What was the first religion?

[PostmodernProph]

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.

so at the time you have pinned down for the flood, where was civilization located?.....

 

[zaangalewa]

... 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.

(1) The following 8 and 1/2 minutes are a part of a religious ceremony. I don't think human beings are able to live without religion - except they are losing themselves. And I don't see any reason why an antipersonal antirevelation could be better than a personal revelation.


(2) your are right: Sience is not religion. Example: A piece of bread is not a religion too and a piece of bread is also not science. But a piece of bread can be important for religious ceremonies - and a scientist is also able to say something about a piece of bread. But why for heavens sake should someone think science gives a better religious Interpretation of a piece of bread or religions give a better scientific interpretation of a piece of bread? What for for heavens sake is the sense of 'discussions' like "science is a better religion" or "religion is a very bad science"? That's only nonsense, isn't it?

"Alle, die von Freiheit traeumen,
Sollen's Feiern nicht versaeumen,
sollen tanzen auch auf Graebern."
Marius Müller Westernhagen

 

[Treeshepherd]

your are right: Sience is not religion. Example: A piece of bread is not a religion too and a piece of bread is also not science. But a piece of bread can be important for religious ceremonies - and a scientist is also able to say something about a piece of bread. But why for heavens sake should someone think science gives a better religious Interpretation of a piece of bread or religions give a better scientific interpretation of a piece of bread? What for for heavens sake is the sense of 'discussions' like "science is a better religion" or "religion is a very bad science"? That's only nonsense, isn't it?

I agree, Zaanga. Your video is of a post 9/11 ceremony. How would science describe the attacks on the world trade towers? Science and math might describe the speed of the jets, the volume of fuel, the number of victims, the ages of the victims, etc..
There's more to the story than mere statistics. You need a poet or an artist to illustrate the meaning of the event. Atheists understand that when the illustration doesn't come from a source toward which they are jaded. When an allegory comes from a religious source, suddenly they feel compelled to scrutinize it scientifically.

 

[zaangalewa]

... 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.

What's maybe a deeper reason why we baptize our babies.

 

[zaangalewa]

...
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.

... 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.

We had a chance to warn everyone before this happened. They lost their lifes because of our intentional stupid ignorance. Shame on all mankind. We could know much more than we know today, because we are wasting our times with violent ways to live and we are wasting our economic power by doing nonsense. I guess we are 400 years to early with the developement of nuclear weapons and we are 400 years to late to in our developement of a better individual compassion and social welfare without supressing the freedom of our sisters and brothers. Why so many prisoners in the USA? What's wrong there?

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

Says who?

Did anyone else speak with you than I? I could give you a long list of examples of nearly impossible conditions for the existance of our lifes. Could be the following example convinces you to be a little more carefull with your religion "science": The first cells were created billions of years ago - the next step needed billions of years. Since about 600 million years now the multi-cellular organisms are existing which are in the line of our ancestors. Not a long time compared with the 13.8-0.6=13.2 billlion years since the big bang began to play.

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.

Take the existance of our moon as another example. The moon was once a part of the earth. He - ¿or do you say "she" in your culture? - I guess it's "she" because the sun is male in the most cultures in the world. Whatever: She - the moon - leaves us very slow - very very slow. Otherwise the rotation of our planet would not allow the stabilty what life needs on our planet.

 

[zaangalewa]

... It also fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy, that the origins of existence might be unknown doesn't mean 'god' is the 'answer.'

The problem is deeper. Everything has an origin - but not so a first cause. A first cause is causeless - otherweise it would not be a first cause. That's what we are able to know. And we don't understand why not only nothing "exists". Nothing makes sense - why should something exist? - but we are only able to think if we are not-nothing. So we know not-nothing exists because we are thinking. We are something and so nothing is not "existing". But we are not our own cause - we are a result of a (or some) first [uncaused] cause. Whatever we might think about this situation - if we believe in god then we "know" for sure god is not a liar, he's our father, who loves us. We may trust in him. So I'm sure one day we will find out how he made it - how he made out of nothing everything.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Where we disagree is that you have a desperate need to believe ancient tales where you might want to link them to religious beliefs.

 

[Hollie]

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.

so at the time you have pinned down for the flood, where was civilization located?.....

The Maya civilization existed at the time of the Noah fable. Didn't they teach you any geography at the Pat Robertson madrassah.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

so at the time you have pinned down for the flood, where was civilization located?.....

The Maya civilization existed at the time of the Noah fable. Didn't they teach you any geography at the Pat Robertson madrassah.

I don't believe I know the date of the flood......apparently you are the one taking lessons from Robertson if you believe you do........

 

[orogenicman]

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.

We had a chance to warn everyone before this happened. They lost their lifes because of our intentional stupid ignorance. Shame on all mankind.

Warning? What warning? The people of the Indian ocean basin weren't warned. There was no system in place in the Indian Ocean basin to warn of impending Tsunamis. But you missed the point. The point is that nature, or god, or whatever you believe doesn't care what happens to us. The universe is not here for us.

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

Says who?

