|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted July 15, 2011 11:54 AM |
|
|
I'm talking about, for instance, a large part of the history of the Christianity. Quite a lot of people read the Bible as a history textbook which it certainly is not but on the other hand history is a science (sort of at least). When the historians say, you see, the Jews were not even monotheists for quite some time and had no eschatological concept or a figure even remotely similar to the Devil (or a figure close to the idea of the later Christian God while we are on it), then most Christians which tend to search for evidences for their faith suddenly grow rabid and start quoting the Bible like some ultimate authority. Familiar? 
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
posted July 15, 2011 12:10 PM |
|
|
Jews werent monotheists ?
History is a science of a sort ?
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 12:31 PM |
|
|
They were not for quite a lot of time. The Yahveh cult is henotheistic by nature, i.e. it acknowledges the existence of other gods - for example the gods of the other peoples - even though it worships just one god. Furthermore the Yahveh cult was not the only one and the ancient Jews worshiped various natural objects, animals and other gods which became demons after the central cult prevailed everywhere. This is neither something unique, nor isolated - you can see similar "transformations" everywhere in the Ancient world.
As for the history - being a humanitarian science, it can hardly be called equal to the natural sciences where there is much less space for subjectivity.
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 12:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They were not for quite a lot of time. The Yahveh cult is henotheistic by nature, i.e. it acknowledges the existence of other gods - for example the gods of the other peoples - even though it worships just one god. Furthermore the Yahveh cult was not the only one and the ancient Jews worshiped various natural objects, animals and other gods which became demons after the central cult prevailed everywhere. This is neither something unique, nor isolated - you can see similar "transformations" everywhere in the Ancient world.
As for the history - being a humanitarian science, it can hardly be called equal to the natural sciences where there is much less space for subjectivity.
Pretty certain you are wrong dude, Yehvah cult ??? Acknowledging the fact that other people worship other gods is the same as a christian Acknowledging existance of Islam or Zeus does it not ?
The fact some jewish tribes worshiped a bull just means they went in the wrong direction hence were no longer considered jews..
History is and always will be written by winners, not much science going on in history, winners decide what is good or evil, just like religion did....
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 12:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for the history - being a humanitarian science, it can hardly be called equal to the natural sciences where there is much less space for subjectivity.
It can, and very easily, with "science" nor meaning content, but only method.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 01:09 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 13:13, 15 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
Pretty certain you are wrong dude, Yehvah cult ??? Acknowledging the fact that other people worship other gods is the same as a christian Acknowledging existance of Islam or Zeus does it not ?
The fact some jewish tribes worshiped a bull just means they went in the wrong direction hence were no longer considered jews..
No. Acknowledging the existence of other gods means that you are not against the idea that your god is not the only one, i.e. you believe that there might be other gods, not just other cults/religions - you just don't worship them. Quite a difference, see. If you, for example, read the First Commandment in historical context, you will see exactly the attempt to get rid of these other gods, to make them false and demonize them (however, this is a later development). But this is not just some logical conclusion, the documents confirm it.
As for the bull-worshiping tribes - you are getting it wrong. It was not like "all believed in Yahveh but some became heretics", it was like "Yahveh was one of the beliefs available to the ancient Jews which later became completely dominant and proclaimed that everything else is a heresy", with some help from the state of course (by the way by "heresy" I mean unorthodox, not heresy in the strict meaning of the word). The ancient Middle East has a long history of cultural co-existence and interrelations and the Jews did not live in a capsule with some completely unique and unprecedented god and culture. The first signs of true monotheism are actually elsewhere - in Egypt and Persia and it is the Persian monotheism that dominates the western religious view today.
Quote:
It can, and very easily, with "science" nor meaning content, but only method.
The problem is that the history deals not only with facts but also with lies, mystifications, forgeries, political circumstances and so on and above all - with the personal stance of the historians. It relies on historical documents and sources which are, in turn, not necessarily reliable.
