There is no discussion going on here.That is true! You are having a discussion with someone who has some work to show but you dare not read his work and point out the faults found there. You just go on criticizing that which you are unable to understand. If you are interested only in metaphysics, go comment in some thread about metaphysics. This is a thread about religion and the naiveté of modern atheist scholars. No you are talking about the naivete of original primitive humans and modern uneducated humans. Even Luther (a religious scholar) broke from the existing belief system in protest of the inaccuracies and deceptions of prevailing Scripture of that time. Your argument proves nothing except to point out inaccuracies in Scriptures, (which the New Atheist are aggressively debating and falsifying), and thereby alienating the very people whom you should support. Starting an OP with an Ad Hominem is never a very good idea. Now there is a little wisdom for you. But I have a suspicion you have an OCD fixation on the history of mythology, as if that wil solve millenia of belief in supernatural powers. As I said "good luck with that one".
There is no discussion going on here.That is true! You are having a discussion with someone who has some work to show but you dare not read his work and point out the faults found there. You just go on criticizing that which you are unable to understand. If you are interested only in metaphysics, go comment in some thread about metaphysics. This is a thread about religion and the naiveté of modern atheist scholars. You ignored most of my post. Explain to me how you are not ignoring everyone except yourself, then maybe we can have a discussion.
doesn’t matter how many times you try. The results are the same. If one of us has a different opinion, we are brainless and haven’t read enough ancient text. If it’s in an ancient text and doesn’t fit your paradigm, you say it’s “just the text", “it’s just what they wrote". If some other expert has a different opinion than you, they are covering up something, or don’t dare speak the truth. If there is some loose connection between texts that are separated by thousands of years, but it fits your theory, then that’s evidence for you. Truth to you is what you say it is. There is no discussion going on here.
Atheism is a belief statement and agnosticism is a knowledge statement anyway, so that doesn't even make sense.Question: "Is there a God?" Theist: Yes! Agnostic: I do not know. Atheist: No! Theism and atheism refer to knowledge. Agnosticism refers to ignorance. :lol: I own a community where I beat agnostics… Atheist vs Agnostics] ...and so I am experienced in the craft.
I'm pretty sure he's used this little trap to get sex.:exclaim: :exclaim: :exclaim: You don't beat anyone. You listen only to yourself and declare yourself the winner. How do you explain the term agnostic atheist? Is there anything you are not sure about, or is any level of uncertainty considered agnosticism and therefore ignorance?
There is no discussion going on here.That is true! You are having a discussion with someone who has some work to show but you dare not read his work and point out the faults found there. You just go on criticizing that which you are unable to understand. If you are interested only in metaphysics, go comment in some thread about metaphysics. This is a thread about religion and the naiveté of modern atheist scholars. You ignored most of my post. Explain to me how you are not ignoring everyone except yourself, then maybe we can have a discussion.
doesn’t matter how many times you try. The results are the same. If one of us has a different opinion, we are brainless and haven’t read enough ancient text. If it’s in an ancient text and doesn’t fit your paradigm, you say it’s “just the text", “it’s just what they wrote". If some other expert has a different opinion than you, they are covering up something, or don’t dare speak the truth. If there is some loose connection between texts that are separated by thousands of years, but it fits your theory, then that’s evidence for you. Truth to you is what you say it is. There is no discussion going on here.Correct: Here is a quote from your *vision*
"I own a community where I beat agnostics". Atheist vs Agnostics, and so I am experienced in the craftYes, just like a used car salesman trying to sell a old wreck as an *classic* that needs a little fixing. Just like a *Lord* Seems like trolling to me, albeit a little more sophisticated than the usual. And by troll in this case, I mean a person who (by his own admission) does not read or consider anything what anyone else has to say.
A little tidbit to support my belief that giants of old were the fossil remains of dinosaurs.
Gigantic Bones
The ancient Greeks told stories of giants, describing them as flesh-and-blood creatures who lived and died–and whose bones could be found coming out of the ground where they were buried long ago. Indeed, even today large and surprisingly human-like bones can be found in Greece. Modern scientists understand such bones to be the remains of mammoths, mastodons, and woolly rhinoceroses that once lived in the region.
