it. And memorize parts of it! I wish I could find actual numbers on how many people actually read the thing. Though it seems like it would be hard to accurately gauge as many people would lie to look good.Research on the history of religion is a hobby of mine for several years now. And I find that I have to read parts of the bible for research. What I have found interesting is that you can get any meaning you want from a lot of the text of Jesus. But after I understood Gnostic thinking. The same bible text only had one meaning and was very clear. And we probably even less people who read the Gnostic meanings of Jesus.
“That is not a theory. It is part of history or a fairy tale.”
You don’t understand any of the words over 4 letters long in this sentence.
Mike please read Sam Harris, he knows what he is talking about.I checked out Sam Harris, Thanks I could listen to Sam speak all day, he is that good. But of all the subjects he covers, he does not cover the history of religion. And this is a twist in atheist thinking. I am thinking about putting together a paper and sending it to him for his option.