FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-17-2001, 05:23 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bobk:
then each following religion would not have a chance of being an original, and therefore, not being an original, would be a phony.</font>
Why is something necessarily false if it is not original? Last I looked truth or falsity was completely different to originality.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">No death/resurrection/ascension, no Xnity. if other races/cultures have savior-god myths, then the JC myth is not necessarily true, and is more likely to be a ripoff of these other myths, suggesting strongly, yea, proving strongly, that Xnity is nonsense</font>
I believe that the mere historical facts of Jesus existence and his death on the cross at the hands of the Roman and Jewish authorities is beyond all remotely reasonable doubt. If other cultures have saviour God myths then it strongly implies that they have been influenced by the Christian story.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I am seriously interested in the existence of gods, in particular, in proof of the existence of gods, or in proof of the nonexistence of gods.

I have my standards for the analysis/evaluation/judgment of gods: Standards </font>
Much of your standards seem reasonable, and in that part which I consider reasonable: Christianity does a thorough job of covering those standards. But 5 is completely unreasonable in my opinion.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The prime standard is that the gods appear in a form I can understand and prove he/she/it is a god as a being of more knowledge and powers than man individually or collectively by performing actions man individually or collectively currently cannot.

If the gods are not willing to do that, then they are responsible for my not knowing they exist.</font>
Ha ha ha. You can't just declare someone else responsible like this, it doesn't work.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">(B) who/which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted, who/which are independent of opinion/beliefs, and are not the content of ideas</font>
Ha ha ha again. Very funny. Who decides "not the content of ideas"? I think your standards need some serious work done to them.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">If I were to hear a voice inside me, how could I prove that that was not an hallucination?

If I were to see a flash of light and a man in a white robe beckoning to me, how could I prove that was not an hallucination?

If I had an idea that a god exists and was contacting me, giving me ideas/truths, how could I prove that that was not a delusion?</font>
How can you prove that the "real world" isn't a delusion? You seem quite willing to believe in Science - which is merely an analysis of the senses. Yet you are not prepared to believe in anything religious when it is sensed. This seems inconsisent bordering on crazy. And at the same time you insist that you want to know if Gods exist!

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">No, the "All you have to do is pray!" argument will not work for me.</font>
Why not? If you ask God to reveal himself to you and he doesn't then you would be more justified in considering his fault for you not believing.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">What are YOUR standards for the analysis/evaluation/judgment of gods?

NOTE: Please avoid the "You can't tell gods what to do therefore I don't have any standards" or "The gods have their own standards" routines. I've heard them before, and they don't work, either.</font>
Oh, so now we're supposed to tell these omnipotent, beyond our comprehension gods exactly what they are to do. Good one... not.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Either you have standards and you think rationally, objectively, critically, or you do not and you are irrational/subjective/uncritical.</font>
Either you believe what you observe or you don't. Putting any "religious experience" in the irrational/subjective category merely begs the question. How do we know what is objective? -By believing in the subjective reality we experience. Sorry Bob, but it is all subjective... every last bit of it.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Look at the whole religion mess this way: If you were a god, would you respect someone who had only blind faith based upon fear and thus did good deeds for bad reasons</font>
If I was a God I would respect someone who loved an respected me, who showed loved and compassion to everyone, who delighted in truth, light and love.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">or would you respect someone who critically questioned and yet did good deeds because he wanted to help other people?</font>
It's "critically questioned" that's up for debate here. I believe that your definition of "critically questioned" approximates to my definition of "ignoring the facts"... if I was a God I would not respect anyone who did this.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And if this critical person did not believe in you, would you or would you not let him into your heaven?</font>
That is certainly not the point of the Christian idea. If you accept Christ's forgiveness and wish to do the will of the Father you are "let into" heaven.

-Tercel

[This message has been edited by Tercel (edited June 18, 2001).]
 
Old 06-17-2001, 08:21 PM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post


Hi Bob

You asked: Why are all “my” anthropologist friends handicapped?