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 01:26 PM |
|
Edited by Smithey at 13:27, 15 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
No. Acknowledging the existence of other gods means that you are not against the idea that your god is not the only one, i.e. you believe that there might be other gods, not just other cults/religions - you just don't worship them. Quite a difference, see.
Still dont get where did you deduce that from ? Im unaware of jews acknowledging the existance of other gods, I'm aware only of them Acknowledging that other people worship other gods ???
Quote:
As for the bull-worshiping tribes - you are getting it wrong. It was not like "all believed in Yahveh but some became heretics", it was like "Yahveh was one of the beliefs available to the ancient Jews which later became completely dominant and proclaimed that everything else is a heresy", with some help from the state of course (by the way by "heresy" I mean unorthodox, not heresy in the strict meaning of the word).
What state ? Judaism started off 4000 thousand years ago, there were only jews who believed in one god, many many years later, there were 12 jewish tribes in middle east, some of them became heretics and worshiped a golden bull... Thats what I know of, not sure where do you get your info from
Quote:
The ancient Middle East has a long history of cultural co-existence and interrelations and the Jews did not live in a capsule with some completely unique and unprecedented god and culture.
Ehmm, Im pretty certain they did just that 
Quote:
The first signs of true monotheism are actually elsewhere - in Egypt and Persia and it is the Persian monotheism that dominates the western religious view today.
But Islam and Judaism aren't Western religions at all but instead eastern ones, and from what I remember Persians were down with Ahriman and his good brother, persian early mythology wasnt really about one god
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 01:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It can, and very easily, with "science" nor meaning content, but only method.
The problem is that the history deals not only with facts but also with lies, mystifications, forgeries, political circumstances and so on and above all - with the personal stance of the historians. It relies on historical documents and sources which are, in turn, not necessarily reliable.
The same is true for everything else, with experimental data being problematic and not self-exxplanatory.
We have to make a difference between the methods and the data, and their interpretation, everywhere.
Historical data are as much subject to analysis as any data - we can never be sure whether they are "for real" or in some way altered. Many forgeries is history are simply discovered. They know that certain pharaoh names have been deleted from official records and so on, which is proof that the scientific method works in history quite well, because the data itself are questioned.
Natural sciences haven't been free of errors and misconceptions either.
So I wouldn't put history off-handedly in some barely-scientifical corner here.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 02:11 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 14:14, 15 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
Still dont get where did you deduce that from ? Im unaware of jews acknowledging the existance of other gods, I'm aware only of them Acknowledging that other people worship other gods ???
Why from the books of course.  Initially the peoples living in Palestine (including Israel) worshiped pretty much the same things which were worshiped elsewhere - stones, animals, natural phenomenons, etc. - there are archeological evidences for this. Stop trying to oppose me and think for a while. It is more or less certain that later the worships of El, Baal and others were well-spread in Ancient Palestine and it's not like the Jews stayed away from these practices. There are no evidences that Yahveh was something more than one of the many Jewish tribal deities - and quite boring at that because initially it didn't have many of the attributes that later became associated with it. Another thing - the etymology of Elohim, the initial Jewish "god(s)" - I gather you are living in Israel so ask about these things (but not in the synagogue). If you have any sources that claim otherwise, please show them.
Quote:
What state ? Judaism started off 4000 thousand years ago, there were only jews who believed in one god, many many years later, there were 12 jewish tribes in middle east, some of them became heratics worshiped a golden bull... Thats what I know of, not sure where do you get your info from
The state. King Solomon, king David and the others (some of these are yet to be completely proven as historical figures but the state as such did exist in the first millennium BC). The Jewish tribes hardly followed any kind of unified religion prior to that. If I remember correctly there were some Egyptian scrolls dated as soon as VI or VII century BC where there are notes of relatively wide-spread polytheism among the Jews but I don't remember the exact place where I read this. In any case, you can find some popular (and not very accurate, but still) summary here.
Quote:
Ehmm, Im pretty certain they did just that
OK, I'm convinced now.