Did anyone else speak with you than I? I could give you a long list of examples of nearly impossible conditions for the existance of our lifes. Could be the following example convinces you to be a little more carefull with your religion "science": The first cells were created billions of years ago - the next step needed billions of years. Since about 600 million years now the multi-cellular organisms are existing which are in the line of our ancestors. Not a long time compared with the 13.8-0.6=13.2 billlion years since the big bang began to play.

That is NOT evidence for creationist design or a finely tuned universe. It is actually evidence against it.

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.

Take the existance of our moon as another example. The moon was once a part of the earth. He - ¿or do you say "she" in your culture? - I guess it's "she" because the sun is male in the most cultures in the world. Whatever: She - the moon - leaves us very slow - very very slow. Otherwise the rotation of our planet would not allow the stabilty what life needs on our planet.

I say "it". We have no evidence that life would not exist without the Moon. It is true that much of the life in the oceans depends on the tides (having evolved in them), which are created by the Moon. But that doesn't mean that life could not evolve without the existence of the Moon. And again, it is not evidence of a finely tuned universe.[/QUOTE]

 

[orogenicman]

... It also fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy, that the origins of existence might be unknown doesn't mean 'god' is the 'answer.'

The problem is deeper. Everything has an origin - but not so a first cause. A first cause is causeless - otherweise it would not be a first cause.

That violates the laws of physics.

 

[zaangalewa]

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.

We had a chance to warn everyone before this happened. They lost their lifes because of our intentional stupid ignorance. Shame on all mankind.

Warning? What warning? The people of the Indian ocean basin weren't warned. There was no system in place in the Indian Ocean basin to warn of impending Tsunamis.

Exactly.

But you missed the point. The point is that nature, or god, or whatever you believe doesn't care what happens to us. The universe is not here for us.

Dear boy - I am the universe.

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

Says who?

Did anyone else speak with you than I? I could give you a long list of examples of nearly impossible conditions for the existance of our lifes. Could be the following example convinces you to be a little more carefull with your religion "science": The first cells were created billions of years ago - the next step needed billions of years. Since about 600 million years now the multi-cellular organisms are existing which are in the line of our ancestors. Not a long time compared with the 13.8-0.6=13.2 billlion years since the big bang began to play.

That is NOT evidence for creationist design or a finely tuned universe. It is actually evidence against it.

So what?

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.

Take the existance of our moon as another example. The moon was once a part of the earth. He - ¿or do you say "she" in your culture? - I guess it's "she" because the sun is male in the most cultures in the world. Whatever: She - the moon - leaves us very slow - very very slow. Otherwise the rotation of our planet would not allow the stabilty what life needs on our planet.

I say "it". We have no evidence that life would not exist without the Moon.

That's your evidence why it is inevitable that ETs are existing? ... If you think so - why not? ... But why is it a problem for you if others believe what you don't believe or know what you don't know?

It is true that much of the life in the oceans depends on the tides (having evolved in them), which are created by the Moon. But that doesn't mean that life could not evolve without the existence of the Moon. And again, it is not evidence of a finely tuned universe.

Finely tuned? That's understatement. I heard we could produce a clock with a heart of aluminium what would show only one hour difference if it had started in the big bang 13.8 billion years ago. Or take the expansion rate of the universe. A difference in the expansion rate of the universe has to be less than 1:10^57 - otherwise galaxies and stars would not exist.

 

[zaangalewa]

... It also fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy, that the origins of existence might be unknown doesn't mean 'god' is the 'answer.'

The problem is deeper. Everything has an origin - but not so a first cause. A first cause is causeless - otherweise it would not be a first cause.

That violates the laws of physics.

A cause in physics would be something like some energy coming from a point going to another point while changing something. But in the begin of the universe suddenly the whole energy of the universe was "here" (including "here"). We are not able to say what in the first planksecond (10^-43 seconds) had happened because in this dimensions we don't know any longer what a cause is or what time is or what space is ...

 

[orogenicman]

... It also fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy, that the origins of existence might be unknown doesn't mean 'god' is the 'answer.'

The problem is deeper. Everything has an origin - but not so a first cause. A first cause is causeless - otherweise it would not be a first cause.

That violates the laws of physics.

A cause in physics would be something like some energy coming from a point going to another point while changing something. But in the begin of the universe suddenly the whole energy of the universe was "here" (including "here"). We are not able to say what in the first planksecond (10^-43 seconds) had happened because in this dimensions we don't know any longer what a cause is or what time is or what space is ...

All the known laws of physics points to the big bang. You said the universe had an "uncaused" first cause. I say that claim is meaningless.

 

[zaangalewa]

,,, All the known laws of physics points to the big bang. You said the universe had an "uncaused" first cause. I say that claim is meaningless.

A first cause is always only without cause. Thats all what we are able [not] to know about. "First cause" and "uncaused cause" are the same expression. So if the universe had not a first cause - if it is not uncaused - whatelse is it what created the universe? Why started it suddenly to exist?

 

[Politico]

Wow 14 pages. And still it was a Neanderthal praying to fire.

 

[zaangalewa]

Wow 14 pages. And still it was a Neanderthal praying to fire.

In a thornbush?