Personal viewpoint. Just a reminder when talking about religions of the past. The people were not much different than you and me. And religion dealing with afterlife and miracles needing a supernatural being was about the same as today.There is a way to improve your personal viewpoint: read what the ancient people believed and do not insult them by saying that they believed modern nonsense such as the afterlife. The concept of the soul did not obtain prior to 2300 BCE and therefore neither the concept of the afterlife nor that of the immortality existed. https://www.academia.edu/6940175/The_making_of_the_soul_concept I can see we are looking at this subject from two different areas. You seem to be deep into Egyptian history. While I went into the Egyptian history for a while and then moved to the Vegas to look into pre-history events. In the Rig Vega stories, the first recorded soul was when the Upper Gods had the leader of a labor strike killed because he disrespected the Upper Gods property by entering the gate to his house uninvited. But the Upper Gods agreed with the reason for the labor strike and had his bones burned to free his soul so he could travel to heaven. As these stories have been verbally passed down before there was written language. There is no way to put a date on the stories. The gods in these stories were not deities, they were people. And the Upper and Lower titles were part of the caste system.
The ugly girls waiting in the temple for years that you cite above.No one mentioned ugly girls. Your bias prevents you from reading what I am writing. Those women were women of every social class. They were to be married but in order to be blessed with the ability to give birth to the right child, they had to honor the Mother and act as prostitutes as she, the Mother, was regarded a prostitute. Do you know anything of the mythology of the Norsemen? Well, Loki, the famous trickster god, accused Freya (Venus) that she had married all the gods the one after the other. The truth was that the gods, all of them, had raped her one after the other. The girls, the Mothers, were locked into pens like animals and because the lords were raping them there (tied up and with blind-folding hoods on their heads, as the Mother is depicted in the statuettes) they were regarded prostitutes. As long as the rapists were lords, of the ruling elite (gods), the raping was acceptable. If, however, a girl was raped by a commoner (or she chose to have sex with a commoner) she was no longer useful to the lords as she would have given birth to a commoner’s child and not to a lord’s son. There was no purpose in feeding her any longer and so they were stoning her to death, as they still do in the Near East. So, the children of the prostitutes (of the Mother) were acceptable by the gods and they were called “sons of gods". Some of those children, however, were regarded subhuman creatures and were exterminated. The ancient Egyptians were still killing some of the children born in the breeding grounds, as late as the Middle Kingdom period (c. 2000 to 1700 BCE) of the Egyptian civilization. The women about to be married wished to have the help of the Mother in bearing the right offspring.
So as I said, Human behavior has much influence on religion and the origins of religion and gods.Sorry, but you have to read a lot more before you get the right to have an opinion on the origins of religion and the religion in general.
btw. I happen to look up the term “New Atheist” and this is what i found.
New Atheism is a social and political movement that began in the early 2000s in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that “religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises”.
New Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. New Atheism - Wikipedia
Why do you blame New Atheism for something an individual atheist may have said?
I'm glad you brought that back up. Here's where I think you are off, re: the above statement. The word "hoax" implies someone's intent to fool someone else. The thing is, we are ready made to fool ourselves with imagined narratives.The perfect hoax is attained when what you regard as imagined narratives are reports of the actual events. ;-)
It is only when we develop to a certain degree individually, that we can discriminate easily between fiction and reality. Some people may gain this ability as young children, but some people never do.One may develop all the individuality one wants. Without the proper information one will still be a sucker believing the reality to be fiction.
You are fighting a supernatural deity that does not exist?? Or perhaps you mean that you are fighting the existing concepts of God.Obviously the latter!
