I remember my childhood in Cyprus as being very devout. Every night I would pray for God to keep my loved ones safe and healthy. Even though I did develop some doubts along the years, this continued more or less the same until I went to college.
The turning point there was being exposed (for the first time in my life) to the Theory of Evolution. Up until then I had never heard of it and it was a real eye-opener, I must say. I started devouring books on the subject, especially on human evolution. Inevitably, I stumbled upon “The Selfish Gene", by Prof. Richard Dawkins, which was another major turning point.
A few years later I was a committed atheist. I had fervently decided that humanity did not need a god to be able to live harmoniously. We can do that alone (with many ups and downs, of course), simply by being equipped with the feelings and imperatives that our genes provide.
But I spent the next thirty years, or so, in atheistic concealment. I had a job and family – could I afford to make my thoughts public? Of course not, I decided, so I went through the motions of everyday life knowing I was lying to everyone – even myself.
Fortunately, this changed almost 3 years ago when I retired from my job. I decided that all the hiding had to end. So I wrote a book; a fictional book that would expose one of the fundamental problems with the Bible: the Book of Genesis (i.e. how it all began). In it (“First Adam") I describe my own premise on how humanity could have emerged and how the Biblical stories of the Creation, of Adam and Eve, and many other myths, could have evolved from the life-story of this first Man.
If you are interested in having a look, you can find it here:
Andreas, are you here for discussion or are you selling your book? The Genesis in the Bible is not a very good genesis story. And it is not one of the older genesis stories. The older Genesis stories tell us how modern man came to be. Modern man was domesticated.
I have no quarrel with what you are saying, Mike. The Biblical Genesis may not be a good genesis story for you, or one of the oldest, but let me ask you this: how many people believe it to be literally true? These beliefs, these very deep-set beliefs, are what I am aiming at. If it can make at least one Christian look up and begin to wonder about these things, then I have succeeded.
Me for one. I believe god created man is literally true.
The translations are greatly bungled. But, yes as an atheist, I do not believe in deities. But I do believe god created several of the races of man. This happened in the Age of Domestication, before there were deities. Obviously deities did not exist at that time, thus the meaning of “god" would have been quite different in pre-history. Just walk into a supermarket and remove all items that were not domesticated and you might be left with fish. Walk onto a farm and remove all domesticated animals and you have no animals left. Genesis says they created (domesticated) man. And it makes logical sense. They (the gods) have proved they had the skills.
My question is how can anyone today walk around on this earth and not see the obvious with the knowledge that has become available?
To answer your question of how many people can believe in creation. You are correct that a lot do. What I am saying is the “creation" part is correct. They just don’t understand “creation" as it was meant to be passed down to us in pre-history and then recorded by the oldest Genesis stories. And for that fact, either do most atheist.
Just a note, some Genesis state that earth was made from star dust. Then man came to be. Then man created god. Then god created earth for man. Then god(the skilled midwifes) created “man” to help man with the tasks of man. In other words, Genesis is telling us that original man was not designed to dig water canals. Their backs could not handle the work. So they (man) created another version of man with stronger backs and more adapted to building water canals. They did the same with horses. They made the horse bigger and added one set of ribs so the horse would be more useful to man.
The best translation for “god” would be “knowledge”. In this case, “man’s knowledge” created earth as a good place for man to live.
We do have an extinction point in 74,000 B.C where there were only 5,000 to 500 humans on earth. The question is, was wheat domesticated (takes 40,000 years in idea conditions) before or after the Mt. Toba eruption?
Me for one. I believe god created man is literally true.
The translations are greatly bungled. But, yes as an atheist, I do not believe in deities. But I do believe god created several of the races of man. This happened in the Age of Domestication, before there were deities. Obviously deities did not exist at that time, thus the meaning of “god" would have been quite different in pre-history.
I really don't know how to respond to your comments, Mike. Taken out of context they are very conflicting; I just hope that there’s a hidden meaning I don't grasp. Still, you're entitled to your opinion whatever it may be, no argument there. Me? I just don't believe in a god, or a multitude of gods, by whatever name, in whatever era – period! By my thinking we are all products of mindless Natural Selection, progressing from one species to the next in small increments.
But coming back to the Adam and Eve story of Genesis, if that can be debunked in the eyes of a Christian imagine how many benefits may be reaped. Let me name just a few: no original sin; no evil Satan trying to mess us up; a different way for us coming into existence, other than by an all-powerful deity; a true moral code that is not based on fear and retribution. That’s the power of fiction.
I agree and understand what you are doing. What I am saying is when it comes to Adam and Creation there is another way to view the past. With Adam for example. You say Adam like it was a proper name. A name of a person. Thus limiting yourself to the bible. Adam means “red earth man". And in Genesis, depending on which Genesis, there were six to twelve red earth men created.
