I think that religion represents intellectual dis-integrity of the highest order. OTOH, I am convinced that humans are pre-disposed to be religious. Whether someone becomes or remains religious, seems to me to, primarily, be a developmental issue, also.You understand that you may not form an opinion on the origins of religion while not knowing the history of religion. Oh, I didn't realize that someone died and made you king of "The Rules on Opinion Formation". If I were such a king, I would NOT make the rule that "you may not form an opinion on anything having to do with humans while not knowing much about human behavior and development." But aside from that, my stated opinion re: religion representing a profound absence of intellectual integrity, is about the present day. I recognize that there was a time when so little was known, that humans best answer for many of their questions was "God".
So, we see things differently, let's acknowledge that.Could we also acknowledge the fact that my opinion is based on a study while yours is based on whim? Let me present an example so that you will not take the above as an insult. Who created humans according to the ancient texts? By going from ancient text to the next older text and then to the next even older text we get the following information: _The God. _The gods _The goddess following an order by the gods. _The goddess through a number of common women called Mother-wombs. These Mother-wombs are, in the texts, are called “Wild Cows" or just “Cows" and were kept in enclosed spaces where the gods, who were known as “Wild Bulls" or just “Bulls", were raping them in order to inseminate them and thus… produce humanity! We are using the board of the “Center for Inquiry" and we are supposed to employ scientific inquiry no matter what the subject. So, when it comes to religion and myths about the gods, some knowledge of the ancient texts is indispensable.
When I read this I thought, of course Ra is an invention of the priesthood, who else would have invented him? Likewise, it's all the work of theologians and clergy.If that was true, Jesus Christ would have been presented as coming down from the heavens ready-made in the age to commence his teaching. The theologians would not have been obliged to pander to popular beliefs and say that he was born into a cave by a common woman raped by a god. The stories about gods, the myths, are of popular provenience. The theologians edited these stories to suit their goals; the myths are not their work.
There is some other concept of "god" you are implying here, but I don't know what it is.You only have to listen to the myths in order to know that to the ancients the term “gods" was never a concept; it was the name of a race of humans. In the Egyptian hieroglyphic there is no difference in meaning between the terms “god" and “king". The Egyptian kings were operating human breeding grounds where they were producing fresh citizens and hordes of slaves. An inscription in an ancient Egyptian chapel says that Osiris was creating new life in the great harem in Thebes. The Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) says that the gods created modern humans by raping some primitive women. This information is available to anyone interested, but so much the scholars as the laymen trust those whose field of knowledge is the ancient texts to tell them the truth. The truth, however, is extremely rude and ugly and nobody wants to be ridiculed by saying things that no one is ready to admit. I believe that here, in the Center for Inquiry, people are neither naïve nor gullible and that they would not take into consideration anything that is not supported by evidence. To say, however, that the miniature statuettes of the Mother, which were made exclusively to be worn as necklaces by women, that they were used as stimulants for primitive men to masturbate, is very disheartening.
Oh, I didn't realize that someone died and made you king of "The Rules on Opinion Formation".To form an opinion on the origins of religion you have to know the history of religion. So, dispense with the smart talk and state whether you know the history of religion.
But aside from that, my stated opinion re: religion representing a profound absence of intellectual integrity, is about the present day.The origins of religion have nothing to do with the present day.
I recognize that there was a time when so little was known, that humans best answer for many of their questions was "God".Then maybe you can tell us who informed them about God because without knowing anything about God, God cannot answer any of their questions. Nobody dares pretend to be an expert in physics without having studied physics, but when it comes to religion everybody is an expert!
Oh, I didn't realize that someone died and made you king of "The Rules on Opinion Formation".To form an opinion on the origins of religion you have to know the history of religion. So, dispense with the smart talk and state whether you know the history of religion.
But aside from that, my stated opinion re: religion representing a profound absence of intellectual integrity, is about the present day.The origins of religion have nothing to do with the present day.