Yet you have not only paid attention to theological nonsense, you have obviously devoted an extraordinary amount of effort in its study. Are you suggesting that you have no self respect? Surely that is not what you meant.He who has devoted time in studying mythology, ancient texts and theology, can discriminate between popular legend and theological idea. According to popular legends the “gods" created “humans". The theologians used the “myth" of the creation of humans and expanded it to contain the creation of the universe too. So, whatever has to do with the creation of the universe is just theological bullshit and whoever pays attention to that is an ignorant idiot. Yet, the point remains: were the so called “gods" indeed the creators of “humans"? If “Yes", then nobody ever imagined gods and the whole thing is apparently based on a misunderstanding. A research will reveal what the misunderstanding was and everything would be cleared out. If “No", then humans are indeed psychologically primed for religion and they imagine non-existent creatures. The research revealed that some hybrids were produced, by means of human breeding grounds operated by the ruling elite, the lords of the ancient Near East, who came to be known as gods. There is no doubt about his fact. What remains to be investigated is how long the human breeding grounds had been running.
But I know that we are (as are all organisms) naturally inclined toward engaging in superstitious behavior. Beyond that, as humans, we also have complex verbal behavior with which we often form narratives that fill in the blanks created by our limited and sometimes inaccurate perceptions.Is that the case with the ancients too? What is written in the oldest religious texts of humanity? Narratives based on superstition and complex verbal behavior, or something quite different? I have no time now, but I will come back later to tell what is written in there and you can then decide for yourself.
Why do you blame New Atheism for something an individual atheist may have said?Because both New Atheism and the individual “atheist" are advocates of agnosticism. They fight the clergy instead of depriving the clergy from its merchandise, God, and thus leave clergy to die out by itself. As long as they state that they do not know whether God exists or not, the clergy would be invincible.
From the OP
The natives of the American continent, who had no contact with the rest of the humanity for 15,000 years, said that the humans were feeding the heavenly beings, that the heavenly beings were marrying Indian girls and they also mentioned the messengers of the gods (persons who were going to where the “gods" were to inform them of the affairs of the “humans"). The American Indians reached the American continent from places where people were telling the same things about their gods. So, the question is: Were the American Indians unaware of the legends of the other peoples and they independently imagined an identical story, or were they just repeating a story they already knew of?Which common global denominator existed between all those individual tribes and regions? Obviously the climate, weather, and environments. Is it wonder that all the earliest gods, the life givers and takers, were recognized, but differently named for globally shared Natural Phenomena? Until science came along, the existence of gods had never been seriously questioned at all. Even today, in insurance policies we use a term "acts of god" to indicate exeptional natural causes exempt from claims for damages. This God meme runs deep and I would not be surprised that the promise of an eternal after-life would psychologically pre-dispose the average person to believe in Gods. Nothing to lose on that bet. And then comes the prophet who claims to have spoken with a god and was told how to get to heaven with the best chances of success and then comes zealotry, and hubris, and disrespect, and slavery, and wars, all in an effort to *move in the direction of greatest satisfaction*. I have just outlined a global picture of origin and evolution of theism and religions, with common global denominators and therefore common stories. But this common global theme of sentient spiritual deities is a false proof. The logic is impeccable, the Premise itself is flawed. On second thought the logic is flawed as well. What a tangled web we weave when trying to.......... rule?
Because both New Atheism and the individual “atheist" are advocates of agnosticism. They fight the clergy instead of depriving the clergy from its merchandise, God, and thus leave clergy to die out by itself. As long as they state that they do not know whether God exists or not, the clergy would be invincible.By "new Atheists" I assume you mean primarily the Four Horsemen, e.g. Dawkins? He has stated many time over that he is indeed an Atheist and has even attacked individual Biblical scriptures in his book. In fact I don't remember any one of them claiming to be an "agnostic" due to an interpretation or misinterpretation of any Biblical text. Also, the reason for the claim "I don't know whether god exists or not" has to do with the scientific doctrine of falsifiability only. It's neither a dodge nor a wink in the direction of the clergy. Can't Jack
Answer that, then imagine you are me and apply that same method to how I decide to trust you.Do not trust me. Free your mind of all the prejudice put there by a humanity dominated by religion, and trust your logic and reason. . What do you THINK I'm doing?