My answer: Anthropologists go elsewhere to study that which they do not know and return to us with some foreign idea about human behavior which they decorate like a piece of cake with the hope that we will go for it. Maragareth Mead was a good example of this and because we were ready for the sexual revolution we went for it. Their handicap is obscured vision and if this is not true the entire study of anthropology would not exist.

(Bob) Define in operational definitions the following:

god(s)

(Amos)The unknown element of life.

(Bob)wrong places (to be looking for gods)

(Amos)God does not exist in space but is conjectured in our own mind.

(Bob)religion

(Amos)A vehicle to get from A to B.

(Bob)The whole point of Christianity Before Christ is the presentation of evidence that Xn myths existed prior to Xnity and, therefore, there is a strong possibility that Xnity is phony.

(Amos) The reality behind myth is archetypal and if a transparent view of Christianity show similarity with other mythologies it proves that there is truth behind Christianity.

(Bob)If you want to argue against the point of this book, then present arguments using physical evidence/eyewitness reports that Xnity is original, that Gods exists, that Mary was a Virgin, that JC was a savior-god who was crucified, died, was resurrected and ascended into a heaven.

For example, prove that such mythical ideas virgin births/savior-gods/crucifixions (or executions of savior-gods)/resurrections/etc. do not appear in the mythologies of other religions.

If you cannot prove your arguments, then no one is obligated to believe you.

(Amos) Why would you believe that mythical ideas must be original to be true. You seem to have the wrong concept of myth and are perhaps confused with Wally-world and American myths. Myths are words stories about physical events that happen to the mind of man. This makes them universal and the occurance of these events can be increased and intensified with the aid of religion. The end result of such an event can be noetic vision and to have noetic vision the mind of God is needed which can therefore be ours after a successful metamorphosis.

(Bob)Tell us what you know, not what you believe. give us facts, not fairy tales.

(Amos) The entire history of the Catholic church is loaded with fact and you seem to think that fairy tales are needed to make religion original.

You wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmies have nothing to do with Christianity and it matters not one iota if all of mankind at one time was black and Pygmy and short or tall and came from Africa or not because Christianity does not deal with the origin of mankind but with the origin of the mythology whereupon religion is based to serve for the survival of the tribe. If Pygmies have similar ideas of God and Gods as does Christianity you should consider the possibility that there is an archetypal truth to the method and manners of God in who's image man is made (Pygmies included).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Bob)Again, the point is that if the mythology of Xnity existed in other religions prior to the development of Xnity, then Xnity can critically be viewed as a phony religion, with no necessary original or true virgin births/savior-gods/resurrections/etc.

The mythology of Xnity does exist in other religions, therefore there is no reason to believe that Xnity is an original religion or a true religion.

(Amos) The parables and metaphors do exist because they are very descriptive of the events. The virgin birth is a necessity and so is the perpetual virginity of Mary because each one of us must be born out of the same virgin concept if resurrection is to take place in our lifetime. So just as Christ was born of a virgin and conceived by God must we also be born of the same virgin having been conceived by God.

Of course you will not believe me so I'll stop here with this.

(Bob)SEE: The Bel (Baal) Myth Parallels to the Jesus Myth: http://www.bobkwebsite.com/belmythvjesusmyth.html

The Judeo-Christian, Chaldean and Hindu Flood Myths: http://www.bobkwebsite.com/floodmyths.html

The Hindu Krishna and Christian Jesus Myth Parallels: http://www.bobkwebsite.com/krishnajesusmyths.html

Did you know that there are archetypal myths? The psychologist, Carl Jung, claimed to have identified a number of them. Look him up on the web.

I cannot consider the possibility of the truth of the manners and methods of a person/thing/event I cannot see/hear/touch/smell/taste.

If you want to talk about your god, make sure I can see/hear/touch/smell/taste him/her/it; otherwise I am not obligated to believe he/she/it exists.

(Amos) That is why I stopped where I did. Further, if you want to be confused Jung is a good person to read.