But ancient Greeks were largely unfamiliar with these massive animals, and many believed that the enormous bones they found were the remains of human-like giants. Any nonhuman traits in the bones were thought to be due to the grotesque anatomical features of giants. http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythic-creatures/land-creatures-of-the-earth/greek-giants
Nice twist , grotesque creatures who came into the daughters of men and created modern humans. Please, Dimitrios, think.
I can accept the simple tale of mistaken identities given to fossils of non-human creatures ruling the earth for hundreds of millions of years instead of any form word-smithing about mythological history which asserts they were responsible for the creation of modern humans.
Well yes, perhaps indirectly their extinction may have been responsible for the emergence hominid precursors to evolve whithout being eaten by monstrous dinosaurs.
I can accept the simple tale of mistaken identities given to fossils of non-human creatures *ruling* the earth for hundreds of millions of years instead of any form word-smithing about mythological history which asserts they were responsible for the creation of modern humans. Well yes, perhaps indirectly there extinction may have been responsible for theemergence hominid precursors to evolve whithout being eaten by monstrous dinosaurs.It's funny that this guy is in Greece, if he really is, where all these answers actually are. When I went there, we looked at a lot of walls that were in various states of disrepair. The Romans built them with cement, and they were ugly and didn't hold up so well. Then there were the "cyclopean" walls. So called because they were made with giant stones, intricately put together. The civilization that built them fell, then the people that followed had no idea how they could have done that, so they theorized that giant one-eyed monsters lifted those stones and put them in place. The people who came up with that theory used the exact same kind of reasoning that Dimitrios uses. They considered themselves pretty smart too.
You ignored most of my post. Explain to me how you are not ignoring everyone except yourself, then maybe we can have a discussion.I am ignoring noise, i.e. theories and ideas unsupported by some evidence. You have been telling me (not just you) that you regard humans idiotic by nature who are predisposed towards spirituality and psychologically primed for religion. You were then shown that this is false since our ancestors regarded the gods as normal human beings who were said to have moved to the sky by climbing ladders. Someone said a joke, someone else saw the potential of the joke and thus humanity was burdened with the idiotic concept of the immaterial gods. Your theory was proved wrong as being the result of ignorance, but you insisted in supporting it by more and more noise. Now, you are told that on top of gods being normal human beings, according to the ancestors they were also regarded as the children, the offspring of another human race known as Giants. Having no idea what was said by the ancients about the Giants, you believed the articles written by some idiots (about the ancients having interpreted as the bones of the Giants some remains of large animals they had found) you forgot your initial theory about psychological predisposition. If the idea of Giants and their children, the gods, were the result of having found the remains of the animals, without the findings there would have been no concept of gods! Excellent reasoning. :lol:
I can accept the simple tale of mistaken identities given to fossils of non-human creatures *ruling* the earth for hundreds of millions of years instead of any form word-smithing about mythological history which asserts they were responsible for the creation of modern humans. Well yes, perhaps indirectly their extinction may have been responsible for the emergence of hominid precursors to evolve whithout being eaten by monstrous dinosaurs.It's funny that this guy is in Greece, if he really is, where all these answers actually are. When I went there, we looked at a lot of walls that were in various states of disrepair. The Romans built them with cement, and they were ugly and didn't hold up so well. Then there were the "cyclopean" walls. So called because they were made with giant stones, intricately put together. The civilization that built them fell, then the people that followed had no idea how they could have done that, so they theorized that giant one-eyed monsters lifted those stones and put them in place. The people who came up with that theory used the exact same kind of reasoning that Dimitrios uses. They considered themselves pretty smart too. Of course, now it all becomes clear. Stonehenge was built by Giants who also came into the daughters of man and produced Englishmen Lets face it, every building using large stones must have been built by Giants, who also came into the daughters of men and produced all the different races. There, if we assume hominid giants that would explain everything so nicely. and we have the bones of Giants to prove it. Unfortunately there never were Giant hominids. Thos bones belonged to Giant creatures, who could not possibly have come into the daughters of men. Damn, shot that hypothesis down. Just read an article (religious site), that had evidence of human footprints next to the fossilized footprints of dinos. But of course that proves nothing other than that those sites were visited millions of years later by early humans who left footprints. Today we can also find footprints of modern boots at those very sites. Does that mean our paleontologists lived along with dinos?