Quote:
But Islam and Judaism aren't Western religions at all but instead eastern ones, and from what I remember Persians were down with Ahriman and his good brother, persian early mythology wasnt really about one god
All religions originating west from Iran are considered western ones - and that's because they have very similar core. Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Zoroastrianism are the four major teachings of the west and are inter-related (ALL of them). As for the Persian mythology - it is a dualistic religion, to a large extent like the Christianity (which took tons of things from its). It is about the rivalry between Ahura Mazda (Ohrmazd) and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) which is very similar to the rivalry between the Christian God and the Devil, with that difference that Angra Mainyu is not some sinned servant of God but his equal. Nevertheless, the religion itself worships Ahura Mazda, not Angra Mainyu whose existence and evil deeds are only acknowledged - just like the Christians worship God but also believe in the Devil. It is Ahura Mazda who created the world and who will reign with righteous over it once Angra Mainyu and the people that he has corrupted are finally defeated and cast out in hell. Sounds familiar?
If you are asking for sources, here you are - Joseph Campbell, Michail Kostorovcev, Charles Autran, Jean Bottéro and basically almost every French orientalist that you can find + pretty much every university-worthy history textbook about ancient history.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 02:35 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:20, 15 Jul 2011.
|
@Xerox
The Days of Genesis discussed using the original Hebrew language.
@Seraphim
Quote:
Like what is that theistic evolution?Also,you cannot name it evolution because the term evolution is used by science.
See my link in my last post for a discussion of theistic evolution. Oh, Christianity is responsible for modern science and Augustine discussed evolution before Darwin--around 1400 years before Darwin was born.
Quote:
The last thing I read about the "Timeline"problem about the bible is that it said that the world was 1000 years old.Some posts here revealed that they might have miss used the word "Day" maybe for "Eon".
This leads to my conclusion that there is a "Certain" uncertainty with the dates in the bible.
You continue to show how very little you know about the Bible. Jesus Christ was born 2000 years ago. No Christian, even the young earth creationists, say the earth is only 1000 years old. Lol!!!!!!!
That harkens back to my previous comment about how very little most atheists know about the Bible or the religions they comdemn. They have simply made no honest diligent effort to seek truth and thus remain in darkness.
Quote:
Well,I am no scientist but a chimp has a 95% simmilar genetic structure to that of a human.
Incorrect.
Clicky
Quote:
So, out of the 3.2 billion base pairs in the human genome (and about the same in the chimp genome), 2.4 billion of them line up nearly perfectly. It turns out that there are some differences within these 2.4 billion base pairs, and they account for about 3% of those 2.4 billion base pairs.
So…if those 2.4 billion base pairs lined up perfectly, the chimp and human genome would be about 75% similar. However, given that 3% of those base pairs don’t line up perfectly, human and chimp DNA are about 72% similar. Several geneticists have obviously looked at these data, and there are those who think the number will eventually drop below 72% once all the data are in. In fact, Dr. Richard Buggs (geneticist at the University of Florida) says
I predict that when we have a reliable, complete chimpanzee genome, the overall similarity of the human genome will prove to be close to 70% (and very far from 99%).6
In spite of what the data say, PBS asserts the following:
Today, many a schoolchild can cite the figure perhaps most often called forth in support of [a common ancestor for apes and humans]—namely, that we share almost 99 percent of our DNA with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. 7
I think PBS needs to stop listening to schoolchildren when it comes to evidence for evolution. Of course, the big question is: If 99% similarity was such strong evidence for a common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans, will 70% similarity be considered evidence against a common ancestor? Of course not! Evolution can use special pleading to accommodate any data. It does so with the fossil record, homology, etc. Why not do it with genome similarities as well?
Here is a snippet from an article. I SUGGEST you read the entire article.
Clicky
Quote:
"If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes? Obviously there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting genetic questions."