Point being, the translations are used to promote the OT and NT ideas. The facts that at the time the first Genesis was written there were no powerful gods around that could create earth and man and that needs to be pointed out. By the time the OT Genesis was written the gods’ powers were greater. Mainly RA.
I am glad you are taking this task on. You have the skills to write a book and that is great and congratulations. Not that skilled myself. Come from other trades and retired now. I would like to communicate with you on some thinking, not against you.
As the timelines are changing the views of the next generation will be changing. When I first posted that early man had domesticated mankind in the past. A year or longer on this site. It still had no scientific proof. My approach was to use “common sense". One thought about Genesis is it was pasted down over a very long period of time and the translations were changed over time. So the question to be answered is, “Where did the white people come from"? The accepted understanding was that man turned white by living in Northern Europe. This made no “common sense" to me when looking at the whole world. This year the studies of graves in Northern Europe have shown that the accepted understanding is wrong. The white people migrated to Europe at a much latter time. We are left with no answers as to where they were originated from.
As far as religion, what I have learned about American religion is that religion is not really about god as written in the bible, or understanding of the bible. It is faith based. And faith can be anything you want it to be. Faith can change and does change it foundation all the time. The common denominators are “afterlife" and a direct relationship with “a personalized god". The point being, today you don’t have to believe in god or the bible to be a good Christian in America. Several of my friends consider me a good, but misled Christian and I’m an atheist who does not believe in deities or afterlife.
I really don't know how to respond to your comments, Mike. Taken out of context they are very conflicting; I just hope that there’s a hidden meaning I don't grasp.
There's no hidden meaning. He hides the fact that he doesn't know what he means, but there's nothing there. He has a definition of "creation" that only he knows, and if you don't get it, he'll tell you it's obvious. Have fun with it, but you'll just go round in circles.
I really don't know how to respond to your comments, Mike. Taken out of context they are very conflicting; I just hope that there’s a hidden meaning I don't grasp.
There's no hidden meaning. He hides the fact that he doesn't know what he means, but there's nothing there. He has a definition of "creation" that only he knows, and if you don't get it, he'll tell you it's obvious. Have fun with it, but you'll just go round in circles.
No secrets or hidden meaning. Just my poor ability to communicate.
The bible, creation equals the “WORD". And that means “?".
What do the older Genesis and Rig Vega’s tell us. What created the earth was star dust. What created the star dust and universe? They state that mankind may never know. Kind of deep thinking for a fairy tale, don’t you think? So far we have the big band theory.
As far as the creation of man (modern man) being created by man (earlier man) as told in the older Genesis. Confusing I know, if you don’t understand domestication. Just look at other domesticated species like the dog. In the time line of dogs. There were two possible three types of dogs with the standard evolving evolution standards. But once the dogs were domesticated the blood types and breed types exploded beyond the standard evolving evolution standards. And this is true with other types of domesticated animals. All I am saying is that when we see this in the human species we need to address this piece of the puzzle. To address pass issues of history without regards to timelines and DNA data like that which is being done by religions using the bible as a history book is beyond common sense.
Could I be wrong in my perception? Yes. But on the scale of common sense, the domestication outweighs the “WORD" on the missing evolution pieces and the theories about “god". And the DNA findings are stepping us towards the domestication model. What is great about this subject is that like in the past we had to wait years for scientific results to change the accepted theories. Today we have scientific discoveries every month. Just about every timeline known has now been changed. Some changed many times in just the last several years.
What do the older Genesis and Rig Vega’s tell us. What created the earth was star dust. What created the star dust and universe? They state that mankind may never know. Kind of deep thinking for a fairy tale, don’t you think? So far we have the big band theory.
Even your typos are funny. What "they" stated we will never know? Tommy Dorsey?
I am glad you are taking this task on. You have the skills to write a book and that is great and congratulations. Not that skilled myself. Come from other trades and retired now. I would like to communicate with you on some thinking, not against you.
Thanks Mike. Yes, I agree. Everyone should try to communicate and not argue.
Even though some of your ideas do sound strange I will not criticise them. Rather, I will treat them with respect.
I really don't know how to respond to your comments, Mike. Taken out of context they are very conflicting...
Don't worry about that, Andreas. Almost all of Mike's statements are conflicting even when taken in context, which is expected when you consider he is an atheist who believes in god.