Amos


 
Old 06-17-2001, 11:08 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Turtonm:

I wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Massey stated that Professor Aldous Huxley observed that the native Egyptians and the Australian Blacks are descended from the same race. </font>
You wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">There are no races, and except for historical understanding, who cares what scientists in 1863 thought about human descent relationships? They were all wrong. As we now know, Australia aboriginals are a people relatively distantly related to the Egyptians (whoever they were) and more closely related to some South/SE Asian groups, AFAIK, as DNA studies show.</font>
Define “race.”

My understanding is that the term “race” means subspecies of the human kind, including Caucasians, Negroes, Mongoloids, etc., and therefore could very well include Pygmies.

I request that you cite your source(s) for the idea that there are no races.

Are Massey and others such as Huxley far off in their statements circa 1883 that man orginated in Africa?

And that Pygmies were the first true men?

I shall look up what info I have in my personal library re: the descent of man, but if you have info and sources you can share, then do so.

The essential goal is to gain information and thus truth.

I wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">According to Jackson, modern men have found Pygmy fossils in all lands throughout the world. (Jackson, p. 175.)</font>
You wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">And his source for this fantastic claim? I can't even find anything about pygmy fossils anywhere in google.</font>
Please note the italicized quotes in the following for support for Jackson’s statement.

On p. 173, Jackson cites Gerald Massey, from The Natural Genesis, London: Williams and Norgate, 1883, Reissued, New York: Weiser, 1974, Vol. I, pp. 8-9.:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Africa, and not Asia, was the birthplace of articulate man, and therefore the primordial home of all things human, and the race that ranged out over the world, including the islands of the North and the lands of the Southern Seas, was directly Kamite; the Blacks of Britain (who left flattened tibia, the Negroid pelvis, the Australoid molars and gorilla-like molars in the bone caves), and the Blacks of Australia, being the two extreme wings extended from the same African center. Professor Huxley recognized in the native Egyptian the most refined form of the same anthropological type that survives at a far lower stage in the Australian Black. My further contention is that both issue from inner Africa as the human birthplace.</font>
On p. 174, Jackson cites Dr. Albert Churchward, The Origin and Evolution of Religion, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1924, pp. 7-8:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Now we cannot get back further in the origin of religion, its meanings and true interpretation than the Pygmies, for the Pygmy was the first human in evolution from the Anthropoid Ape. Here then we find the origin and dawn of all religion and religious ideas ... These Pygmies are upon the lowest step in the ascent of man. They were the first humans, and although still found in many parts of the world, their Motherland is Africa. In no other country do we find even a trace of the connnecting links (Bushmen and Masaba Negro) with the Nilotic Negro who developed religious ideas in the next stage of evolution., So closely were the facts of nature observed and registered by the Egyptians that the earliest divine men in their mythology are portrayed as Pygmies, and the earliest form of the Human Mother was depicted with the characteristics of the Pygmy woman.</font>
On p. 175, Jackson makes the statement that Pygmy fossils are found all over the world, and then, in the next paragraph, quotes Eugen Georg, The Adventures of Mankind, New York, E. P. Dutton and Co., 1931, p. 44.:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">A splendid era of Blacks seems to have preceded all the later races. There must once have been a tremendous Negro expansion, since the original masters of the lands between Iberia and theCape of Good Hope and East India were primitive and probably dwarfed Black men. We have long had proof that a primitive Negroid race of Pygmies once lived around the Mediterranean. Blacks were the first to plow the mud of the Nile; they were the dark-skinned, curly-haired Kushites. Blacks were masters of Sumeria and Babylon before it became the country of the four tongues. And in india, the kingdom of the Dravidian monarchs, the Black and godless enemies, existed until the period of written history.</font>
Following this paragraph Jackson states “The ancient Olmec culture of Mexico, obviously of African origin, seemed to have been established by Pygmies.”