"Our DNA is about 75% similar to that of a nematode, which is basically a small soil-dwelling worm. No-one would suggest a nematode is 75% human? Another good example is that during the sixties, American doctors tried to use chimpanzee organs for transplants in humans, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. ... An interesting footnote that shows how complex this issue really is, ... humans differed from most other animals, including chimpanzees, in a small but possibly vital way. In most animals, the surface of every cell, except brain cells, carry glycoproteins that contain one particular member of a family of sugar molecules called sialic acid. In humans, a genetic mutation means this sugar is not present in any cell in the body. Proteins and membrane lipids that have sialic acid take part in many processes. They help cells stick to one another. They may also play a part in disease susceptibility. This might be a reason why Chimpanzees seem far less suspeceptible for infectious diseases like malaria and cholera. ... This might be one factor in those chimp to human transplants in which organs were rejected."
(from http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~jonmarks/aaa/ marksaaa99.htm and
from http://www.fromlondon.freeserve.co.uk /cuchimpdna.html)
A more recent "Study found only 86.7% genetic similarity when segments of human and chimpanzee DNA (totaling 1,870,955 base pairs) were laid side by side. This study also included indels (insertions/deletions) in addition to substitutions." ref: Tatsuya Anzai st al., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class | Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions As the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 100 (2003); 7708-13
GENETIC MATHEMATICS human 100 %
chimpanzee 86.7 %
nematode 75 %
That puts the Chimpanzee at
LESS than HALFWAY
between a Worm and Human!
And even more recently researchers found that about
80% of the proteins in the human
and chimpanzee genomes are different.
This comparison is very significant because proteins are ultimately responsible for an organism’s anatomical, physiological, and behavioral characteristics. Therefore, a high degree of genetic similarity doesn’t necessarily mean that humans and chimpanzees are closely related organisms.
(reference: Galina Glazko, Vamsi Veeramachaneni, Masatoshi Nei and Wojciech Makalowski, "Eighty Percent of Proteins are Different between Humans and Chimpanzees," Gene volume 346 14 February 2005, Pages 215-219 )
Does bacterial resistance prove evolution
David Coppedge, author of How Big Is God?, remarked:
"220 Million Years ... and No Evolution! The oldest examples ever found of microorganisms, preserved in detail in amber, are virtually identical with modern species," reports Science News of Jan. 16, 1993, saying that these organisms have remained in a state of evolutionary suspended animation since the dawn of the age of the dinosaurs. This phenomenon is termed morphological stasis, which being interpreted means "no evolution, folks!"
This morphological stasis is true for dozens of living organisms that once had the honor of being identified as index fossils, such as the tuatara, the coelacanth, and the sea snail Neopilina galatheae.
If anything, one should realize that antibiotic resistance emerging in non-resistant bacteria is probably an inappropriate example for evolutionists to cite as evidence for evolution. There is no scientific evidence to show that resistance, regardless of how it is acquired, is the kind of activity that would eventually give rise to a whole new organism. Evolutionists assume that, given enough time, a series of mutations honed by natural selection would produce a new organism. It may be logical, but it is not scientific. The long time required for such change would make observation impossible. It is also logical that an intelligent designer could make a new organism, but this is outside the domain of the scientific method as well.
Here is a snippet. Read the article please.
Clicky
Quote:
Microbiologists have studied extensively two genera of bacteria in their attempts to understand antibiotic resistance: Escherichia and Salmonella. In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed:
...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87).
Although E. coli allegedly has undergone a billion years’ worth of mutations, it still has remained “stabilized” in its “nested pattern.” While mutations and DNA transposition have caused change within the bacterial population, those changes have occurred within narrow limits. No long-term, large-scale evolution has occurred.
CONCLUSION
The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.
There we go. No proof of evolution at all. Evolution is a theory and NOT an established fact no matter how much some people love to claim that it is.
Quote:
Quote:
My question to you. How did the universe produce itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing? I want the First Cause. If you say a singularity, what caused the singularity?
Why nothing?It could be something completely exotic.Antimatter perhaps?The science has no perfect answer to "What caused it?",only some "Perhaps".Though,since primordial light did not pass through the primordial gass that was created at the time,we have no way to know what the heck happend there.