How do you explain the term agnostic atheist?Oxymoronic!
Is there anything you are not sure about, or is any level of uncertainty considered agnosticism and therefore ignorance?Agnosticism denotes ignorance! I am ignorant, and therefore agnostic, as regards any other subject but the history of religion. I know there is no God because apart from the fact that the idea of God is absurd to the point of being insulting to my intelligence, I know that it is based on a joke and that it is not even a concept actually. The agnostics are the victims of the very cunning theological theory of agnosticism which demands an impossible level of evidence for the non-existence of God, guaranteeing in this way his indisputable existence. Agnostics are cowards sitting on a fence!
Nice twist , grotesque creatures who came into the daughters of men and created modern humans. Please, Dimitrios, think.The sons of the gods, who were handsome, came into the daughters of men and created modern humans. Note the sequence: Giants, gods, modern men (hybrids). Does it ring a bell? The Giants are mentioned by the Aborigines of Australia although they have no myths about gods. The Giants were normal human beings according to the North American Indian mythology, to the Japanese mythology (where Giants, gods and humans are all of them “Kami"), to the Norse mythology and also according to the ancient Greek and Israelite historians, and not only by them. I repeat that an intelligent person should not pretend to be an expert in a subject one ignores.
How do you explain the term agnostic atheist?Oxymoronic! You need to read the book "How to win friends and influence people".
Is there anything you are not sure about, or is any level of uncertainty considered agnosticism and therefore ignorance?Agnosticism denotes ignorance! Jeez, Agnosticism denotes intelligent people who have doubts about their religious upbringing. But keep on *beating* them with insults. You'll go far that way. Maybe even become a *lord* of your website and "come into the daughters of primitive agnostics" and create enlightenment.
I am ignorant, and therefore agnostic, as regards any other subject but the history of religion. I know there is no God because apart from the fact that the idea of God is absurd to the point of being insulting to my intelligence, I know that it is based on a joke and that it is not even a concept actually.Well Dimitrios is actually admitting his knowledge is limited to history of religion. Goodie! In fact on his website he declares that he is just a layman (in Capital letters), while here he presents himself as an expert.
The agnostics are the victims of the very cunning theological theory of agnosticism which demands an impossible level of evidence for the non-existence of God, guaranteeing in this way his indisputable existence. Agnostics are cowards sitting on a fence!Oh man, agnostics are victims of the very theological theory of agnosticism? You mean the theory of agnosticism that previously religious people are beginning to doubt the existence of a god of the bible and are weaning themselves away from Religion, if not God. I admire such couragious questioning, in many countries such questioning will get you killed!!!!!
You ignored most of my post. Explain to me how you are not ignoring everyone except yourself, then maybe we can have a discussion.I am ignoring noise, i.e. theories and ideas unsupported by some evidence. You have been telling me (not just you) that you regard humans idiotic by nature who are predisposed towards spirituality and psychologically primed for religion. You were then shown that this is false since our ancestors regarded the gods as normal human beings who were said to have moved to the sky by climbing ladders. Someone said a joke, someone else saw the potential of the joke and thus humanity was burdened with the idiotic concept of the immaterial gods. Your theory was proved wrong as being the result of ignorance, but you insisted in supporting it by more and more noise. Now, you are told that on top of gods being normal human beings, according to the ancestors they were also regarded as the children, the offspring of another human race known as Giants. Having no idea what was said by the ancients about the Giants, you believed the articles written by some idiots (about the ancients having interpreted as the bones of the Giants some remains of large animals they had found) you forgot your initial theory about psychological predisposition. If the idea of Giants and their children, the gods, were the result of having found the remains of the animals, without the findings there would have been no concept of gods! Excellent reasoning. :lol: I didn't say these things. You are just rambling now, not responding to what anyone is saying, let alone the questions they raise or the concepts they refer to.