He then quotes A. Hyatt Verill and Ruth Verill, from America’s Ancient Civilizations, New York, Capricorn Books, 1967, pp. 97-100. To paraphrase, stone and pottery heads were found had
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">thick lips and a broad, flat nose of Negroid type, totally unlike the features of any known American race past or present. ... Among many ancient races, both in the New World and the Old World, dwarfs or Pygmies were regarded with more or less superstitious reverence. ... According to the present day Mayas of northern Yucatan, they have a tradition that the world was first inhabited by dwarfs ... who, the Mayas believe, built the great cities now in ruins. ... Even more interesting is the fact that dwarfs, or abnormally small persons, are quite common among the living Indians of [the Mexican state of] Tabasco. These miniature Indians are about four to four and a half feet in height with rather dark skins, broad flat noses and rather thick lips, very similar to those shown in the La Vienta sculptures. ... In their actions and behavior they are very much like the Bushmen or Hottentots of Africa ... There is no question that the most ancient of the Mexican higher cultures was that of the fat-faced, thick-lipped, flat-nosed people of the La Venta area in the State of Tabasco.</font>
Jackson then goes on to cite other writers concerning the Ethiopians who preceded the Egyptians, who had what we could consider to be an advanced culture which included agriculture by irrigation, carving and building in stone, metalworking in iron and steel, pottery making, and mummification, leaving monuments dated to be older than Egyptian monuments.

I wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Dr. Albert Churchward, in The Origin and Evolution of the Human Race, 1921, asserted that (A) the human race originated in Central Africa in the Nile River Valley, particularly the upper regions near the sources of the Nile, and (B) the first humans were Pygmies.</font>
You wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Unfortunately, there is no evidence that the first humans were pygmies. Writing in 1921, again, why should we pay attention to any assertions of this high ranking free-mason who thought all religion descended through Egypt?</font>
If this high-ranking free-mason got his ducks in a row, then there is no reason to not pay attention to him.

Is anyone today denying that the human race got started in Africa? In the upper Nile region?

I Wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Discoveries of human fossils in Africa and identified as Pygmy fossils by Dr. Raymond Dart, Dr. Robert Bloom, Professor Louis Leakey, Mary Leakey, Richard Leakey, and others confirmed Darwin’s prediction, Massey’s observations, and Churchward’s assertions.</font>
You wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">You mean, Austropithcenes are pygmies? How do you mean that? Anatomically similar to modern pygmies -- who are indisputably H. sapiens -- or just "short?"</font>
Evidently, anatomically similar to modern Pygmies. See the above references from pp. 174-175 of Jackson of Georg and the Verills.

I wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">In The Origin and Evolution of Religion, 1924, Churchward stated that the first evidence of religion and religious practices were traced back to the Pygmies, the first humans to evolve from the Anthropoid Apes.</font>
You wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This is a little confusing. First, humans are anthropoid apes, modern apes and humans share a common ancestor. The earliest known religious behavior apparently occurred in the neandertals, but that is disputed. All known religious behavior occurred among the genus Homo. Do you mean that 4-6 million years ago creatures like Lucy had religious thought?</font>
I will need to get caught up on the human species.

Remember that this post is esentially a book report, but the evidence presented so far seems cogent to me, since there had to be an origin of mankind and an origin of religion, and there is no reason whyt the two could not have been in the same group.

I wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">For twenty years, Jean-Pierre Hallet, an anthropologist, lived in the Congo and studied the people and the culture of the Pygmies of the Ituri Forest and concluded that Christianity originated with the Pygmies.</font>
You wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Hallet believes the pygmies are the oldest and most genetically isolated group of humans. However, I have never heard that he thinks Christianity originated with them. We all know where and when it originated. Do you have a cite for this opinion of Hallet's?</font>
I stand to be corrected: Jackson stated in a paragraph on p. 175 what appears to be not a direct quote but a paraphrase summary of Hallet’s findings on what the Pygmies told him, including the mythology that included the Virgin Mother, the savior-god who died to save mankind, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, etc. The paragraph ends with “Certainly this looks like Christianity before Christ.” Most likely this is Jackson’s statement, not Hallet’s. Nevertheless, assuming that Jackson summarized correctly Hallet’s findings, I would have to agree that, assuming the Pygmies did not plagiarize Xnity after the death of JC, the basic mythology of Xnity was found in the Pygmy mythology.

Your statement: “We all know when and where it (Xnity) originated” What do you mean? Do you believe Xnity is an original religion? (That its early writers/priests took nothing from other religions?) If you assert that Xnity is an original religion, are you then asserting that because Xnity is an original religion that it is true?

I wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> ... meaning you, yourself, could go to the Congo and spend time with the Pygmies of the Ituri Forest and learn from them their mythology.</font>
You wrote:
Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I am not an apologist, and I find Jackson's comments incredible.</font>
If so, then try to answer these questions:

1. What is the origin of man?

2. What is the origin of religion?

[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited June 18, 2001).]
 
Old 06-18-2001, 07:17 AM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Define “race.”
BOBK:My understanding is that the term “race” means subspecies of the human kind, including Caucasians, Negroes, Mongoloids, etc., and therefore could very well include Pygmies.

Nobody can define "race," in any coherent way. That is why it is rejected as a scientific concept. There are no "Mongoloids" or "Negroids." There are clades. Cavalli-Sforza has been the major force in understanding the complexity of human interrelationships. There is a good article on this at Atlantic Online:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/04/olson-p1.htm

I request that you cite your source(s) for the idea that there are no races.

You mean, all of modern biology? I think I'll decline to cite every textbook on human evolution. There are no races, just clades.

Are Massey and others such as Huxley far off in their statements circa 1883 that man orginated in Africa?

No.

And that Pygmies were the first true men?

Yes. There erred here.

I shall look up what info I have in my personal library re: the descent of man, but if you have info and sources you can share, then do so.

Do you have a good textbook dating from 2000 or 2001? That might help you a lot.

In response to my request for sources, you cite Massey writing in 1883, Churchward writing in 1924, Georg writing in 1931, and a fruitcake text from 1967 arguing that the Olmec heads are negroid, a bit of cult archaeology rejected by mainstream archeology. In short, you have no modern source for any of your claims, and thus, I dismiss them out of hand. What you need is a basic textbook or similiar, written after 1998 or so, laying out the various human relationships.

Is anyone today denying that the human race got started in Africa? In the upper Nile region?

H. sapiens appears to have gotten its start a lot further south. From a good review at:

http://www.humanevolution.f2s.com/sapiens.html

"Skeletal remains are found throughout all of Africa, and all of it is usually considered H. sapiens, though not all is considered anatomically modern human. The oldest of the Middle Pleistocene specimens is a partial cranium from Florisbad, South Africa. ESR dates for this cranium give an age of approximately 250 kyr. The cranium consists of the sides and part of the front of the face, with most of the back and cranial
base missing. The specimen is attributed to being a female. The specimen has been considered a phylogenetic link between earlier populations and modern living African populations, though some have questioned the validity of that idea."

We then had the following exchange:

Michael: You mean, Austropithcenes are pygmies? How do you mean that? Anatomically similar to modern pygmies -- who are indisputably H. sapiens -- or just "short?"

Bob: Evidently, anatomically similar to modern Pygmies. See the above references from pp. 174-175 of Jackson of Georg and the Verills.


Bob, this is pure bullshit. Pygmies are H. sapiens, fully capable of interbreeding with their neighbors. Australopithcenes are completely different animals, as different as cows from rhinos. They are easy to tell apart and even a non-expert could not mistake them. If this is what your sources are saying, they are sadly mistaken. I suggest you bop over to Talk.Origins and look at the skulls there in the human evolution section. Also, that you find a more updated account of human origins.

Nevertheless, assuming that Jackson summarized correctly Hallet’s findings, I would have to agree that, assuming the Pygmies did not plagiarize Xnity after the death of JC, the basic mythology of Xnity was found in the Pygmy mythology.

Apparently the good Mr. Jackson has never considered that the pygmies had been in contact with Christianity since the 16th century, and with Islamic thought for some centuries before that. What we have here is cross-fertilization, even if this is a correct understanding of pygmy mythology, which I doubt seriously.

Bob: Your statement: “We all know when and where it (Xnity) originated” What do you mean? Do you believe Xnity is an original religion? (That its early writers/priests took nothing from other religions?) If you assert that Xnity is an original religion, are you then asserting that because Xnity is an original religion that it is true?

