Point being, to answer your question, {So Dimitrios, what was your reasoning behind people blindly believing the theologians and priests?} It was the knowledge that the priests had. The one common factor that all main religious gods had was control of some sort of knowledge. This is my guess.Mike I'm full aware of why the people followed priests, way back then and today. You took my exchange with Dimitrios out of context. That being said, yes alot of it had to do with the priests having control of "knowledge"(in quotes) Alot of it had to do with societal structure that occurs naturally.
Yes, it was gratuitous, more like a *variations on a theme*.Okie Dokie. :-)
That giant quote you posted was from an anthropologist.Have you read the The Golden Bough]? What I quoted was reports from eye witnesses watching the practices and customs mentioned. Frazer copy-pasted those reports to his book. His ideas as an anthropologist were naïve and even silly. . When you quoted that, you were using it as a reference to answer a question, no indication of thinking it was silly at all. That's the annoying stuff I'm talking about.
Prove to me that you are religiously educated by stating the books you have read, and then you can pronounce a critique on me.And this is something I've never seen before. Someone with no credentials comes in, makes some claims that have no backing by anything published, then demands I prove something to them. I used to keep track of the religious books I read. I'll see if can find it. Not that it matters. I doubt anything anyone showed you or said to you would convince you of anything. You believe in yourself and that's it.
One has to know the older texts by heart in order to understand the intention of the writer and the same happens with many other “crazy" stories of the Tanakh.So that's your criteria? You just "know the texts". This is what religious people do. If you don't believe in God, they tell you to "know the texts". If read them, quote them, memorize chapter and verse and still don't believe in God, they tell you that you just didn't read them the right way, or didn't pray about them enough. You have faith in yourself and don't care much for what others think. It makes you a very boring person.
How the gods’ concept was produced? It is written in the texts: the children of an archaic generation were told that the old kings climbed a ladder each and went to live in the sky. From there on the theologians took over, with the result today’s humans to be able to understand the term “god" only as denoting a superhuman being.I'm not going to research these texts myself because I don't care that much. It's an interesting premise. The whole hoax thing. But it seems that it could only possibly answer the origins of say the Greek gods for example. To say that all religion/gods were founded by this hoax is ridiculous. Texts? Humanity was already far flung enough around the globe to render "texts" something that would apply locally. If you're saying that you have texts that pre-date the mass migration of humans out of Africa that's ridiculous. I know you mentioned somewhere above that humans made a left turn and a right turn up in Europe. That was after another route had already made for India and the Orient. To say nothing of the people who stayed behind all along the routes.
I don’t think facts are going to bother him much VYAZMA
I just cannot let this pass. You don't even know the difference between meta-physics (an assembly of *known* mathematical constants) and spiritualism (the assembly of mythologies about "unknown" causes of events).Mythology is of popular provenience, from mentally healthy people Spiritualism, metaphysics, philosophysics and supernatural bs is of philosophical/theological provenience, from mentally unstable persons.
As I said, you know nothing about me. But your disdain for my thoughts is obvious and that makes you the prejudicial one.Oh yes, I am heavily prejudiced against Plato and his followers. You forgot to answer my question: Have you read his work?
So?You have been called a racist and all you have to say is “So?"
But your disrespect of not reading and learning something about the history of the emergence (origins) of gods into the human society, speaks of ignorance and vanity.If you are used to be educated by watching videos, I am not. Suggest some work of yours or of anybody else’s and I will read it
As an atheist I care less about the history of religion which has been proved false so many times that to equate that with some kind of serious area of inquiry is absurd. I say God does not exist and you insist that I do as if you have all the answers.The history of religion is an account of what people believed and what messengers, kings, priests and theologians have been preaching through the ages. Everything is written down and no falsification is possible.
