What was the first religion?

[zaangalewa]

... "God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. ...

We don't call god "Dr. god".

 

[zaangalewa]

... Moreover, repeating unsupported claims such as "the universe was designed for man" doesn't help your argument. In fact, it only makes you look silly, particularly when we find life somewhere other than on Earth, which is inevitable.

What do you think what ETs could be? Gods? No! They are just simple human beings! It's completly unimportnat wether a human being has 6 legs or 4 or 2 or none. It's completly unimportant wether a human being has an IQ of 100±15 or 1000±150. It's unimportant wether a human beings grows like a plant in an ocean of silver - or lives in the womb of his mother. It's completly unimportant wether a human being is 1000 years old or only some days. Under all circumstances god allows not to kill his children.

And your belief what is "inevitable" is fascinating. Life is nearly impossible - on the other side there are possibilities in nearly endless many places within this universe. No one knows what is the result of a calculation (nearly no chance) * (nearly endless possibiltities). We know the result is not less 1 because life exists here on our planet. Maybe it's 2? Who knows?

 

[dblack]

Which one?

The only one who claimed "I AM!"

Heh..ok, THAT one. I see.

 

[zaangalewa]

Which one?

The only one who claimed "I AM!"

Heh..ok, THAT one. I see.

The complete expression is "I am who I am" or "I am who I will be". The being who spoke in this way was like a fire in a thornbush.

-----
... Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.” When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.” “Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. The Lord said, “I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. ...

... Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” ...


-----

 

[orogenicman]

I understood that the flood story was a myth long before I ever became an atheist.

At various times during human history, there have been natural disasters which nearly wiped out our species. 74,000 years ago, Mt Toba erupted and the entire planet was 'flooded' with ash. There was a 6 year nuclear winter and a 1,000 year ice age and our species was reduced to 10,000 adults worldwide, hunkered down in isolated refuges.

The details of Noah's flood story are irrelevant. Of course it's a myth. But, it's also an illustration of a very real aspect of the human journey.

The human journey does not include vengeful gods wreaking destruction upon the sins of mankind in floods, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions or any other disaster. The story of Noah is a symptom of what is wrong with much of religious dogma. It leads people to blame disasters on the 'alleged' bad behavior/thinking of people. It is ridiculous in its logic, and heinous in its consequences. It is immoral.

Not all scientist study in detail every aspect of evolution or uniformitarianism.

Thanks for that revelation, Mr. Obvious. Not all scientists NEED to study it in detail. But tens of thousands do study it in great detail.

There are scientists who through study have come to the conclusion that evolution and uniformitarianism are both full of holes and actually create more questions than answers.

That is actually not true. Both evolution and uniformitarianism are two of the best understood and accepted scientific principles in history. Every scientific institution on the planet accepts them as facts.

The problem is that secular society has been shanghaied into a stance that ANY investigation that promotes or fosters a belief in God is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Erm, wtf? Utter nonsense. There are over 400,000 Constitutionally guaranteed churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques in this country. And you are free to worship in any of them. What you don't have a right to is to force your religious beliefs on the conscience of others. I deleted the rest of your rant because it doesn't deserve a response.

 

[|electric|foxy|]

Indian vedic religions with first sacred scriptures and mantras were the first example of any religion.
But I don't like the word 'religion', nowadays it's a bad word that means power over the naive masses.

 

[orogenicman]

You believe what you need to believe because it is convenient for your atheism. It is also likely necessary for you to get a job among those who have learned to depend on Uniformitarianism to explain everything under the sun. I still believe God spoke the Universe into existence and He doesn't need billions and billions and trillions of trillions of Cosmos years to make anything happen.

"Scientific" for you is constructing a "Mother Nature" story to circumvent the existence of the Creator. It is a total waste of time, money and energy and turns no one into a true Philosopher ----- one who can think outside the box man has fabricated entitled MATERIALISM. You cannot explain why you exist! You don't know where you are heading. And you don't even know WHY things are as they are! Without hope, joy or peace, one becomes nothing but a dull, selfish lout who fears growing old and becoming nonessential. Likely why so many are now committing suicide. It seems for many the only thing they can control. BUT what a total shock they will get once they arrive on the otherside!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answering the question "how did we get here" with "must be god" isnt a good answer. First how did you come to that conclusion? Secondly that answer requires more questions like who created god?

God did in fact create everything. Answering the question, "How did we get we get here?" with "It was a mere coincidence." Is not a scientific conclusion and not one even worthy of a moron.