Why nothing!?!?!? Because the material can't be eternal. Read up on the laws of thermodynamics please.
Quote:
Quote:
Another question: How did life come from inanimate matter? Prove your answer please.
Every organism is made of the elements of what you find on earth.This means that organic matter stems from your earth.This ground.Now,the question is how it happend?
The problem with such question is that due to not available data one could only speculate how it happend.Viruses are primitive pseudo organisms and we still dont understand how they turn from dead rock to killing machines.The answer lies with them.
In other words this is another thing you have faith that just happened. There is no proof of it happening and no proven cause.
Quote:
Quote:
Really? Provide a link to your source that says sickness usually destroys a family. That has not been my experience at all. Usually a family rallies around their sick loved one and pulls together to help the sick person. They take turns sitting with the person or ministering to them as needed.
Why do you think people go to psychologists after a death event?
If they cant get over the strain,depression followed by alcohol followed by drugs could occur.
Dude, I've had people close to me die and have never gone to a psychologist. I don't know anyone personally who has gone to a psychologist because of an illness or death in the family. My mother is in the final stages of Alzeheimer's where she can no longer walk, is supported with pillows along her sides so she can sit in her chair, can hardly speak at all and seldom recognizes anyone anymore. No family member has gone to a psychologist as a result of her condition.
Quote:
its not ugliness,its pain.It is such a pain that people get under heavy depression.
Well,certainly people feel pain when someone close to them is gravely ill. But circumstances also reveal what is in your heart.
Quote:
Quote:
Love is immaterial and makes no sense in a world that is purely materialistic (devoid of God.) I'm not talking about erotic love.
I disagree.Love is not only metrialistic(as to provide offspring),it is also egoistic because cetain appeals are asked in order it to be successful.
I feel so sorry for you. Love is not about ego. Also, there are more kinds of love than sexual love, a fact which I stated in my post and which seems to have passed right over your head.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 02:51 PM |
|
|
All your quotes show, Elodin, is that there are plenty of people out there who understand natural selection about as well as you do - which is to say, not at all.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 03:18 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:23, 15 Jul 2011.
|
@Corribus
**Shrugs** Call the scientists ignorant liars if you want to. Randomness is always associated with evolution.
Quote:
Quote:
Christians proposed evolution long before Darwin came along. But a theistic evolution rather than an evolution based on chance.
I'm not sure who wrote this, but to whomever did: which evolution is based on chance, because it's certainly not the one Darwin came up with. I figure if I point that out enough around here everyone might finally get it. Darwin was, by the way, a Christian. Mendel was a monk. Einstein was a deist. And Dawkins is an atheist. What difference does it make? Great scientific minds come from all persuasions, and it doesn't have anything to do with anything.
Evolution is supposedly based on random genetic mutations. If the random mutation was beneficial and passed on to the offspring supposedly the offspring was more capable of surviving and survived. If the mutation were harmful the offspring would be "weaker" and less able to survive. Random genetic variation that was at times affected by random environmental conditions. Randomness. Chance.
Quote:
That's great, Elodin. Unfortunately it's useless to science except as a historical anecdote.
Golly, Corribus, I thought this was a religion thread?!?!? And that a certain person was pretty much claiming evolution destroys Christianity. I showed that Christians proposed evolution before modern science. Excuse me for correcting atheist yet once again.
Quote:
Question: What exactly is the difference between religion and superstition?
Answer: The only difference is SCALE, actually.
Theists are not superstitious people. Atheists are just spiritually blind and ignorant of the spiritual side of life.
In fact, I would say atheists are quite superstitious. They are left with one position to claim for the universe since they deny God exists. They must say the universe produced itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing, which is scientifically impossible. But of course they cling to their irrational religious dogma in spite of that fact. I'll give 'em credit though, they are people of great faith (though their knowledge is somewhat lacking.)
Atheists compose a tiny fraction of all the people who have ever lived and is even now in world-wide decline. It will never be more than a minority religious cult.