It’s great to see someone on the journey, and thoughtfully so. I’d suggest to you your next step might be to realize the theism/atheism scale is itself a falsehood. Whenever I hear someone ask, are you an atheist or theist (in so many words) it’s usually really this question: God exists. Do you believe in Him or not? Along the lines of “Coach Smith is a great coach. Are you going to listen to his suggestions or not?”. So the next step for you is to realize that even though it SEEMS like everyone knows what they’re talking about when they use words like “god”, “believe”, etc. they really don’t. They might a picture or concept of a super human, a super santa, whatever. But it’s just that, a simplistic idea based on simplistic human notions, nothing more. And it doesn’t matter how smart the person is in couching their talk in theology-like talk. It boils down to nothing, thereby making the whole theism/atheism scale or dichotomy a false one.
Andreas, I try and look at the past in all aspects of life on earth. For example, the Red Ochre burials are used in the past going back 80K years and on every continent mankind traveled, including the Americas. Then we take the population time line and we have the 74K to 71K B.C. extinction risk period. I had trouble believing that only 5,000 people were on earth at that time. But there have been three studies and they all conclude that there were only 500 to 5,000 people on earth at that time.
Point being. Adam, (Red Earth Man), Red Earth = Red Ochre.
Point being. I don’t think Adam is a name of a person until it reached the OT around 2600 years ago.
Point being. Adam shows up in the new Genesis story (OT). Using the untranslated Genesis there are four or more gods in Genesis, I can’t remember for sure. But they are call by name and not title. Some still have standing churches.
Interesting way to up it CuthbertJ.
A lot of people think of only the God they grew up with when they think of God. Even if they are say, Jewish, and know you are thinking of the Christian God, they still think God is their God. So if someone asks for a label, I say I don’t like labels, and if they ask what I believe, I say “not much”. I try to get them to talk about their beliefs and why they believe it. If they don’t try to convert me, or don’t get mad about me not accepting their beliefs, we can have a nice conversation.
I really don't know how to respond to your comments, Mike. Taken out of context they are very conflicting...
Don't worry about that, Andreas. Almost all of Mike's statements are conflicting even when taken in context, which is expected when you consider he is an atheist who believes in god.
Or a theist who doesn't!
Lois
I really don't know how to respond to your comments, Mike. Taken out of context they are very conflicting...
Don't worry about that, Andreas. Almost all of Mike's statements are conflicting even when taken in context, which is expected when you consider he is an atheist who believes in god.
Or a theist who doesn't!
Lois
Lois, I don’t believe in deities. To follow my thinking is simple. I am trying to understand what our ancestors have passed down to us. Nothing more than basic history. And I have found that our ancestors were just as smart as or smarter than we are. And Andreas is correct, taken out of context the ideas are confliction. And Andreas seems to be able to keep the ideas in context. Where I am going with this is to get Andreas opinion on Adam. So don’t scare Andreas away. As history shows most religions evolve from older religions. And even though Adam and Eve was most likely put together in Babylon and should have evolved from religions of those areas. Mashya, Mashyana and Ask, Embla were formed from trees and not red earth. There seems to be a new theory that Akhenaton and Nefertiti were the base for Adam and Eve. I have put the subject on hold as new data about the Middle Kingdom of Egypt is coming out. The understanding of Avaris will also be a great help. I still don’t understand the time lines of that theory. The Red Ochre burials in Upper and Lower Egypt predate the OT Adam by 2,000 years. The question is, was the Red Ochre burials used in the Middle Kingdom. And when Akhenaton and Nefertiti tried to change the religions of Upper and Lower Egypt to the older religions with a Hyksos twist was Adam based on stories from the Middle Kingdom. Or did the Judea religion pick up on the older Genesis stories of man being made from red earth as facts that were good enough to use in the new OT religion from Babylon?
I really don't know how to respond to your comments, Mike. Taken out of context they are very conflicting...
Don't worry about that, Andreas. Almost all of Mike's statements are conflicting even when taken in context, which is expected when you consider he is an atheist who believes in god.
Or a theist who doesn't!
Lois
Lois, I don’t believe in deities. To follow my thinking is simple.
Simple, as long as you aren't worried about logic or facts.
I really don't know how to respond to your comments, Mike. Taken out of context they are very conflicting...
Don't worry about that, Andreas. Almost all of Mike's statements are conflicting even when taken in context, which is expected when you consider he is an atheist who believes in god.
Or a theist who doesn't!
Lois
Lois, I don’t believe in deities. To follow my thinking is simple.
Simple, as long as you aren't worried about logic or facts.
What logic or facts do you think I am not following?
Lois
Simple, as long as you aren't worried about logic or facts.
What logic or facts do you think I am not following?
Lois
I was referring to the lack of logic in Mike's posts. He does this all the time, says things are simple, then strings together a bunch of facts mixed up with stuff he makes up, none of it that fits together.