I came to the conclusion through studying history, witnessing human nature and Biblical investigation. I find that the Bible is the best most logical explanation for both our existence and our behavior patterns. Other texts either drift into convoluted prose or silently skirt around issue entirely. Some texts even depend entirely on the Bible for their own substantiation. Time belongs to God. God is not in subjection to time, and before creation what was there to measure? Time is the measurement of birth and decay. It was designed for mortals. The Universe was designed for man to illustrate the infinite power of God to a finite mind.

"God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. How we came about has religious implications for those who believe, but it explains nothing from a scientific perspective. Moreover, repeating unsupported claims such as "the universe was designed for man" doesn't help your argument. In fact, it only makes you look silly, particularly when we find life somewhere other than on Earth, which is inevitable.

That won't disprove a god but should destroy every man made religion...although I know it won't. Just look how 13.5 billion years vs. 7 days doesnt bother them. They can explain away anything and ultimately you can't disprove a god exists. Especially to someone who believes he visited.

I'd be OK with theists explanation of why god hides and can't be seen if theists didn't claim he once visited. Bullshit!

Prove that the universe has to be as old as you say. Prove that everything that happens is simply a matter of chance. Prove that God does not answer prayer. Prove that Ezekiel and Jesus are not historical persons. Prove that God does not exist.

Ever hear of a standard candle? It is the principle upon a light meter in your camera works. Light meters can determine distances because we know exactly how much light a standard candle emits. So we can, for instance measure the apparent brightness of a candle that is 100 meters away and determine, using basic math, how far away it is based on that apparent brightness. Astronomers do the same thing with stellar "standard candles". Such a stellar standard candle is known as a type 1A supernova. Knowing the velocity of light in a vacuum and the brightness of such supernovas, Astronomers have determined the distances to many very far away astronomical objects.

Another method involves the red shift of very distant objects. Red shift is akin to the Doppler effect. The greater the red shift, the further away the object. And because we know the distances of very distant objects, and the speed of light, it is simply a matter of math to calculate the age of the universe. The sunlight you see reflected from the Moon takes 2 seconds to arrive at Earth. Sunlight itself takes 8 minutes. The light from the closest star takes 3.5 years to reach the Earth. Etc., etc., etc. From these facts, we can calculate distance, and thus, time of travel.

The universe could actually be a bit older than 13.7 billion years old, because any further than that and all the light is so red shifted that our current technology cannot measure it. That will change when the Web telescope is launched. One thing we know with great precision, and that is that the universe is not younger than 13.7 billion years old.

As for your straw man that we claim that everything happens by mere chance, that is not what science says. You say that we say that, but we don't. The laws of physics are not a matter of random chance. Neither is the theory of evolution.

As for prayer, I don't have to prove anything. You people claim that prayer works. Proving that it works is on you. Likewise, you people are the ones who make positive claims about religion. The burden of proof is on you, not on those who don't believe.

 

[orogenicman]

The human journey does not include vengeful gods wreaking destruction upon the sins of mankind in floods, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions or any other disaster. The story of Noah is a symptom of what is wrong with much of religious dogma. It leads people to blame disasters on the 'alleged' bad behavior/thinking of people. It is ridiculous in its logic, and heinous in its consequences. It is immoral.

The story of Noah in Genesis is woven together from the writings of at least 2 authors, known as J and P.
"In J, God is personal and involved: known by a personal name ("YHWH"), personally closing the ark, personally smelling Noah's sacrifice, described as "grieved to his heart." In P, God's name is not yet known ("God," in Hebrew Elohim, is not a name; it is what God is), and there are none of the anthropomorphic descriptions that are found in J."
NOVA The Bible s Buried Secrets Who Wrote the Flood Story PBS

Obviously, you object to the anthropomorphic descriptions of God, for starters. You can't get past that, and the story doesn't provoke any profound questions for you. So be it.

As P describes the situation, much more like the Babylonian myth of the flood, God is the process by which a parasite (the human race) is exterminated from the earth.

As someone who entertains the notion that the bio-sphere acts as a single self-regulating organism, the story of Noah provokes me to question our actions as a human race, especially our separation from the natural world.

Whether or not there is any truth in the above is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a global flood ever occurred. The simple fact of the matter is that a global flood is physically impossible. Moreover, there is no geologic evidence whatsoever that such a flood ever occurred. Once you look at the well documented facts of Earth history, particularly with regard to the Euphrates river valley where the story originated, the only conclusion you can come to is that any flood that is described in the bible, if real, was local to regional in nature only, because there is simply no evidence for a global flood nor any physical process that could lead to one. Mt. Everest is over 29,000 feet above mean sea level. In order for such a global flood to have occurred, there would have to be nearly six miles more water than exists on the Earth. So the question is, if such a flood occurred, where did the water come from, and just as important, where did it go?