I recognize that there was a time when so little was known, that humans best answer for many of their questions was "God".Then maybe you can tell us who informed them about God because without knowing anything about God, God cannot answer any of their questions. Nobody dares pretend to be an expert in physics without having studied physics, but when it comes to religion everybody is an expert! All spiritual beings are *memes*.
Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influences a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success, and some may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
So, we see things differently, let's acknowledge that.Could we also acknowledge the fact that my opinion is based on a study while yours is based on whim? Well, that was interesting for about 3 days. You and MikeYohe should get together and do your little sexual innuendos back and forth with each other and leave the rest of us alone. Your fake scholarly attitude is tiresome. Your theory about where Rabbinic teachings of the 1st century came from is a joke. My theory is that you will escalate your holier-than-thou attitude and eventually get banned from this forum. As I have spoken, so it shall come to pass.
So, we see things differently, let's acknowledge that.Could we also acknowledge the fact that my opinion is based on a study while yours is based on whim? Well, that was interesting for about 3 days. You and MikeYohe should get together and do your little sexual innuendos back and forth with each other and leave the rest of us alone. Your fake scholarly attitude is tiresome. Your theory about where Rabbinic teachings of the 1st century came from is a joke. My theory is that you will escalate your holier-than-thou attitude and eventually get banned from this forum. As I have spoken, so it shall come to pass. Ah, yes, the *holier than thou* syndrome.. Come to visit and enlighten these naive atheists as to the true nature of the universe. They have read a book and of course atheists don't read at all, they are lost in a naive world without a guide to the path of the righteous.
Oh, I didn't realize that someone died and made you king of "The Rules on Opinion Formation".To form an opinion on the origins of religion you have to know the history of religion. So, dispense with the smart talk and state whether you know the history of religion.
But aside from that, my stated opinion re: religion representing a profound absence of intellectual integrity, is about the present day.The origins of religion have nothing to do with the present day.
I recognize that there was a time when so little was known, that humans best answer for many of their questions was "God".Then maybe you can tell us who informed them about God because without knowing anything about God, God cannot answer any of their questions. Nobody dares pretend to be an expert in physics without having studied physics, but when it comes to religion everybody is an expert! The thread that YOU started is not titled "The History of Religion". Perhaps the title should have been "I Want to Flaunt My Knowledge of Religious History and Be a Dick About It". In your original post on this you decried perspectives that suggest inherent human disposition toward becoming religious. My background is in the study of behavior and psychology, not the study of religious history. And I am convinced that humans are predisposed to becoming religious. (And if that is correct, it is a relevant point in discussing "the origins of religion".) I would prefer to discuss this civilly, but if you want to be dickish, I can do that, also.
... maybe you can tell us who informed them about God because without knowing anything about God, God cannot answer any of their questions.TimB: There is no actual God. There is only the human conception of God. So someone had to originally conceptualize God. Then somebody came up with narratives about God. And eventually, lots and lots of various narratives, came to be. (You seem quite able to recite many of those narratives.) Historically, those narratives, obviously, served various cultural and societal functions. Still do. But they are all fiction.
Dimitrios Trimijopulos - 10 December 2015 01:10 PM To form an opinion on the origins of religion you have to know the history of religion. So, dispense with the smart talk and state whether you know the history of religion.Allow me to give you an opiion of Old religions, based on Old Atheism (and still true today) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M And another opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHot3XQQ_5Q oh, lest I forget: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_tr_k59O6s I'll await your erudite historical explanation to these observations..
Oh, I have another question for our new savior.
If Mary was a virgin when giving birth to Jesus, how is it possible that Jesus was a male? Without male sperm, any off-spring of the mother’s DNA would have to be female, in fact it would be a clone of the mother.
I have been looking for that answer for a long time now. Can you help me out on this one?.
Did anybody else start getting the feeling that this guy is the exact opposite of an atheist?
Some of his posts above started to get a little…religiousy.
Well you know, some of the guests we’ve had here can get pretty far out.