You read too much into this comment. Christianity incorporates older Near Eastern myths and beliefs, jewish beliefs and folklore, Mediterrenean peasant beliefs, Roman religious ideas and others in a new religion built around their savior-figure. While some may argue with one or two of these claims, in the main no serious scholar would argue that Christianity took nothing from the religions around it. The fact it is a mix of these, with traceable ideas, indicates that it does not bear any genetic relationship to the pygmy beliefs.

1. What is the origin of man?

I suggest you sit down with a recent text on human evolution, and answer this question yourself. Based on genetic evidence, I am a supporter of the OoA hypothesis.

2. What is the origin of religion?

That is more complex, and relates to built-in brain devices humans need for social functioning, such as intentions-ascribing devices. However, Christianity is not related to the pygmy religion (most likely the pygmies picked up some ideas from Christianity) in any definite way.

Michael
 
Old 06-18-2001, 08:35 AM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Hi Bob K,
I will start with the origin of man. I will not quote any authors so handle my contribution how you will. I will contribute anyway.

From what I know, anthropologists keep coming up with "new" oldest "remains" "everyday" When I was studying History in school, I remember we talked about Australopithecus Africanus who was found in Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania - bt Richard and Mry Leakey we referred to him as homo-erectus. I have heard of many ever since.
What I can say about your "evidence" is that it seems very selective - how come all your "quotes" support the idea that pygmies were the earlist ancestor of man? I think it is very contrived - to say the least.

About the origin of religion and Xstianity, there are numerous religions/myths from which christianity was derived from.
There are many semerian legends/myths/epics from which the OT derived its stories including Astra Hasis(for the creation story), Enuma Elish (flood story) the Epic of Gilgamesh - how man lost immortality, The Egyptian Papyrus writings, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, Etiopian (Nebragast?), Greek Legends - like Romulus and Remus etc.
So, NO, I do not agree that Xstianity originated from the pygmies.
Concepts like baptism, redemption, penance, sacrifice etc, have origins from mostly, sumerian, Akkadian, Greek, Babylonian, and Egyptian Legends.

Homo Sapiens is an anomaly as far as evolution is concerned. That, is my opinion and I do not beleive evolution will give us the answer about the origin of Homo Sapiens -and of life.

I hope one day we will know "the truth" especially about man's origins.
But I doubt that it will be from the academic types. We need a different approach. A radical one I think. I wish you the best.

I remain Humble
 
Old 06-18-2001, 12:29 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by jaliet:

Homo Sapiens is an anomaly as far as evolution is concerned. That, is my opinion and I do not beleive evolution will give us the answer about the origin of Homo Sapiens -and of life.
</font>
There is nothing anomalous about human evolution. Considering that we share more than 99% of our genes with chimps, and 50% with bananas, it is obvious that humans are just one more variation in the panorama of life on earth.

Michael

 
Old 06-18-2001, 12:57 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob K:
Tercel:

You wrote: If you check my website: www.bobkwebsite.com, you will quickly see that I have a heavy interest and background in psychology.

I am familiar with what is the human mind (an individual’s personal system of desires, fears and priorities), what are feelings (reactions to the realizations of desires or fears), and the sequence in which feelings develop:

1. Desire: _____ (?) [Wanting a person/thing/event.]
2. Realizations: _____ (?) [Achieving/not achieving the desired person/thing/event.]
3. Feeling: _____ (?) [The Reaction to the Realization of the Desire.]

I am also familiar with delusions, defined as ideas which are believed to be true in spite of being proven to be false, and hallucinations, defined as impressions of sensory perceptions which are false (seeing/hearing/touching/smelling/tasting people/things/events who/which are not real).


No, the "All you have to do is pray!" argument will not work for me.

*** Nor will all the money, power and sex I want, either. ****
The gods will have to show up and prove themselves according to mt standards.

And if I didn't have any standards, then anything would go.

What are YOUR standards for the analysis/evaluation/judgment of gods?


[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited June 17, 2001).]
</font>
If any enity is willingly to grant me all the money power sex & affection I desire in exchange for my blind faith & worship ...Please contact me by what ever means you deem appropriate ....