Quote:
I'm talking about, for instance, a large part of the history of the Christianity. Quite a lot of people read the Bible as a history textbook which it certainly is not but on the other hand history is a science (sort of at least). When the historians say, you see, the Jews were not even monotheists for quite some time and had no eschatological concept or a figure even remotely similar to the Devil (or a figure close to the idea of the later Christian God while we are on it), then most Christians which tend to search for evidences for their faith suddenly grow rabid and start quoting the Bible like some ultimate authority. Familiar
Sorry, but you are making false statements. The Jews descended from the monotheist Abraham and have been strict monotheists.
"Hear, [O] Israel") are the first two words of a section of the Torah (Hebrew Bible) that is a centerpiece of the morning and evening Jewish prayer services. The first verse encapsulates the monotheistic essence of Judaism: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is one," found in Deuteronomy 6:4 .
The shema is the heart of both Judaism and Christianity.
Quote:
Mark 12: 29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
The devil is mentioned a number of times in the Old Testament, beginning in Genesis. He is called Satan 15 times in the Old Testament.
Looks like you've been getting your information from some anti-theist liar.
Yes, the concept of the Christian God is in the Old Covenant. Isaiah predicted the Mighty God would be born into the world as a baby boy and would die for our sins. David and Zechariah predicted he would be crucified. Ect.
Quote:
The Yahveh cult is henotheistic by nature, i.e. it acknowledges the existence of other gods - for example the gods of the other peoples - even though it worships just one god.
Yet another false statement.
Quote:
Deu 4:28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 03:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Theists are not superstitious people. Atheists are just spiritually blind and ignorant of the spiritual side of life.
I've meet a lot of theists and atheists, and both sides are capable to be utterly boring and spiritually deficient. The first were the only ones convinced they have a unique perception, a superior and deeper view. I think that both the Bible and the history can lighten us on what is good or bad, what is moral and immoral while only the last can provide material proofs. Hence, it is not necessary to believe to have moral standards. Regardless the spirituality, there are much better written books than the bible, and some of them are deeper because they do not claim to provide a definitive answer, but show us which should be the right universal questions and self interrogations. When you believe having the answer to all, you are not spiritually advanced but brain retarded.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 03:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why from the books of course. Initially the peoples living in Palestine (including Israel) worshiped pretty much the same things which were worshiped elsewhere - stones, animals, natural phenomenons, etc. - there are archeological evidences for this. Stop trying to oppose me and think for a while. It is more or less certain that later the worships of El, Baal and others were well-spread in Ancient Palestine and it's not like the Jews stayed away from these practices. There are no evidences that Yahveh was something more than one of the many Jewish tribal deities - and quite boring at that because initially it didn't have many of the attributes that later became associated with it. Another thing - the etymology of Elohim, the initial Jewish "god(s)" - I gather you are living in Israel so ask about these things (but not in the synagogue). If you have any sources that claim otherwise, please show them.
Palestine is a region in which trillion of religions passed through over thousands of years, that proves nothing though...
Jews who worshiped baal were indeed heretics, Judaism in its original form was about one god and it started aprox 3000 years ago and long before the era of which you are talking about when baal was worshiped, thats what I know of, but as you stated yourself, if YOU have any sources that claim otherwise please share them, If you show me something that will prove that original jews and not those which were amongst 12 tribes who populated palestine region did worship many gods at the beginning... Well if you can provide such evidence I would be greatful as nothing gives me more joy than rubbing stuff like that at some of the locals... well nothing besides, food, sex, music and chocolate of course
Quote:
The state. King Solomon, king David and the others (some of these are yet to be completely proven as historical figures but the state as such did exist in the first millennium BC). The Jewish tribes hardly followed any kind of unified religion prior to that. If I remember correctly there were some Egyptian scrolls dated as soon as VI or VII century BC where there are notes of relatively wide-spread polytheism among the Jews but I don't remember the exact place where I read this. In any case, you can find some popular (and not very accurate, but still) summary here.