Nice speech! Pity you do not care enough for the subject being discussed to get at least the figures right. It is 40,000 years, the time the people left the Near East area for Europe and the Orient.I was counting from the earliest bead makers (that we know of). I guess you missed those in your "study". Didn't you know about them? They were highly influential of the fat lady makers. I have some pictures and a paper on it. If it wasn't for the bead makers, the fat lady makers would have never got started. They are the real sources of the stories about god. They are the ones you should be focusing on.
The ugly girls waiting in the temple for years that you cite above.No one mentioned ugly girls. Your bias prevents you from reading what I am writing.
The tall, beautiful women manage to return home soon, while the ugly ones stay there for a long time before their duty, imposed by the law, is done. Some of them stay there for three and even four years! A similar custom is known from several areas of Cyprus. (1,199)What does my bias prevent me from doing?
Sorry, but you have to read a lot more before you get the right to have an opinion on the origins of religion and the religion in general.Monotheism is an improvement isn't that right Father Dimitrios?
Dimitrios Trimijopulos - 15 December 2015 01:01 AM
Sorry, but you have to read a lot more before you get the right to have an opinion on the origins of religion and the religion in general.
Does that mean you think you qualify, Dimitrios?
Dimitrios, I bet you feel like a firefighter right now trying to put out the up flares. I just wanted to say I think you’re doing a great job on keep your thoughts the center of the subject and not getting upset. It may not always seem like it, but the attacks on you do have good intentions and good people behind them. I know it probably does not seem that way. I just want to say that I am impressed.
This thread gets better every day
But I know that we are (as are all organisms) naturally inclined toward engaging in superstitious behavior. Beyond that, as humans, we also have complex verbal behavior with which we often form narratives that fill in the blanks created by our limited and sometimes inaccurate perceptions.Is that the case with the ancients too?. Sure.
What is written in the oldest religious texts of humanity?I wouldn't be surprised.
Narratives based on superstition and complex verbal behavior, or something quite different? I have no time now, but I will come back later to tell what is written in there and you can then decide for yourself.I look forward to it. Just to be clear, because I am a bit confused, is your basic thrust that the earliest religious texts portray certain humans as being god-like, and that this was, subsequently, as time passed, transformed into the ideas of supernatural gods? I think that is what you are suggesting. And that further, you are suggesting that this is the historical hoax, that if uncovered to the public eye, will serve, eventually, to end religion as we know it?
But I know that we are (as are all organisms) naturally inclined toward engaging in superstitious behavior. Beyond that, as humans, we also have complex verbal behavior with which we often form narratives that fill in the blanks created by our limited and sometimes inaccurate perceptions. In addition to that, we all start out as infants who do not have complex verbal behavior, but who are taking in enormous amounts of information, while experiencing utter helplessness except for the mercy of some entity that is caring for us. I would say that those factors, alone, can prime us toward eventually buying in to religious nonsense, as we develop further.Nice assumptions, well expressed, but still assumptions. I guess you know who Osiris is. The pure-blood god of the Egyptian pantheon or, according to your line of thinking, the entity that is caring for humans. Let us see what information we get from the oldest religious texts: So much the Pyramid Texts (2400-2200 BCE) as the Coffin Texts (2000-1800 BCE) and the The Book of the Dead (1600-1100 BCE), are copies and recensions of some original, much older texts, written on papyrus. Spell 173 of the Coffin Texts opens as follows (The title of the Spell appears capitalized, NETER KHERT means Land of the gods): NOT TO EAT FAECES AND NOT TO DRINK URINE IN THE NETER KHERT. What I doubly detest, I will not eat. Faeces is my detestation, and I will not eat it. Filth shall not enter into this mouth of mine, and I will not eat it with my mouth, I will not touch it with my finger, I will not tread on it with my toes, because I will not eat faeces for you, I will not drink urine for you, I will not go upside down for you, I will not accept this mat of Shesmetet for you; because I will not eat for you this filth which issued from the hinder parts of Osiris. (Spell 173, § ΙΙΙ 47-48) It is not known what is meant by that “mat of