Religion causes otherwise moral people to do and say immoral things.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


i think part of the problem is inherent in various types of prejudice, foremost of which is translational bias. we are interpreting vast spans of time as laid out in ancient texts and/or the sciences, based on our current understanding.

the idea ancient people may have known more than we thought they did 200 years ago, is completely dependent on our current understanding which results in translation bias, particularly where it touches on empirical "evidence", which requires the current definition to be the only viable definition until so many proofs are brought to the table, it can't be denied.

problem with that is, just think how many people had to suffer just for galileo's point to be considered. (group think at its finest) science is not immune to that kind of tunnel vision and considering the very real fear that superstition could end up replacing fact, if not religiously guarded, the end result is brutally stubborn denial of anything that appears to the current definition of "religion" or "religious."

for example, in the beginning of the enlightenment period, it was thought that the ancient greeks couldn't write during the time their annals and epics were written. this was incorrect, but it would take 40 more years before the science of archaeology would prove they could write afterall. however, it was too late for greeks texts, which had been ruled fictions and tossed out as historical texts. this happened to every ancient text. today, it doesn't matter how much evidence you bring to the table, the fact it may come from an ancient text that is considered "mythology" by the mainstream scientific community, that alone, is suffficient to just toss it out of consideration.

now, all this has a huge impact on word usage, as you can well imagine. i once carried on a conversation with a guy, using modern terminology for words and concepts that were in the bible. he had no idea and thought what i was saying was quite logical and interesting. when i revealed i had just basically taught him stuff from the bible, he freaked out and called me a hindu. he couldn't handle the fact that he was just that word biased. key words and concepts from old texts trigger this translational bias in people quite often, pro and con.

richard appears to have a really hard core case of translational bias. i can't blame him entirely, as most people (even people who believe in creationism) have very little clue what the bible actually says -- yet another example of translational bias.

reply to post by undo


While i agree that absense of evidence, is not evidence of absence i am still skeptical from the claims;

I could entertain your point that, at the time of scripture the civlisation had vast knowledge of the universe, BUT...............it talks about floods and the creation of earth is if "GOD intervenes in human affairs, as if he is causing the volcanoes activity, or causing disaese because humans are unobedient etc. These are incorrect attributations; and immature to say the least.

Not to mention, there was no other evidence of knowledge of the universe or "GOD", no science, no maths left, although some claim that achealogists have no found this evidence or it has become lost.

So far no theologian, mathematician, philosopher, astronomer, physicist has ever demonstrated the existence of an omnipotent supernatural entity. SO FAR, the universe has been explained without the need to infer it to "GOD", if this had been done, there would be a science degree in "GOD".

Many religions have come and gone historically, when a new religion is formed and gains followers, the believers are atheistic towards any other current or historical religion that exists or existed.

They all use the same techniques; as you can see their are modern schisms of religion including Mormonism and even Scientology.

Bhuddism and Toaism are not particular aggressive religions but their "GOD's" still hide by the unfalsifiable nature of the hypothesis. I have no qualms with SOME of the moral and ethical teaching but the metaphysical claims cannot be believed by a thinking person.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


you need to reconsider my prior "hint." what created the universe? super massive black holes. black holes/wormholes, were deified, anything that came out of them, was deified. and considering the definition of the singularity, that's not too hard to imagine and in fact, may explain quite a bit.

let me give you an example of translation bias of creation texts in genesis:

Gen 1:1 ¶ In the beginning 7225 God 430 created 1254 853 the heaven 8064 and 853 the earth 776.

every word with a number after it, was in the original hebrew. therefore, the verse should read

first elohiym (gods) created shamayim (heaven) and erets (earth)

so essentially it's saying the first gods created the heavens and the earth.

shamayim

1) heaven, heavens, sky

a) visible heavens, sky

1) as abode of the stars

2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc

b) Heaven (as the abode of God)

www.blueletterbible.org...

now think about the super massive black hole video. they are saying the galaxies were created by the super massive black holes at their centers. if wormholes/blackholes were deified, god did indeed create heaven and earth. doesn't negate a personal god, who interacts with creation as the ancient texts also seem to suggest that the beings who came out of the wormholes, were thought of as their gods (and what exactly is SUPERnatural anyway? isn't that just another way of saying hypernatural vs. natural? what's super about it? science is proving alot of this without believing a word of it. lol the irony is thick as molasses.

reply to post by undo


If black holes are to be deified then surely each Gallaxy has it's own God?

I'm still not understanding why i have to assume black holes as Gods. I know we don't fully understand them yet, nor have we been able to detect them irrefutably, obviousbly because they swallow all light, but we can calculate that they are there.

Again, why does a "deity" need to be involved for black holes to exist? Isn't this back to the "God of the Gaps"?

reply to post by awake_and_aware



elohiym is plural.
godS.

in fact, read this!