Nice twist , grotesque creatures who came into the daughters of men and created modern humans. Please, Dimitrios, think.The sons of the gods, who were handsome, came into the daughters of men and created modern humans. Note the sequence: Giants, gods, modern men (hybrids). Does it ring a bell? The Giants are mentioned by the Aborigines of Australia although they have no myths about gods. The Giants were normal human beings according to the North American Indian mythology, to the Japanese mythology (where Giants, gods and humans are all of them “Kami"), to the Norse mythology and also according to the ancient Greek and Israelite historians, and not only by them. I repeat that an intelligent person should not pretend to be an expert in a subject one ignores. Apply that wisdom to your own thinlking.
The Gods Of Aboriginal Australia Much of Oz mythology is to do with Dreaming and the DREAMTIME, a wonderful Golden Age in the remote past when Gods were real Gods and anything was possible. http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/australian-mythology.php
The gods of Native Americans Many Native American tribes fought terrible wars with each other, especially when the larders were getting bare. Great warriors were held in high esteem, and the gods smiled upon them - so long as the medicine men did their bit in the ritual department. And at the end, Heaven was the Happy Hunting Ground, much the same as Earth but with better weather and animals that didn't run away. http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/native-american-mythology.php
Japanese Gods A-Z list of gods and goddess names from Japan. Many deities have more than one name. Our Holy Database currently contains 181 Japanese deity names and 127 separate entries. This list is frequently updated - we are constantly discovering more!So, you are wrong again. Give it a rest, man. You are becoming rather tiresome making me fact check your ignorant statements or perhaps Hoaxes?.
How do you explain the term agnostic atheist?Oxymoronic! If you don't understand it, call it stupid. That will get you through life. (that's sarcasm). Click this link for someone who has put way to much thought into the atheist/gnostic debate.]
You need to read the book "How to win friends and influence people".You are right, but I am too old now to change and, besides, I truly despise agnosticism.
Well Dimitrios is actually admitting his knowledge is limited to history of religion. Goodie! In fact on his website he declares that he is just a layman (in Capital letters), while here he presents himself as an expert.What is wrong with being a layman, Mr. Scholar? I am an expert in the history of religion. Don’t you read your writing before posting?
You mean the theory of agnosticism that previously religious people are beginning to doubt the existence of a god of the bible and are weaning themselves away from Religion, if not God.For a second time you forgot to read before posting. :-) I mean the cunning theological theory which derails people who are on their way to atheism. Religion will not die as long as Dawkins & Co (New Atheists) announce that God probably exists.
You need to read the book "How to win friends and influence people".You are right, but I am too old now to change and, besides, I truly despise agnosticism.
Well Dimitrios is actually admitting his knowledge is limited to history of religion. Goodie! In fact on his website he declares that he is just a layman (in Capital letters), while here he presents himself as an expert.What is wrong with being a layman, Mr. Scholar? Nothing wrong with being a layman, but if you declare yourself an expert, you better come up with some credentials. Yet you insult everyone else, laymen and agnostics alike, as ignorant fools.
I am an expert in the history of religion. Don’t you read your writing before posting?So you say you are an expert without credentials. Well, I am a layman, but expert in researching what i need to know. The problem is that YOU do not read what others write.
You mean the theory of agnosticism that previously religious people are beginning to doubt the existence of a god of the bible and are weaning themselves away from Religion, if not God.
For a second time you forgot to read before posting. :-)For the umpteenth time you are not reading what other people post.
I mean the cunning theological theory which derails people who are on their way to atheism.How wrong can you be. Most agnostics were brought up under the cunning theological theory. but have found that that rail is broken. Agnostics are smarter than the average religious bear, Yogi.
Religion will not die as long as Dawkins & Co (New Atheists) announce that God probably exists.No, he did NOT say that! He said he cannot PROVE god does not exists. There is a difference, which you do not seem to understand. In science there are no absolutes unless you can prove it. That in no way confirms belief in god, it is just a scientifically correct statement. Do you want Dawkins to start another unprovable hoax? At least he is honest, but make no mistake, Dawkins is not an agnostic in the sense that he is not sure if a biblical god exists. He does not believe in God. He just admits he cannot scientifically prove it. And neither can you! It is absolutely necessary to be intellectually honest. Even if you want to rewrite history a thousand times, which actually already has been done by many before you, but you cannot prove that at one time people did not believe in gods and spirits. All primitive peoples had gods, ignorant but to them it was a reasonable assumption at that primitive time when gods and spirits *ruled* the world.