Shesmetet" but those forcing the man to eat faeces and to go upside down are the gods: “Eat this excrement which issued from the hinder parts of Osiris; what (else) can you live on?" say these gods to me. (Spell 173 §50) The main subject of these texts is the judgment of the men by the gods. They are mostly composed of the words that the man standing in front of the judging gods is telling to the gods (basically he assures the gods that he was created in their image); and then the words that the man says after having passed successfully through the judgment test. He says that he became a god that he is very powerful that he was given a piece of land to cultivate, a house to live in, and a wife to have sex with, as before his judgment he was not allowed to have sex. The consumption of the excrements of the gods refers to the time before the man’s judgment! All this appears insane because it is supposed that the man is dead (not a soul, just a dead man, a corpse) and that is exactly what the Egyptologists permit humanity to believe about the ideas of the ancient Egyptians. The fact, however, is that the judgment described was a real event in real life. The Egyptian ruling elite (as well as the kings of the entire Near East area) were producing babies in human breeding grounds and those kids were subjected to a test, the judgment, on reaching certain age, in order to be decided who was the son of a king or prince, who was to be the slave and who was to be killed as a subhuman creature. The priesthood had transformed the judgment of the living into a judgment of the dead and so the concepts of immortality and Otherworld were created. Now, it becomes apparent that nobody has the right to have an opinion on the origins of religion while having no idea of what was going on in the ancient world. Do you agree?
Which common global denominator existed between all those individual tribes and regions? Obviously the climate, weather, and environments. Is it wonder that all the earliest gods, the life givers and takers, were recognized, but differently named for globally shared Natural Phenomena? Until science came along, the existence of gods had never been seriously questioned at all. Even today, in insurance policies we use a term "acts of god" to indicate exeptional natural causes exempt from claims for damages. This God meme runs deep and I would not be surprised that the promise of an eternal after-life would psychologically pre-dispose the average person to believe in Gods. Nothing to lose on that bet. And then comes the prophet who claims to have spoken with a god and was told how to get to heaven with the best chances of success and then comes zealotry, and hubris, and disrespect, and slavery, and wars, all in an effort to *move in the direction of greatest satisfaction*. I have just outlined a global picture of origin and evolution of theism and religions, with common global denominators and therefore common stories. But this common global theme of sentient spiritual deities is a false proof. The logic is impeccable, the Premise itself is flawed. On second thought the logic is flawed as well. What a tangled web we weave when trying to.......... rule?The above is what is known as an uneducated guess. Unless if you had been inspired by the holy ghost or you are omniscient. You can assert anything you'd like, but unless you can support it, it's effectively noise.
But I know that we are (as are all organisms) naturally inclined toward engaging in superstitious behavior. Beyond that, as humans, we also have complex verbal behavior with which we often form narratives that fill in the blanks created by our limited and sometimes inaccurate perceptions. In addition to that, we all start out as infants who do not have complex verbal behavior, but who are taking in enormous amounts of information, while experiencing utter helplessness except for the mercy of some entity that is caring for us. I would say that those factors, alone, can prime us toward eventually buying in to religious nonsense, as we develop further.Nice assumptions, well expressed, but still assumptions... No these are all facts, unless you are reading into the last statement, that I am suggesting that as infants we are self-aware in our experiences. I am not assuming that. A human infant has a brain. The brain is taking in information. The infant is completely helpless. It can only cry, make rather random facial expressions, move its legs and arms in a rather uncoordinated fashion and perform bodily functions. But it is obviously feeling sensations, seeing shapes and forms, hearing sounds. It will suffer and die unless someone meets its needs. This is a template that is likely an unconscious component of who we all are. Unless, perhaps, all unconscious memory of that is wiped out by the developmental apoptosis of neural cells that occurs during toddlerhood (but that would be an assumption).