 

[orogenicman]

... "God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. ...

We don't call god "Dr. god".

Erm, what?

 

[orogenicman]

... Moreover, repeating unsupported claims such as "the universe was designed for man" doesn't help your argument. In fact, it only makes you look silly, particularly when we find life somewhere other than on Earth, which is inevitable.

What do you think what ETs could be? Gods? No! They are just simple human beings! It's completly unimportnat wether a human being has 6 legs or 4 or 2 or none. It's completly unimportant wether a human being has an IQ of 100±15 or 1000±150. It's unimportant wether a human beings grows like a plant in an ocean of silver - or lives in the womb of his mother. It's completly unimportant wether a human being is 1000 years old or only some days. Under all circumstances god allows not to kill his children.

Oh really?

Tell that to the over 200,000 people, including thousands of children, who were killed in the Boxer Day Earthquake and Tsunami that occurred in the Indian Ocean basin in 2004.

And your belief what is "inevitable" is fascinating. Life is nearly impossible

Says who? I am assuming that you have evidence to support your claim, above. If you do, perhaps you should present it for the rest of us to peer review.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Whether or not there is any truth in the above is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a global flood ever occurred. The simple fact of the matter is that a global flood is physically impossible.

From Luke: " And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed."
Obviously, his tax collectors weren't going to sail to South America. And when you look at the passage in the original Greek, the word οἰκουμένην is used, which is better translated as the inhabited world, or in this case the Roman world.

It's the same idea with the Noah story in Hebrew. The story is an adaptation of early Mesopotamian myths. It's highly likely that there was a devastating flood that effected the entire known Mesopotamian world. To me, that's irrelevant because I don't approach scripture as if it were a text of geology or climate science. That's not where the value lies.

"The language used in Genesis 6-9 does not insist that the flood was global.
First of all, the Hebrew kol erets, meaning whole Earth, can also be translated whole land in reference to local, not global, geography. The Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer explains that the Hebrew word erets is often translated as Earth in English translations of the Bible, when in reality it is also the word for land, as in the land of Israel.6 Archer explains that erets is used many times throughout the Old Testament to mean land and country. Furthermore, the term tebel, which translates to the whole expanse of the Earth, or the Earth as a whole, is not used in Genesis 6:17, nor in subsequent verses in Genesis 7 (7:4, 7:10, 7:17, 7:18, 7:19).7 If the intent of this passage was to indicate the entire expanse of the Earth, tebel would have been the more appropriate word choice. Consequently, the Hebrew text is more consistent with a local geography for the flood."
How should we interpret the Genesis flood account BioLogos

 

[orogenicman]

Whether or not there is any truth in the above is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a global flood ever occurred. The simple fact of the matter is that a global flood is physically impossible.

From Luke: " And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed."
Obviously, his tax collectors weren't going to sail to South America. And when you look at the passage in the original Greek, the word οἰκουμένην is used, which is better translated as the inhabited world, or in this case the Roman world.

It's the same idea with the Noah story in Hebrew. The story is an adaptation of early Mesopotamian myths. It's highly likely that there was a devastating flood that effected the entire known Mesopotamian world. To me, that's irrelevant because I don't approach scripture as if it were a text of geology or climate science. That's not where the value lies.

So you say, but at the same time you claim that a flood affected the entire Mesopotamian world, and that simply is not true.

"The language used in Genesis 6-9 does not insist that the flood was global.
First of all, the Hebrew kol erets, meaning whole Earth, can also be translated whole land in reference to local, not global, geography. The Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer explains that the Hebrew word erets is often translated as Earth in English translations of the Bible, when in reality it is also the word for land, as in the land of Israel.6 Archer explains that erets is used many times throughout the Old Testament to mean land and country. Furthermore, the term tebel, which translates to the whole expanse of the Earth, or the Earth as a whole, is not used in Genesis 6:17, nor in subsequent verses in Genesis 7 (7:4, 7:10, 7:17, 7:18, 7:19).7 If the intent of this passage was to indicate the entire expanse of the Earth, tebel would have been the more appropriate word choice. Consequently, the Hebrew text is more consistent with a local geography for the flood."
How should we interpret the Genesis flood account BioLogos

And yet many Christians believe it was, probably because they never bother to ask the people who wrote it (the Jews) to interpret the old testament for them.

 

[dblack]

Which one?

The only one who claimed "I AM!"

The reason I asked is I'm wondering if you feel any need to disprove the gods you don't believe in. And if you can't disprove them, are you obligated to accept their existence?