Obviously you know nothing about physics, or you would understand that mathematics is the antithesis to god and religions. No intent, only function. If you don't know the difference then you are the new age ignorant fool, who refuses to learn anything real about the universe, instead of trying to rewrite the history of religious practices, which has no scientific value at all.I have to repeat once more that your babbling about physics and math has no place in this thread. We are here discussing the naiveté of modern atheist scholars who have made themselves victims to theological cunning.
My views are a layman's not an academic.Academics are not smarter than laymen, so it all comes down to whether you had a research made or you are just assuming.
The gods of Egypt are a good example of gods evolving.All gods had been evolving since every generation of theologians had been improving the image of the gods they received from the previous generation of theologians.
The oldest god we know of is the bull.Well, that is almost correct. The first god we know of is the Shepherd. In the Sumerian King List we read: Etana, the shepherd, who ascended to heaven. The God is still regarded a Shepherd. Shepherd, the king who ascended to heaven and became god, was called because he owned a flock of women whom, as a Wild Bull, he was raping (King Gilgamesh, who was a god by two thirds, was raping all the women in his city). So, Bull (actually Wild Bull) was a title given to the god impregnator. The people were not worshipping a bull as god.
The Vega’s are from India. The Garden of Eden is in India. Most of all the domestication took place in India. The language came from India. The money commonly used by the countries of the time came from India. The center of knowledge was in India. Meaning the first colleges were India. If we go back to Mt. Toba eruption in 71K/74K BC that cause only 500 to 5,000 people with our DNA to be on earth. We have the earth in a cold part of the climate cycle. Then an Ice Age by the eruption. There were very limited areas for mankind on earth at that time. We do have Red Ochre burials taking place before the population was on the global extinction list. And all indications are that the main population came from India. Before the extinction period it was out of Africa to the East. Next we have the creation of man. The UV theory has now been proven invalid. And DNA has the white skin people showing up on earth 8K ago from just over the hill from India.Too many assertions and no supporting material. You have to take them one by one and state where the information comes from.
When you quoted that, you were using it as a reference to answer a question, no indication of thinking it was silly at all. That's the annoying stuff I'm talking about.What I quoted was reports of customs practiced all over the world and not the silly ideas of Frazer. Is it that you cannot understand my English or you pretend not to understand?
And this is something I've never seen before. Someone with no credentials comes in, makes some claims that have no backing by anything published, then demands I prove something to them.So you are judging the level of education and the intelligence of people by the credentials they present and the books they have published!!
I used to keep track of the religious books I read. I'll see if can find it.Do not bother. Just tell me which of the following you have read. _Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament. _The Context of Scripture _The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts _The Egyptian Coffin Texts _The Book of the Dead And that is just for starters.
So that's your criteria? You just "know the texts".That is right! If one does not want to be a sucker, he has to do the reading himself. It took me years, but I taught myself to translate the Egyptian hieroglyphic when I realized that the Egyptologists were mistranslating the texts in order to protect religion.
Next we have the creation of man. The UV theory has now been proven invalid. And DNA has the white skin people showing up on earth 8K ago from just over the hill from India.Too many assertions and no supporting material. You have to take them one by one and state where the information comes from. Classic
I'm not going to research these texts myself because I don't care that much. It's an interesting premise. The whole hoax thing.But you also refuse to listen to someone who has researched these texts.
But it seems that it could only possibly answer the origins of say the Greek gods for example.No! Comparative mythology has proved that the stories about gods were the same the world over. You should know that.
To say that all religion/gods were founded by this hoax is ridiculous.It is either the hoax, or that humans are idiots. You cannot say that some people invented gods through meditation and some others as the object of a joke.
If you're saying that you have texts that pre-date the mass migration of humans out of Africa that's ridiculous.The oldest texts of humanity, which are the oldest religious texts at the same time, are the texts etched into the chambers and corridors of the pyramids. These texts nobody could edit and so we still have the originals.