The agnostics are the victims of the very cunning theological theory of agnosticism which demands an impossible level of evidence for the non-existence of God, guaranteeing in this way his indisputable existence.I think this one really sums up Mr. Trimijopulos. It shows his lack of understanding of what science is, what knowledge is. He can't deal with the idea that it is impossible to know all about anything. We always begin with a premise. An important one is that the laws of the nature are consistent throughout time and space. That pretty much eliminates any room for the supernatural, but he insists saying we haven't eliminated gods. The part where we want a high level of evidence and corroboration gets really difficult for him. He wants to read a bunch of books, come up with his own definitions of words and call it good. How do you know you picked the right books Dimitrios? How do you know you understood them? How do you know there isn't an undiscovered tomb out there with a completely different story? How do you know the pictures of the figurines weren't faked? Or the figurines themselves? If you can't answer those questions, you're agnostic.
Two views of the Venus of Hohle Fels figurine (height 6 cm (2.4 in)), which may have been worn as an amulet and is the earliest known, undisputed example of figurative prehistoric art
In September 2008, archaeologists from the University of Tübingen discovered a 6 cm figurine woman carved from a mammoth’s tusk, the Venus of Hohle Fels, dated to at least 35,000 years ago, representing the earliest known sculpture of this type, and the earliest known work of figurative art altogether. The ivory carving, found in six fragments in Germany’s Hohle Fels cave, represents the typical features of Venus figurines, including the swollen belly, wide-set thighs, and large breasts.[16][17]
Note that the term Venus does not refer to the the Roman Goddess Venus.
The use of the name is metaphorical, there is no link between the figurines and the Roman goddess Venus, although they have been seen as representations of a primordial female goddess. The term has been criticised for being more a reflection of modern western ideas than reflecting the beliefs of the sculptures’ original owners, but the name has persisted.[13] Venus figurine - Wikipedia
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Venus-of-Schelklingen.jpg Two views of the Venus of Hohle Fels figurine (height 6 cm (2.4 in)), which may have been worn as an amulet and is the earliest known, undisputed example of figurative prehistoric art In September 2008, archaeologists from the University of Tübingen discovered a 6 cm figurine woman carved from a mammoth’s tusk, the Venus of Hohle Fels, dated to at least 35,000 years ago, representing the earliest known sculpture of this type, and the earliest known work of figurative art altogether. The ivory carving, found in six fragments in Germany's Hohle Fels cave, represents the typical features of Venus figurines, including the swollen belly, wide-set thighs, and large breasts.[16][17] Note that the term Venus does not refer to the the Roman Goddess Venus.They look like ginger roots.The use of the name is metaphorical, there is no link between the figurines and the Roman goddess Venus, although they have been seen as representations of a primordial female goddess. The term has been criticised for being more a reflection of modern western ideas than reflecting the beliefs of the sculptures' original owners, but the name has persisted.[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines
LoisL, They look like ginger roots.LOL, yes, but if we go back to KOKO and her Manx kitten (no tail), she named it "All Ball", because it had no tail and was more round in form than other kittens she had seen. I know, because we have an 18 year old Manx cat and she is *all ball*. I can see that a primitive carver (with primitive tools) would depict a fertility goddess as having large breasts to feed all the children, a round belly, and large hips to bear many children. Note the small head and no feet. They were not important Thus, IMO, the figurine was a pure metaphor for a fertility goddess and the hope for many children. Fascinating stuff, to try and mirror primitive thinking and behavior. Just basic concepts presented in basic forms. But obviously an evolutionary step up from Koko's metaphor of *All Ball" for her kitten. p.s. The right pic loks like she is embracing a child, but I'm sure that would be too subtle. But I see a child laying its head on her mother's shoulder, while her mother kisses her neck. Could it be.....?