 

[Hollie]

Whether or not there is any truth in the above is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a global flood ever occurred. The simple fact of the matter is that a global flood is physically impossible.

From Luke: " And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed."
Obviously, his tax collectors weren't going to sail to South America. And when you look at the passage in the original Greek, the word οἰκουμένην is used, which is better translated as the inhabited world, or in this case the Roman world.

It's the same idea with the Noah story in Hebrew. The story is an adaptation of early Mesopotamian myths. It's highly likely that there was a devastating flood that effected the entire known Mesopotamian world. To me, that's irrelevant because I don't approach scripture as if it were a text of geology or climate science. That's not where the value lies.

"The language used in Genesis 6-9 does not insist that the flood was global.
First of all, the Hebrew kol erets, meaning whole Earth, can also be translated whole land in reference to local, not global, geography. The Old Testament scholar Gleason L. Archer explains that the Hebrew word erets is often translated as Earth in English translations of the Bible, when in reality it is also the word for land, as in the land of Israel.6 Archer explains that erets is used many times throughout the Old Testament to mean land and country. Furthermore, the term tebel, which translates to the whole expanse of the Earth, or the Earth as a whole, is not used in Genesis 6:17, nor in subsequent verses in Genesis 7 (7:4, 7:10, 7:17, 7:18, 7:19).7 If the intent of this passage was to indicate the entire expanse of the Earth, tebel would have been the more appropriate word choice. Consequently, the Hebrew text is more consistent with a local geography for the flood."
How should we interpret the Genesis flood account BioLogos

You really do discredit your argument when you link to ID'iot creationist sites such as Biologos.

 

[Treeshepherd]

So you say, but at the same time you claim that a flood affected the entire Mesopotamian world, and that simply is not true.

I didn't categorically make that claim. I said it's highly likely. Are the Tigris and Euphrates immune to flooding? Obviously, you aren't that stubborn. Wouldn't you admit that an ancient flood could have been so devastating and could have made such a profound impression on the Mesopotamian world that it became a central subject of stories that survive today, 4,000 years later?

 

[zaangalewa]

... "God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. ...

We don't call god "Dr. god".

Erm, what?

We don't call god "Dr. God". With other words: Why should it be more important what someone says in the name of science about god? Could it not be more important what someone says in the name of farmers, millers or bakers about god?

 

[Treeshepherd]

You really do discredit your argument when you link to ID'iot creationist sites such as Biologos.

I think you agree with my basic argument that the Noah story in the Bible doesn't stand up to literal scrutiny, and that a flood never covered the entire planet.
Where we disagree is that I value ancient stories, and you find them to be worthless or even harmful.

 

[orogenicman]

So you say, but at the same time you claim that a flood affected the entire Mesopotamian world, and that simply is not true.

I didn't categorically make that claim. I said it's highly likely. Are the Tigris and Euphrates immune to flooding? Obviously, you aren't that stubborn. Wouldn't you admit that an ancient flood could have been so devastating and could have made such a profound impression on the Mesopotamian world that it became a central subject of stories that survive today, 4,000 years later?

Both rivers flood. So what? The entire Mesopotamian civilization weren't located only in those river valleys. That said, I agree that any major floods in those valleys have had impacts of the people living there. And likely were the inspiration for the flood story. My big pet peeve about it is when people take it literally insomuch as they claim it was a global flood that wiped out all life except for that which allegedly hitched a ride in Noah's Ark.

 

[orogenicman]

... "God did it" is a religious tautology that is meaningless in answering questions pertaining to science. ...

We don't call god "Dr. god".

Erm, what?

We don't call god "Dr. God". With other words: Why should it be more important what someone says in the name of science about god? Could it not be more important what someone says in the name of farmers, millers or bakers about god?

Since personal revelation is, by definition, first person, no one is under any obligation to accept one person's personal revelation over that of another's. And that is what religion is, a personal revelation, if it is anything at all. Science isn't about personal revelations. It is about falsifiable, repeatable evidence.

 

[zaangalewa]

You really do discredit your argument when you link to ID'iot creationist sites such as Biologos.

I think you agree with my basic argument that the Noah story in the Bible doesn't stand up to literal scrutiny, and that a flood never covered the entire planet.
Where we disagree is that I value ancient stories, and you find them to be worthless or even harmful.

Every child worldwide understands the story of Noah. Specially the thing with the rainbow in the end - when god promised all animals and all human beings not to give them back into formlessness - ... ah sorry: not to let them be wiped out from history ... good grieve ... What's wrong now? Grew I to old? Whatever: A wonderful rainbow in the end. Very wonderful rainbow. Lots of colors.