I know you mentioned somewhere above that humans made a left turn and a right turn up in Europe. That was after another route had already made for India and the Orient. To say nothing of the people who stayed behind all along the routes.According to the geneticists of the Max Planck Institute, the Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) who left South Africa by approximately 70k years ago, reached the Middle East by approximately 50k y.a., they interbred with the Neanderthals there, and then dispersed towards Europe and the Orient, finally reaching the Americas. What more we learned from the DNA sequencing is that no human race evolved from another human race and that the Africans evolved into AMH approximately 200k years before the Eurasians did. In other words, the members of the white race started from South Africa as white people and not as black people who turned white on reaching Europe. That is a very interesting subject but it does not belong to this category.
No, I'm judging you on the words you have presented here and the "study" that you linked us to. I skimmed a little of your other work also. I'm pointing out the lack of proof you have provided and how funny it is that you are now asking for proof from me. If you are an authority on your subject, then I'd have little choice but to accept what you say, or override it with a greater show of authority. If you can show me you are an expert on your subject, I will tentatively accept your conclusions, until I gain an equal or greater amount of expertise. Meanwhile, we're a couple of schmucks who think we're smart. Simply claiming to be smarter than all the Egyptologists in the world is not good enough. Claiming that they deliberately mistranslated to protect religion makes it worse for you, because you've now given yourself the additional burden of proving your conspiracy theoryAnd this is something I've never seen before. Someone with no credentials comes in, makes some claims that have no backing by anything published, then demands I prove something to them.So you are judging the level of education and the intelligence of people by the credentials they present and the books they have published!!
I just cannot let this pass. You don't even know the difference between meta-physics (an assembly of *known* mathematical constants) and spiritualism (the assembly of mythologies about "unknown" causes of events).Mythology is of popular provenience, from mentally healthy people You forgot to mention *ignorant*
Spiritualism, metaphysics, philosophysics and supernatural bs is of philosophical/theological provenience, from mentally unstable persons.. Yes, leftovers from that ignorant era. As I said, you know nothing about me. But your disdain for my thoughts is obvious and that makes you the prejudicial one.
Oh yes, I am heavily prejudiced against Plato and his followers. You forgot to answer my question: Have you read his work?I did, you refused to look at it.So?You have been called a racist and all you have to say is “So?"You think it is worthy of a response?But your disrespect of not reading and learning something about the history of the emergence (origins) of gods into the human society, speaks of ignorance and vanity.[quoye]If you are used to be educated by watching videos, I am not. Suggest some work of yours or of anybody else’s and I will read it
As an atheist I care less about the history of religion which has been proved false so many times that to equate that with some kind of serious area of inquiry is absurd. I say God does not exist and you insist that I do as if you have all the answers.
The history of religion is an account of what people believed and what messengers, kings, priests and theologians have been preaching through the ages. Everything is written down and no falsification is possible.So?
Obviously you know nothing about physics, or you would understand that mathematics is the antithesis to god and religions. No intent, only function. If you don't know the difference then you are the new age ignorant fool, who refuses to learn anything real about the universe, instead of trying to rewrite the history of religious practices, which has no scientific value at all.
I have to repeat once more that your babbling about physics and math has no place in this thread. We are here dscussing the naiveté of modern atheist scholars who have made themselves victims to theological cunning.Thank god I am not a New Atheist scholar and cannot imagine a *motivated intelligent agent*. Perhaps I'll be spared from becoming a victim to theological cunning. I am interested in Platonic solids, because they explain certain geometrical properties and *potentials* which are functionally efficient.
In some of Plato's dialogues, this is expressed by Socrates, who spoke of forms in formulating a solution to the problem of universals. The forms, according to Socrates, are archetypes or abstract representations of the many types of things, and properties we feel and see around us, that can only be perceived by reason (Greek: λογική). (That is, they are universals.) In other words, Socrates was able to recognize two worlds: the apparent world, which constantly changes, and an unchanging and unseen world of forms, which may be the cause of what is apparent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platohttp://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Ancient+Sacred+Geometry&FORM=RESTAB Even the use of the word *naivete* has so many implications, in context of history, it's impossiblr to resolve.