But most of that stuff is from the jewish bible which hardly makes it a proof of anything (you cant tell me to ask around but not within a synagogue and then provide so called evidence according to the same stuff available in the synagogue) and the stuff within wiki is... well at least the stuff translated from hebrew is false
Quote:
All religions originating west from Iran are considered western ones - and that's because they have very similar core. Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Zoroastrianism are the four major teachings of the west and are inter-related (ALL of them). As for the Persian mythology - it is a dualistic religion, to a large extent like the Christianity (which took tons of things from its). It is about the rivalry between Ahura Mazda (Ohrmazd) and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman) which is very similar to the rivalry between the Christian God and the Devil, with that difference that Angra Mainyu is not some sinned servant of God but his equal. Nevertheless, the religion itself worships Ahura Mazda, not Angra Mainyu whose existence and evil deeds are only acknowledged - just like the Christians worship God but also believe in the Devil. It is Ahura Mazda who created the world and who will reign with righteous over it once Angra Mainyu and the people that he has corrupted are finally defeated and cast out in hell. Sounds familiar?
Cant say I remember it all but from what I remember they were two brothers one representing evil and the other good, Im not sure one of them created the world though, but if you say so I believe you as I dont recall the details....
Quote:
If you are asking for sources, here you are - Joseph Campbell, Michail Kostorovcev, Charles Autran, Jean Bottéro and basically almost every French orientalist that you can find + pretty much every university-worthy history textbook about ancient history.
Sounds cool, but names of historians is hardly evidence, matter of fact from what I know of historians, on every one that claims A there are a bunch of others who will claim B, ancient history is so distorted and twisted that chances of you proving something as such is the same as trying to prove that there is a god or proving that there isnt one...
Historians most of the time make educated guesses based on little to no data while trying to glue pieces into a story which can be rather far from the truth...
Just saying that history is 90% story telling and 10% science
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 04:06 PM |
|
|
Smithey, you sound pretty smug in a foolish way. That you have prejudiced concepts about history isn't really helping your cause.
Judaism isn't older than 3000 years. Zoroastrianism is 1000 years older. There have been people around longer than 1000 BC in Palestine and a sizable part of the Old Testament is the story of a specific TRIBE of them that follows God Jahwe as only God, but indeed BEFORE that, there have been others around.
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 04:21 PM |
|
Edited by Smithey at 16:22, 15 Jul 2011.
|
JJ, couldnt care less how I sound to you, feel anyway you want, I call it the way I see it hence its called my point of view, you feel like history is an accurate science its your choice however ask an historian when you encounter one how much do they agree amongst each other...
Never claimed Judaism was older nor that nobody existed in palestine region before them, all I said is that I'm unaware of the fact that original first jews believed in more than one god, thats all... Thats what I know and Im not even stating that it is an universal truth of a sort as I am far from being an expert on jewish religion, matter of fact as I have stated I would be more than happy if Z was to provide me with some substantial evidence of that, because I enjoy teasing local religious folks 
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 04:43 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 17:40, 15 Jul 2011.
|
Quote:
@Corribus
**Shrugs** Call the scientists ignorant liars if you want to. Randomness is always associated with evolution.
Randomness is associated with mutation, though mutation is not exclusively random.
Natural selection, however, is not random, and you'll find no serious evolutionary biologist who will say it is. If selection were random, then the unfit would be just as likely to survive as the fit. The fact that the fit are more likely to survive is the easiest evidence that natural selection is not random.
Really, this is not that hard to understand.
JUST TO BE CLEAR: EVOLUTION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS MUTATION. Saying that mutation is random does not mean that evolution or natural selection is. Which pretty much gets is proof in the pudding that you do not really understand evolution or natural selection. For that matter, mutation is not wholly random either - so you don't understand mutation very well at that.
EDIT: By the way, since you seem to believe absolutely that linking to articles on the internet constitutes proof, here you go.
And here.
And here.
And here.
And here.
And here.