P.S. I do of course expect actual significant verification in each of those areas without undue consequences (Hey I saw Bedazzeled).....

 
Old 06-18-2001, 09:54 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob K:
What is the origin of man and religion?


But truth must be based upon empirical proof, (1) physical evidence (defined as people/things.events who/which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted and who/which are independent of opinion/cannot be denied, and who/which are not the content of ideas), (2) eyewitness reports from credible witnesses of physical evidence and corroborated by credible corroborators, and/or (3) logical arguments in which all premises are verifiable/falsifiable/verified by physical evidence.
</font>
why must truth be based upon empirical evidence? And I am willing to bet that you will not accept empirical evidence if it doesnt' back your views. Why does this belong on this board?

If the gods (A) never existed, or (B) existed but died, or (C) exist but don't give a damn about human beings, then we need to face whichever is the reality and go about creating a culture that will improve the lives of all mankind, within reason. Given any conclusive proof that the gods never existed/died/don't give a damn about humans, man can effectively create a culture which will have a natural morality based upon the selfishness of normal people (not sociopaths/psychopaths) which matures from personal selfishness (seeking only to achieve one's personal desires and to maximize one's personal happiness without regard for the desires and happiness of other people) to social selfishness (seeking to achieve most of one's desires and to maximize one's happiness by helping other people achieve their desires and maximize their happiness) when individuals learn that to achieve most of their desires and to maximize their happiness they need the ready, willing and able cooperation of other people and therefore must be ready, willing and able to cooperate with those other people by negotiating and seeking to achieve common desires.

Again, truth is what counts.

MEta =&gt; Illogical and confussed.Why even bother assuming that God could cease to exist? And why accept more than one, one is all it takes.

I need information, defined as knowledge, not belief/opinion.

You need a liberal arts education. You need to read something besides biology and the history of evolutionary theory.

Show me. Show me the physical evidence. Show me the gods. Or show me the clear and obvious observable effects of the gods, effects that are so clear and obvious that they cannot be refuted by physical evidence, which prove conclusively that they could only have been caused by gods, and that, therefore, gods exist.

Meta=&gt; This clealry belongs on the existence of God board.

I think this sort of demand is irrational given the concept of God in the first place. why should we have to furnish any sort of evidence at all? It's a basic aspect of human nature to be religious, our brain are apparently wired for it, and its a properly basic belief.It's absurd to think that the only sort of truth is scientific reductionsitic and physically demonstrable. You can offer no such evidence to prove to me that life is real or you actaully exist. So why should I have to furnish that sort of evidence for my mostly basic beleifs?


If you cannot do this, then have the personal integrity to say so.

Probably I should imagine that any sort of evidence I would give you would be denied even if it met all of your critieria, it's only happened about 60 times on the other boartd.

 
Old 06-18-2001, 09:58 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob K:
Polycarp:

I wrote: You certainly are more of a man of integrity than anyone who claims otherwise and can’t do what he claims.

Are you possibly thinking of becoming an agnostic?


[This message has been edited by Bob K (edited June 17, 2001).]
</font>
Why that old mythology stuff is just mythological!
 
Old 06-19-2001, 12:48 AM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tercel:
I believe that the mere historical facts of Jesus existence and his death on the cross at the hands of the Roman and Jewish authorities is beyond all remotely reasonable doubt.
</font>
I've got to call you on this one Tercel. The existence of Jesus and his crucifixion are not established historical facts. The only references to Jesus and his crucifixion are in the Bible. There are no extrabiblical records of such a person or events. I am not saying that Jesus did not exist, but you cannot claim his existence as historical fact. At the most, you can say that you believed he existed.

There are other persons in the Bible who we can safely say that really existed, because we have extrabiblical records of such individuals. Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar in the Daniel are two such individuals. However, even if they are real historical individuals, this does not mean that the Bible portrays them in a historically accurate way. The book of Daniel is horribly inaccurate regarding Babylonian history. So, even if we could establish Jesus as a real historical person, this does not mean that all of his sayings and all of his actions in the Gospels really happened.

 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:23 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.