So What Exactly is an Elohim by Michael S. Heiser
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

that paper covers the various ways in which the word was used. i'm adding one more word to it: blackholes. you should read my stargates are real thread (the whole thing). alot of this would start to make a great deal of sense, especially in historical context

reply to post by undo


Why bother calling them "GODs" when we have the word Black holes? Again, there is no need to deify a natural phenomenon. It's similar to saying a Volcano erupts to punish sinners, it's needlessly personifying a force.

I appreciate how you have been polite and listened to my arguments, and i have enjoyed discourse but i'm still not sure i understand your position; maybe i am misunderstanding.

The position over black holes comes from the Pantheistic stance.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


because of what came out of them.
the logic chain is:
1) the super massive black holes created the universe.

2) at the heart of every super massive black hole is the singularity where space-time goes on vacation

3) out of blackholes/wormholes come these beings who appear to be SUPERnatural (don't get hung up on word bias. think of this like a scientist, historian and linguist). the beings and the wormhole are thought of as two aspects of the same beings. in fact, the wormhole is thought to be giving birth to the gods. (even their edifices became so intricately associated with them, that in some texts, the being was described by the physical appearance of the edifice. example: ra was described as having the same physical characteristics as ea's e.abzu. gold on the outside, silver on the inside, blue decorations (skin like gold, bones like silver, hair like lapis lazuli)).

4) add time, add language variations, add cultural differences, now re-read ancient history. it's all the same stories, over and over again because it all derives from the same general location and spreads out. only time and variations in language/culture, has hidden this from us and also hidden the techology and science in them. just think how long it took for someone to recognize that enoch was describing a super massive black hole.

here's muslim hajj. it's a very old tradition, in which they circle around the central black box, which contains a fragment of a sacred meteor (??), which they hope to touch as they circle inward. to me, it looks like they were taught the story of the creation of the heavens/galaxy/universe in a very interesting, physical way. they look like the pictures of the galaxy of stars circling around the super massive black hole. lol

now that's what i call an object lesson who's meaning literally, would not be completely understood by the laity for thousands of years.

reply to post by undo


It does look remarkbly familar to the motion of a gallaxy but again, they may haev had this knowledge when "ALLAH" was written about, but it still doesn't prove Allah.

All it shows as that they see nature/the universe as Allah, i state, as i have stated before that i think this is a needless operation. Black hole will suffice for me, i don't see any need to call it God, it doesn't have emotion and it doesn't seem to care about destruction, chaos or life, so i'll just call it a Black Hole.?

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Atheist propaganda. Just another.

reply to post by DenyIdiocy4


We don't have propaganda, we arn't trying to fool anyone, Agnostic Atheism's stance has always been, there is no evidence, we will wait for evidence, until them we will NOT renounce our atheism. Currently, no human knows, anyone claiming to is doing so in BLIND faith.

Atheism has no goals, it's simply a lack of belief in a crack pot theory. Deism is not a crack pot theory, Theism is.

Nice contribution anyway.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


well i don't know if it's quite that easy. what i'm trying to show you is, the text is building a credible reference, and is itself, thousands of years old. we're learning today, what they meant so long ago. also, the version of creationism in which the earth is only 6000 years old, is not supported by the texts. it's an example of papal interpretation that get tossed around and made fun of to prove that biblical history is mythology. i don't think it is. i think it's historical. the only problem is how we interpret it and translation bias over the millenia.

reply to post by undo


i think modern intereptations to "BLack Holes" in the bible are some what misinterpreated.

Even if it does prove these a "credible" documents, it could be an E.T race, or an ancient advanced race of man, and that still doesn't explain the contradictory or immoral teachings in the bible, ethical or historical.

It states GOd created the Earth in 6 days, well a day back then was the the passing of light onto night, and day is a full rotation of the Earths axis, how can it be made in 6 days if the concept of a day is not yet discovered. It's clear God didn't "make" the earth, it's caused by gas clouds forming etc. Cosmic evolition. I'm not saying it's completely spontaneous and random, it takes time.

I just think a lot of it is nonsense, most of it could be the words of an advanced civilisation, it still doesn't prove it was the Word of God, and it still doesn't prove that any of it is morally or ethically sound.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


well what does the word "god" mean? particularly in the genesis reference? do you know?

this is the definition of "day" in the genesis references you mentioned

yowm

1) day, time, year

a) day (as opposed to night)

b) day (24 hour period)

1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1

2) as a division of time

a) a working day, a day's journey

c) days, lifetime (pl.)

d) time, period (general)

e) year

f) temporal references

1) today

2) yesterday

3) tomorrow

www.blueletterbible.org...

notice how many options there are? read them all. also notice the original word is not day, it's yowm. do you understand what i'm saying yet?

okay, here's a really good example. did you know the story of the flood does not say what people claim it says? very few christians, jews, muslims or atheists, actually know what the texts say. they assume alot because they are told what it says, but don't actually learn what it says, for themselves. huge arguments can be concocted for pretty much any written text, based entirely on what someone else told you the text says, but it isn't until you've studied it for yourself, in the original language, that you can honestly say you've given it an empirical test. before then, you're just repeating what someone else told you it says.