And one that discusses that many modern evolutionary biologists don't even consider mutation itself to be a strictly random process here.
I could also send you numerous (dozens? hundreds?) of real scientific articles probing the randomness of evolutionary processes, but what would really be the point, eh? You only give scientists credibility when it suits your purposes, and I think I've made my case such that most of the people here with even a sliver of the open mind can at least see where I'm coming from.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 04:52 PM |
|
|
Smithey if you insist on selling prejudiced ignorance as your opinion I can't help you, but I repeat, that "SCIENCE" is just desribing a METHOD. ANYTHING that uses the scientific method to gain DATA and information and to analyse and interpret these is a SCIENCE, whether you like that or not, and whether there are differences in interpreting that data or not.
Or would you claim that, say, in physics scientists agree with each other as a matter of course?
Would you claim that the "data" we have are complete?
What about evolution and PLANETARY "history"? Not a science? Archaeology? Foolish digging?
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 05:32 PM |
|
|
JJ if you choose to blindly defend your history fetish its your choice, dont blame me because whats in your eyes ignoranced prejudice might be viewed by me as logical point of view...
ANYTHING that uses the scientific method to gain DATA and information and to analyse and interpret these is a SCIENCE
Indeed, silly me for thinking I have been picking up girls for more than a decade based on scintific method "experimenting" by gaining data from my mistakes and successes and interpreting these to deduce certain things and perfect my technique, every aspect of our lives is one big experiment however I wouldnt go as far as to claim that its all science...
Deducing things based on ancient writings is hardly science considering the fact that they werent objective nor shared our views on the world, as said before, historians glue pieces of the puzzle and eventually create a story, story which can be true or ridiculously far from it, no historian can claim with certainty about stuff that happened 3000 years ago, on the other side chemist will indeed be 100% certain of specific things regarding chemistry...
Chemical drugs will get you high - fact
3000 years ago king Ramses or whatever was poisoned by his brother - he says she says - not fact
pretty simple to understand
Find the whole argument a bit silly and purposeless so lets agree to disagree, you believe what you want and I'll do the same and the world will keep spinning.... I hope
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 15, 2011 05:47 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:49, 15 Jul 2011.
|
So linked to scientists and you linked to usenet group run by two guys in Texas that appear that like to bash Christians and just make the statment that evolution is not fundamentally random. Heh.
Here's another for you. This one from Berekley
Quote:
Genetic Variation
Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.
There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:
Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.
Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.
Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation.
Quote:
Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism’s DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology—all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism’s DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.
Mutations are random.
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not “try” to supply what the organism “needs.” In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Not all mutations matter to evolution.
Since all cells in our body contain DNA, there are lots of places for mutations to occur; however, not all mutations matter for evolution. Somatic mutations occur in non-reproductive cells and won’t be passed onto offspring.
For example, the golden color on half of this Red Delicious apple was caused by a somatic mutation. The seeds of this apple do not carry the mutation.
The only mutations that matter to large-scale evolution are those that can be passed on to offspring. These occur in reproductive cells like eggs and sperm and are called germ line mutations.
A single germ line mutation can have a range of effects:
No change occurs in phenotype.
Some mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the phenotype of an organism. This can happen in many situations: perhaps the mutation occurs in a stretch of DNA with no function, or perhaps the mutation occurs in a protein-coding region, but ends up not affecting the amino acid sequence of the protein.
Small change occurs in phenotype.
Cat with curled-ear mutation
A single mutation caused this cat’s ears to curl backwards slightly.
Big change occurs in phenotype.
Some really important phenotypic changes, like DDT resistance in insects are sometimes caused by single mutations1. A single mutation can also have strong negative effects for the organism. Mutations that cause the death of an organism are called lethals—and it doesn't get more negative than that.
There are some sorts of changes that a single mutation, or even a lot of mutations, could not cause. Neither mutations nor wishful thinking will make pigs have wings; only pop culture could have created Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles—mutations could not have done it.
Looks like you need to take a remedial course in evolution dude.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