On a per capita basis, I would guess that the killing of fathers and brothers and the raping of mothers, sisters and wives was a relatively common occurrence, in ancient times. So of course, their stories (their narratives, their fictions purported to represent some "holy truth") would reflect that.He mentioned caring gods because it is hard to justify imagining criminal gods. According to your opinion, however, they imagined criminal gods to reflect reality and human behavior, but you overlooked the fact that the killings and the rapings were taking place on earth, not high up in the sky. So, according to you, all ancient people were schizophrenic for reporting that they had been watching gods killing and raping. I don't know what ancient people saw, neither do you. You say they reported that first hand, so based on your study of the subject, I'll assume, for now, that they did. I do know that they did not see any supernatural gods, because there is no such thing. They wouldn't have to be Schizophrenic to think that they actually saw that. Technically, they would not even have to be delusional. But either their perception was off (as can happen with various altered states of consciousness), or their processing of what they perceived was off (potentially due to a fundamentally misguided worldview), or they flat out just made it up (as people are often prone to do).
Conclusion! If it were natural for humans to produce ideas about gods, they would have done so in a primitive way originally with the ideas improving in parallel with the evolvement of their brains. In such a case religion should be considered a serious matter not to be taken lightly and, furthermore, religion could never fade out and be extinguished as it would have been part of human nature.That is exactly what happened. However did Campell forget that there were competing religions around the world? Did Campell forget that religion was used as power centers by rulers? Thus religions have room for not being taken seriously. As far as fading out....It's still here. Campells argument works maybe if there was one unified religion right from the start. But there wasn't.
...they would have done so in a primitive way originally with the ideas improving in parallel with the evolvement of their brains.Using the word "improving" here is not correct in the context of the idea either. A better term word be "adapting to a changing, growing society". There's really no room for improvement in deification/supernaturalism. That's objective, it's not a prejudiced statement from an atheist. So that adaptation was one more way that religion was taken less and less seriously over time.( a long time that is.) As science inevitably crept in, it had to adapt that way.
No! Comparative mythology has proved that the stories about gods were the same the world over. You should know that.They weren't exactly the same. Recently it was brought up in another thread about these coincidences.(actually by nature they're not coincidences!) I forget the term used, but the striking similarities that were shared have to do with the common physiology we all share, the common social habits we all share, the common sexual behaviors etc etc etc. So overtones of fertility, immortality, power, healing, weather phenomena etc etc etc... was going to come up. Obviously no humans ever worshiped a door hinge, or had a god messenger of the dung removers etc etc... There was no exalting the frumpy, barren middle aged woman, or the cross-eyed village half-wit.
Gods and Goddesses by Country
This is where you’ll find lists of the gods in major ancient countries. For the Romans, although based on the Greek deities, you’ll find some variation.
• Aztec Gods and Goddesses
• Babylonian Gods and Goddesses
• Celtic Gods and Goddesses
• Chinese Gods and Goddesses
• Egyptian Gods and Goddesses
• Greek Olympian Gods and Goddesses
• Quiz - Which Greek Goddess Are You?