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing 2416 of all flesh 1320, two 8147 of every [sort] shalt thou bring 935 into the ark 8392, to keep [them] alive 2421 with thee; they shall be male 2145 and female 5347.


only words with a number after them were in the original text. that means the word "every" was not in the original verse. the word "all" wasn't either. the text would've said:

living flesh two bring ark alive, male female.

Gen 7:2 Of every clean 2889 beast 929 thou shalt take 3947 to thee by sevens 7651 7651, the male 376 and his female 802: and of beasts 929 that [are] not clean 2889 1931 by two 8147, the male 376 and his female 802.

would say, clean beast take sevens, male female. beasts not clean two, male female.

not every.

so he was told to take the barnyard, essentially. 7 clean (males and females). 2 unclean, (male and female).

then,

Gen 7:3 Of fowls 5775 also of the air 8064 by sevens 7651 7651, the male 2145 and the female 5347; to keep 2421 0 seed 2233 alive 2421 upon the face 6440 of all the earth 776.

fowls (orignal language is more like flying creatures), so the sentence is sloppy without switching around the words, but it essentially says,

take seven birds of the air, male and female, keep seed alive from earth.

and that's it.

7+7+2=16 animals.

also, the flood of noah was the black sea flood. (a real event, no kidding).

that's just an example of what the text actually says.

reply to post by undo


I can imagine it could be useful for a Historian or someone interested in language because it explains at least what some of the peple were doing and the time, what natural phenomenon was going on at the time, how people spoke, what words they used to describe things, and potentially how peope behaved.

I think it may be a valueable resource, but the contradictory statements and moral teachings directly go against the alledged claim to most intelligent being of all. If he had been intelligent, he would not command stoning as punishment, he would believing in redemption, he would not sacrifice his son. I know you say these are just the thoughts of man, but they are trying to explain nature, they assume creation, and praise the creator.

I think it could be potentially E.Ts and definetly is an interesting possibility to look in to. But as revealing as you may think the books are, and credible or not credible, the books still don't prove the existence of a supernatural deity. and i'm not talking about black holes, I'm not calling a black hole a God, theres no need to anthropomorphize.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


it doesn't matter whether you and i are willing to deify inanimate objects or physical phenomenon, fact is, the ancient people did and it's their actions and understanding that is written down in ancient texts from egypt to china.

i've read several of them. some sound suspicious. others seem to have a rationale, et.al, the text isn't referring to stoning and it was a matter of translation bias. for example, in one such example, listed as a stoning verse, yehovah is coming down to mt. sinai (which i theorize was a holy mountain ( a pyramid or ziggurat )), touching the structure before it was safe, would be insta-death,. much in the same way as touching the ark, which was a static electricity generator, with a gigantic capacitor. these are matters of physics and science. only translation bias has changed their original meanings.

reply to post by undo


I can understand the language and knowledge of an intelligent ancient civilisation being lost, i can understand that it could be credible but the meaning has been lost. It still doesn't prove "GOD" just because it is written in a book with credible (yet misterpreted) ancient knowledge.

My whole argument and concern here is with organised religion and the idiocy of Dogma without evidence. I'm sure if the texts are as meaningful and "credible" as you say- there are historians looking into it.

I'm quite interested with regards to the Pyramids, possibly confirming my WANT to believe it was an alien race with ancient technology. I mean the techicalities of the Pyramids are just facisnating. But this is detracting from what i am talking about.

In essense it's unfalsfiable metaphysical claims, original sin, afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, they are all abstract metaphysical claims built on no grounding other than the imagination of man (or alien perhaps, perhaps to clever for that)

I think unfalisfiable claims invetitably lead to false hope, and sometimes fear - Eternal damnation? I think this is immoral preaching, no human can claim to know what happens after death, NDEs, i've heard it all, no conslusive evidence so far.

Other things i find detestable are Mediums, Fortune Tellers, Astrologists, it's all nonsense and cold reading. No scientist has ever proven these "powers" are true, it's invokes false hope, it's wrong, it's charlatanism.

Again, this is not an argument for the credibility of SOME of the bible, most of it is incredibly wrong, but like you said there seem to be some truths lost in translation. This is an argument for the metaphysical claims such as heaven and hell, and also the concerns i have with organised religion and it's dogma.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


You are right and I respect your wishes. I understand that the world has been plagued by dumb blind followers, but that is just what they are, dumb. I think religion and spirituality is a beautiful journey which must be taken by individuals and not by the masses.

If an individual is corrupted they have less authority than that of the masses so it doesn't hurt as much. Personally, I asked God for signs and I got them, that is solely why I am a believer.

So yes religion can cause moral people to do and say immoral things.