A research can show that the origins of religion (stories about gods) can be traced back 40k years and that the cause was indeed deeds of human malice. For starters, you have to take into consideration the information provided and the theory proposed in the following article: https://www.academia.edu/7022266/Mother_of_godsI doubt that the dolls are gods. Gods started off as stars and animals and then became part animal and part human. Only after that did they become fully human. The dolls do not fit any pattern of evolving. In the evolution of gods. Gods had specialized knowledge in one area or trade. The first real god that covered all knowledge seems to be RA. I would put the timeline of the first gods at 10,000 to 12,000 BC. Archaeology has shown that religion goes back 80,000 BC. But we find no proof of gods in the early religions. The question is, why does religion need a god anyway? We still have religions today without gods and they don't seem to be having the kind of trouble the deity religions are having.
The gods were said to have ascended to the sky by using ladders more than 15k years ago because the American Natives knew of the “existence" of heavenly gods. Besides, the texts that impart the information that the gods climbed to the sky by ladders are 4,500 years old: https://www.academia.edu/6955695/The_making_of_heavenly_godsI hope we can agree to disagree on a few facts. I really like the idea that you are looking into the history of religion. History is the key to understanding the past. My timelines on the 15K are a little different than yours. The American Indians had Red Ochre and Sky burials. So the first religions were without gods. It is imposable to say when gods came to North America. It may have been sometime afterword.
Let me present an example so that you will not take the above as an insult. Who created humans according to the ancient texts? By going from ancient text to the next older text and then to the next even older text we get the following information: _The God. _The gods _The goddess following an order by the gods. _The goddess through a number of common women called Mother-wombs. These Mother-wombs are, in the texts, are called “Wild Cows" or just “Cows" and were kept in enclosed spaces where the gods, who were known as “Wild Bulls" or just “Bulls", were raping them in order to inseminate them and thus… produce humanity!According to the ancient text, man was created by Mid-Wives. We don’t know if the Mid-Wives were Upper or Lower Gods. Ref, Rig Vega.
You only have to listen to the myths in order to know that to the ancients the term “gods" was never a concept; it was the name of a race of humans.I agree that the “gods" were a race of humans. From what I can comprehend is that this race may have been wiped out by a plague or something. Leaving open the possibility of another branch of humans. This was after they had domesticated man. Regardless, they must have been known as the people of knowledge. Because the word "god" then changed to represent “Knowledge". As far as location, India is where the Gods lived.
And I am convinced that humans are predisposed to becoming religious.Interesting. Guessing this would be considered a genetic factor? Can’t think of any place there are humans without any religion.
And I am convinced that humans are predisposed to becoming religious.Interesting. Guessing this would be considered a genetic factor? Can’t think of any place there are humans without any religion. Yes, it is genetic. Here it is again, I think this is an important clue as to ancient *god figures*. It can be seen today in the behavior of Chimps and is still common today in modern man, just in a more sophisticated way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M
What on earth is a New Atheist???
Something like a Reborn Christian?
All spiritual beings are *memes*.That is most probably true. The gods, however, are spiritual beings only according to brainwashed modern humanity. To the ancients they were criminal scumbags, not differing much from the description of the God in the Tanakh.
In your original post on this you decried perspectives that suggest inherent human disposition toward becoming religious.Yes, I did! Theologians are cunning enough to have managed to persuade scholars to support theories that would guaranteed that people would go on believing nonsense for ever and ever.
My background is in the study of behavior and psychology, not the study of religious history.In that case you may know how moderns think and feel but you may not know how people 40k years ago were thinking and feeling.
And I am convinced that humans are predisposed to becoming religious.Then you have to present the evidence that convinced you, starting with the first man who… became religious.
(And if that is correct, it is a relevant point in discussing "the origins of religion".)“The origins of religion" has to be the staring point or you will be discussing theological nonsense and nothing more.
I would prefer to discuss this civilly, but if you want to be dickish, I can do that, also.Either way it is OK with me. I am used to harsh treatment by agnostics (I own a G+ community entitled “Atheists vs Agnostics"). ;-)