• Hindu Gods and Goddesses
• Maya Gods and Goddesses
• Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses
• Norse Gods and Goddesses
• Roman Gods and Goddesses
The Vega’s are from India. The Garden of Eden is in India. Most of all the domestication took place in India. The language came from India. The money commonly used by the countries of the time came from India. The center of knowledge was in India. Meaning the first colleges were India. If we go back to Mt. Toba eruption in 71K/74K BC that cause only 500 to 5,000 people with our DNA to be on earth. We have the earth in a cold part of the climate cycle. Then an Ice Age by the eruption. There were very limited areas for mankind on earth at that time. We do have Red Ochre burials taking place before the population was on the global extinction list. And all indications are that the main population came from India. Before the extinction period it was out of Africa to the East. Next we have the creation of man. The UV theory has now been proven invalid. And DNA has the white skin people showing up on earth 8K ago from just over the hill from India.Too many assertions and no supporting material. You have to take them one by one and state where the information comes from. All the items are basic knowledge items. The latest items are only a few months old. They are the UV theory being disproved and the DNA dating white skin people being around for only 8K years. I like the Egyptian findings. My interest in Egypt is mainly the Middle Kingdom and the connection with India. Hoping for some good data out of Avaris. And I bet they will be able to find the Port of Perunefer, which should shed light on the trade routes and change a little of the history. What help me a lot in understanding religion was understanding the people. The translated letters that really have nothing to do with religion are not much different than writings today. One of the items I found that was a major factor in Egypt from the Hyksos that seems to have been overlooked by the scholars was the olive. The olive was the reason for the interest in the Middle Kingdom. For throwing Moses out of Egypt. For the campaigns against the Hittites. And for Moses (Abraham) going to Israel. Also Alexandra the Great’s empire and conquered land pretty much followed the olive lands before he went to Egypt.
No, I'm judging you on the words you have presented here and the "study" that you linked us to.I have not seen any remark from you yet pointing out the mistakes in the study, the lack of evidence or the wrong premises. You do that first and you pronounce your critique later.
I skimmed a little of your other work also. I'm pointing out the lack of proof you have provided…You have to be specific here!
If you are an authority on your subject, then I'd have little choice but to accept what you say, or override it with a greater show of authority.This line of thinking creates suckers. If I was to accept the authority of James P. Allen], who is the top Egyptologists as regards the hieroglyphic, and had gulped down his ridiculous translations, I would have not learned how to translate the hieroglyphic. Forget authorities and use your intelligence and common sense. Here is the rubbish that the Egyptologists offer to you: The Pyramid Texts, Utterance 436 §789 Note that Faulkner published his translation in 1969 and that Allen’s translation is contemporary. Faulkner: “This mighty one has been made a spirit for the benefit of(?) his soul.» Allen: “this controlling power has been akhified for his ba" They believe that their readers, either scholars or laymen, are some brainless idiots.
Simply claiming to be smarter than all the Egyptologists in the world is not good enough. Claiming that they deliberately mistranslated to protect religion makes it worse for you,…The example provided above shows that they are either idiots who have not managed in 200 years to understand the meaning of two words that occur thousands of times in the texts, or that they know the meanings of the words but they are intellectually dishonest persons. The above has been told to their faces, of course! :cheese:
You forgot to mention *ignorant*Sorry, but you are the ignorant one. You are confusing the nonsense appended to the myths by poets, priests and theologians with the purely popular myths which can be distinguished because they are known from various cultures all over the world. Those people knew that the oceans’ levels had risen by 130 meters causing the flooding of thousands of square kilometers of dry coastal land, something that we only lately found out (and yet we still believe that we can stop the warming of the planet by... beating the output of the sun!!).
Yes, leftovers from that ignorant era.The irony is that the era of the ignoramuses is the present era, the era of information.
As I said, you know nothing about me.I do not care who you are. I am judging you from what you say.
You think it is worthy of a response?You called the writers of the Tanakh “goat herders" as if your illiterate ancestors were university professors at that time. I called you a racist and you think that it is not proper of you to apologize or to stand your ground and justify your racism?
I am interested in Platonic solids, because they explain certain geometrical properties and *potentials* which are functionally efficient.You are quoting Wiki instead of the words of Plato!! Read carefully my work to know how it has to be done by following the scientific procedure.In some of Plato's dialogues, this is expressed by Socrates, who spoke of forms in formulating a solution to the problem of universals. The forms, according to Socrates, are archetypes or abstract representations of the many types of things, and properties we feel and see around us, that can only be perceived by reason (Greek: λογική). (That is, they are universals.) In other words, Socrates was able to recognize two worlds: the apparent world, which constantly changes, and an unchanging and unseen world of forms, which may be the cause of what is apparent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato