Atheism predates Jesus by at least 500 years

[back to earth]

This is an excellent question.

The first part at least I don't know if the rest is so relevant.

While researching this a few years back, i looked at the question of "feral children"

In reality there is, i think, only one proven case of a boy raised by animals. He could not speak and was never able to learn how to , and died quite young

It is "language of the mind" which allows us to form both mental concepts and constructs, and without the abilty to think using lang age, humans are just like other animals They don't have god constructs but they don't have ANY constructs of the mind because they never learned the language of the mind needed to construct them.

So ...... you have changed your mind about it then .

Or are you going to allow this point and go on for pages about how you are still right ... even though you concede this basic preliminary learnt need .

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Bita both I reckon. See big brother read .... I want to be like him !

On the other hand, I had an inexplicable attraction to reading Tarot from an early age, in a RC family - shock, horror ! (My sister dressed up as a gypsy and had a fortune telling tent at a fete once to raise money for charity ... not that she knew how to do it. )

I didnt find out till much later in my life, paternal granny was not real granny at all, she disappeared before I was born ..... and was a Spanish gypsy tarot reader .

No, I have no explanation .... interesting though !

(And all around me was influence, pressure, indoctrination, on a high level that didnt effect me one little bit ; to be catholic, play football, cricket, be a sporting hero ..... as both father and big brother were. )

Interesting. I did Tarot readings in my teen to young adult years. For fun, and for the practice of it, and what I also got from it. I was into the paranormal, but I don't think that was ingrained in the family either.

The thing that lead to the Tarot was that my mom got me the cards and a book of it for Christmas. Here's the thing, I asked for an 8 ball. ( I wanted to predict my future in a quick question and a roll of the ball to see how I would get lucky in life. My mother couldn't find any, and someone told her and showed her to get the Tarot pack and the book. When I opened it, I'm like, .............. *shrugs* , ok, and there was a book, that got me started. Then it was even better. ( , there seems to be a pattern here with my family, try to get something for me, and get the next best thing and start a whole new something. )

[Mr Walker]

Bita both I reckon. See big brother read .... I want to be like him !

On the other hand, I had an inexplicable attraction to reading Tarot from an early age, in a RC family - shock, horror ! (My sister dressed up as a gypsy and had a fortune telling tent at a fete once to raise money for charity ... not that she knew how to do it. )

I didnt find out till much later in my life, paternal granny was not real granny at all, she disappeared before I was born ..... and was a Spanish gypsy tarot reader .

No, I have no explanation .... interesting though !

(And all around me was influence, pressure, indoctrination, on a high level that didnt effect me one little bit ; to be catholic, play football, cricket, be a sporting hero ..... as both father and big brother were. )

Sound like it came from you ... and is just as vague a claim as yours .

Also . 9 out of 10 dentists agree that Colgate gives whiter teeth.

Sorry walker - the feral children observation has knocked you out of the ring here !

No the feral children (and there are almost NO true feral children) actually makes my case.

Those children (as described on internet sites) often have no language either the language of the mind or the spoken language They are a bit like severely intellectually retarded/handicapped children and actually behave much like them as well.

Thus they don't have the ability as young infants to learn how to think in a language which allows the development of ANY constructs and concepts. I already said such children would have no god concepts, if they had no language of the mind.

BUT there are some who had some association with humans and some language skills those would also have the inner language of the mind needed to construct god and other concepts and would almost certainly do so, while trying to understand the world around them They might construct "animal god" constructs if the stories of them being brought up by various animals were actually true. .

Given that almost all such cases are either urban myths or hoaxes ,it is very hard to test such children. But they are really like mentally retarded, or severely mentally disabled children, in their cognitive development.

[Mr Walker]

Talk about denial of a case that shows the opposite of what you claim ! One of the most ridiculous responses you have written yet !

I claim all children believe in fairies !

Mary; "Excuse me Mister .... I was never told about them and I never believed in them until I was allowed to watch TV when we moved into a civilised area near a town. Then I saw them and asked my Mum and she explained what they are supposed to be to me. "

Walker ; "Now now, little girls ... its just that you dont remember knowing about them as you were so little ."

( and more 'proof' based on another 'if ' )

or you could be wrong Walker ....... nah! could not be possible eh ? Lets just conclude it is a strange exception and something is wrong with the kid .

I certainly know where you got that idea from - your own process . And look at the answers you came up with !

Nope ... very young children with such a lack of input from adults end up like this ;

This post and your previous one seem to indicate that you have no real idea of the concept being discussed here

You need to look at the research and studies done by Kellerman and many others which show how children construct such concepts out of their own thought processes while VERY young.

While children learn the common or social labels, such as gods or fairies, etc from others older than them, they internally construct the actual concepts for them, and have their own "names" for these "magical agents. "

A child brought up with language but no reference to gods or fairies will develop such concepts totally by themselves as a process of their mind.

Eg "why do mushrooms grow in rings" a child's mind asks itself "OH because something planted them in that way" it answers itself, because the human mind prefers to think that all things have intelligent cause or purpose (we know that humans tend to think in teleological terms to make sense of our environment ) Teleology is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal. For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; skewering food to allow humans to eat is what forks are for.

. The child's mind continues to reason, but lacks adequate data to know the real cause of mushroom rings .

"But no one lives in the forest ? "

"Oh then it is pqbvhbc, magical little creatures, who grow the mushrooms. "

Each child will have its own name for such entities, until told the "correct" name by others, but all children develop them, as a process of learning to think and consider the world around them.

You realise that a child's learning does not come mainly from things explicitly taught to it by others, but by the way its mind processes the environment around itself ?

[Mr Walker]

So ...... you have changed your mind about it then .

Or are you going to allow this point and go on for pages about how you are still right ... even though you concede this basic preliminary learnt need .

You are confusing two separate processes. The initial working of a child's mind which only depends on language of the mind to operate, and not taught concepts; and then the later shaping of individual concepts and constructs to fit those of the child's social surroundings family peers etc. In other words, children don't learn ideas, constructs and concepts, ready made from others, initially. They begin to formulate them in their minds, almost from birth. and as they develop their cognition..

We build them ourselves inside our own minds, using nothing but language of the mind. THEN we adapt them to the constructs and concepts of those around us.

ps this is right on topic because human children have been doing this since Neanderthals and cromagnons ( Who also as adults didn't have the knowledge or information/understanding to move on form this form of magical thinking.)

it is WHY humans from 100000 years ago to the present have been believers, NOT because some concept of belief or god is passed down from parents to child.

Atheism is conceptual construct which actually requires a lot more information and sophistication of thought to construct. In a world where humans believed that spirits inhabited everything and there was no division between the material and the spiritual worlds, and you lived or died at the spirits will, i doubt there ever was an atheist

Edited February 22, 2016 by Mr Walker

[psyche101]

If that be true, then why do so many primitive societies make up some sort of religion - for example, cargo cults? And what of the religion of the Australian aboriginals? Their religion is very old.

Cargo Cults allow people to deal with crises, and the Australian Indigenous beliefs are a long way from organised relgion, they invent things like Giant Snakes who carve out river systems, and that makes it more than obvious as to how these people come up with these concepts - an attempt to explain the natural world around them. Australian Dreamtime is nothing like a monotheistic relgion, it's a bit more like the native american belief systems. Australian Indigenous Dreamtime is the oldest system around, and refers to many entities from quite a few belief systems, when Cook arrived, there were around 600 Indigenous Dialects, and even they did not all have the same stories when they were isolated from the rest of the world. If their system had come into place, you would not be considering a God, but a range of them like the Greek and Roman concepts.

[BlackBearWolf]

Excellent point !

I did extensive study on feral children . Way back, the classic book was 'Feral Children and Cases of Extreme Isolation ' by Prof. Z. Zing. Also I had to work with a couple of cases of 'extreme isolation'. Scary stuff that ! (As it usually to do with some crazy parents ! )

We cant tell, as real feral children bought up 'in the wild' dont even behave like humans ,,, they dont speak as they have not learnt language. Their inbuilt programs function the same way as they do in the animals that bought them up ( cases of real feral children, only exist as animals nursed and adopted them, otherwise they would have died ) . Even basic human programs ( as I mentioned before, like bio-survival, anal-territorial, socio-sexual ) need input to activate and complete them. But the higher ones, like Artistic- creative ... a human program, do not seem present at all, feral children do not even draw without being shown . Even if JUng's 'religious instinct' is present it is not activated or detectable.

Real feral children are barely human in their behavior and learning ability ... unless they are returned to human contact at an early age to get the relevant programming ... after a certain young age, it cant be installed as others have taken their place .

Wolf girl in India , she couldnt even walk properly on two legs. Her bone structure had started to morph from imitating the wolves.

I would confidently say no - that's impossible ... especially when they cant comprehend language or speak it.

In some cases it seems so ..... but in other cases not. It depends on specifics .... when wandering in the outback and from place to place I have heard the indigenous say "Just ask 'Mum' (nature) for whatever you need, and she will give it to you." In other places, if you dont call out the right name and intro of the spirits present ...... you gonna get trouble !

Some one else tells you Or it could show you with symbol or omen . Some place names are the name of the spirit of the place and the omen all at once .....

If one does not know its proclivities, one should test them ... of course, that requires learned knowledge as well.

I think, you just blew the other side of this argument out of the water !

thank you for the very detailed response. So i think its fair to say that humans are the ultimate sponges and will will only take in what is presented to them.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Excellent point !

I did extensive study on feral children . Way back, the classic book was 'Feral Children and Cases of Extreme Isolation ' by Prof. Z. Zing. Also I had to work with a couple of cases of 'extreme isolation'. Scary stuff that ! (As it usually to do with some crazy parents ! )

We cant tell, as real feral children bought up 'in the wild' dont even behave like humans ,,, they dont speak as they have not learnt language. Their inbuilt programs function the same way as they do in the animals that bought them up ( cases of real feral children, only exist as animals nursed and adopted them, otherwise they would have died ) . Even basic human programs ( as I mentioned before, like bio-survival, anal-territorial, socio-sexual ) need input to activate and complete them. But the higher ones, like Artistic- creative ... a human program, do not seem present at all, feral children do not even draw without being shown . Even if JUng's 'religious instinct' is present it is not activated or detectable.

Real feral children are barely human in their behavior and learning ability ... unless they are returned to human contact at an early age to get the relevant programming ... after a certain young age, it cant be installed as others have taken their place .

Wolf girl in India , she couldnt even walk properly on two legs. Her bone structure had started to morph from imitating the wolves.

I would confidently say no - that's impossible ... especially when they cant comprehend language or speak it.

In some cases it seems so ..... but in other cases not. It depends on specifics .... when wandering in the outback and from place to place I have heard the indigenous say "Just ask 'Mum' (nature) for whatever you need, and she will give it to you." In other places, if you dont call out the right name and intro of the spirits present ...... you gonna get trouble !

Some one else tells you Or it could show you with symbol or omen . Some place names are the name of the spirit of the place and the omen all at once .....

If one does not know its proclivities, one should test them ... of course, that requires learned knowledge as well.

I think, you just blew the other side of this argument out of the water !

Thank you for this, bte. It seems to back up what I would think about feral children. I know I wouldn't be talking about myself, my siblings and my children, because we grew up raised by parents in society, but the lack of religious indoctrination shows that there would be no form of 'religion' within the child in such surroundings.

I think, that it's more of a instinctual 'survival technique' or something that allows to 'create' something for a person to hold on. But to assume to create a 'being' close to what others do in an orthodox environment wouldn't make sense.

[+Sherapy]

Excellent point !

I did extensive study on feral children . Way back, the classic book was 'Feral Children and Cases of Extreme Isolation ' by Prof. Z. Zing. Also I had to work with a couple of cases of 'extreme isolation'. Scary stuff that ! (As it usually to do with some crazy parents ! )

We cant tell, as real feral children bought up 'in the wild' dont even behave like humans ,,, they dont speak as they have not learnt language. Their inbuilt programs function the same way as they do in the animals that bought them up ( cases of real feral children, only exist as animals nursed and adopted them, otherwise they would have died ) . Even basic human programs ( as I mentioned before, like bio-survival, anal-territorial, socio-sexual ) need input to activate and complete them. But the higher ones, like Artistic- creative ... a human program, do not seem present at all, feral children do not even draw without being shown . Even if JUng's 'religious instinct' is present it is not activated or detectable.

Real feral children are barely human in their behavior and learning ability ... unless they are returned to human contact at an early age to get the relevant programming ... after a certain young age, it cant be installed as others have taken their place .

Wolf girl in India , she couldnt even walk properly on two legs. Her bone structure had started to morph from imitating the wolves.

I would confidently say no - that's impossible ... especially when they cant comprehend language or speak it.

In some cases it seems so ..... but in other cases not. It depends on specifics .... when wandering in the outback and from place to place I have heard the indigenous say "Just ask 'Mum' (nature) for whatever you need, and she will give it to you." In other places, if you dont call out the right name and intro of the spirits present ...... you gonna get trouble !

Some one else tells you Or it could show you with symbol or omen . Some place names are the name of the spirit of the place and the omen all at once .....

If one does not know its proclivities, one should test them ... of course, that requires learned knowledge as well.

I think, you just blew the other side of this argument out of the water !

Again, incredibly interesting post and contribution BTE.

[back to earth]

Thanks guys ... Walker is railing frantically against it of course .... but it rreally doesnt matter what he says ... as you all have him on ignore

Ha ha ha ha ha harrrr !

[back to earth]

Cargo Cults allow people to deal with crises, and the Australian Indigenous beliefs are a long way from organised relgion, they invent things like Giant Snakes who carve out river systems, and that makes it more than obvious as to how these people come up with these concepts - an attempt to explain the natural world around them. Australian Dreamtime is nothing like a monotheistic relgion, it's a bit more like the native american belief systems. Australian Indigenous Dreamtime is the oldest system around, and refers to many entities from quite a few belief systems, when Cook arrived, there were around 600 Indigenous Dialects, and even they did not all have the same stories when they were isolated from the rest of the world. If their system had come into place, you would not be considering a God, but a range of them like the Greek and Roman concepts.

and they didnt and still dont fight about it .... it is considered that each is different piece of knowledge connected into a whole and that is connected to country, routes, areas, sites, stories ... making a vast corpus, that each has various access to or not, depending on relationships.

Never heard one say to another ; "Your God is wrong / false / etc , my God is the real true God ! "

Its just all different viewpoints from different places.

[psyche101]

and they didnt and still dont fight about it .... it is considered that each is different piece of knowledge connected into a whole and that is connected to country, routes, areas, sites, stories ... making a vast corpus, that each has various access to or not, depending on relationships.

Never heard one say to another ; "Your God is wrong / false / etc , my God is the real true God ! "

Its just all different viewpoints from different places.

Good point

[SpiritWriter]

Everybody is born an Atheist. Religion is taught.

Religion isn't the same as believing in God. I've seen a baby who could barely speak and absolutely unable to read yet, who also had unreligous parents and no religious environment at all say JESUS outloud after it was written on a whiteboard. I also knew a two year old who described in full detail remembering where she came from before being born and said she remembers heaven and God and she was very serious about this. I am not one who discredits children. I think a lot of time they know more than we do.

Edited February 24, 2016 by SpiritWriter

[psyche101]

Religion isn't the same as believing in God. I've seen a baby who could barely speak and absolutely unable to read yet, who also had unreligous parents and no religious environment at all say JESUS outloud after it was written on a whiteboard. I also knew a two year old who described in full detail remembering where she came from before being born and said she remembers heaven and God and she was very serious about this. I am not one who discredits children. I think a lot of time they know more than we do.

If relgion is nothing like believing in God, where did religious people get the concept of God from? Seems like a vicious circle to me, and people are just desperate to hold onto beliefs that have fallen apart due to better explanations and evidence. So they dump God, and keep the religion bit in order to maintain the fantasy. Which seems to me to be a very false way of aligning oneself with religious principles.

And kids make stuff up all the time. That is the imaginary friend bit that many kids invent.

LINK - Boy Says He Didn't Go To Heaven; Publisher Says It Will Pull Book

Nearly five years after it hit best-seller lists, a book that purported to be a 6-year-old boy's story of visiting angels and heaven after being injured in a bad car crash is being pulled from shelves. The young man at the center of The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven, Alex Malarkey, said this week that the story was all made up.

How ironic is his last name.

[EEHC]

If relgion is nothing like believing in God, where did religious people get the concept of God from?

The concept of God is philosophical. Some religions have been built around interpretations of this concept, but that doesn't make it intrinsic to religion.

There are non-theistic religions as well.

Edited February 24, 2016 by EEHC

[psyche101]

The concept of God is philosophical. Some religions have been built around interpretations of this concept, but that doesn't make it intrinsic to religion.

There are non-theistic religions as well.

The Concept of God goes back at least as far as 707BC shortly before relgion popped up all over the place - coincidence? I think not.

In ancient times, religion was indistinguishable from what is known as `mythology' in the present day and consisted of regular rituals based on a belief in higher supernatural entities who created and continued to maintain the world and surrounding cosmos.

That's a "God" in my book, even nontheistic religions have a range of "Gods" or a concept of a "supreme being" which is the same thing. Just like ID, it is creationism wrapped up in different paper. Same nonsense. Even Buddha said that devas (translated as "gods") do exist, but they were regarded as still being trapped in samsara, and Jainism claims that the universe consists of jiva (life force or souls).

Dictionary definition:

religion

rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/Submit

noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More

a particular system of faith and worship.

plural noun: religions

"the world's great religions"

a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

Edited February 24, 2016 by psyche101

[EEHC]

The Concept of God goes back at least as far as 707BC shortly before relgion popped up all over the place - coincidence? I think not.

We don't really know the exact origin of monotheism. All we know for sure is that it existed in antiquity, likely as an outgrowth of polytheistic beliefs. Of course, the belief in God is of philosophical and spiritual nature. It follows that ancient people would develop set of doctrines and teachings based on their interpretations. It can be argued (from a deistic perspective) that humanity no longer needs those religions with the advent of the scientific method and that arguments for God can be made purely from philosophical and scientific standpoints. But that isn't for me to say. If religion works for some people than so be it.

Just like ID, it is creationism wrapped up in different paper. Same nonsense.

Not in my view. The form of ID I tend to believe in doesn't exclude evolution (defined as 'change over time') and natural selection. I do accept the tree of life proposed by Darwin in his book On The Origin Of Species. Where I disagree is that natural selection and random mutations alone can explain the origin of life.

Even Buddha said that devas (translated as "gods") do exist, but they were regarded as still being trapped in samsara, and Jainism claims that the universe consists of jiva (life force or souls).

There are different schools of Buddhism which vary in their metaphysical views. Some are completely non-theistic.

Buddhism is often described as non-theistic, since Buddhist authorities and canonical texts do not affirm, and sometimes deny, the following:

• The existence of a creation, and therefore of a creator deity
  
• That a god (deva), gods, or other divine beings are the source of moral imperatives. Instead, the Dharma is an attribution of the universe
  
• That human beings or other creatures are responsible to a god or gods for their actions
  

Source: https://en.wikipedia...sm_and_religion

There is also Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, Humanistic Judaism, LaVeyan Satanism, Raelism ect. that you might want to look at for non-theistic religions.

Edited February 24, 2016 by EEHC

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Religion isn't the same as believing in God. I've seen a baby who could barely speak and absolutely unable to read yet, who also had unreligous parents and no religious environment at all say JESUS outloud after it was written on a whiteboard. I also knew a two year old who described in full detail remembering where she came from before being born and said she remembers heaven and God and she was very serious about this. I am not one who discredits children. I think a lot of time they know more than we do.

I find this an interesting aspect here. And who knows how is it children, in a clear precise nutshell, how some can recall, even what some would think of as 'past lives' and of the various religious terms, but there is also somethings, I feel, should be taken into account.

I do see everyone in different levels of learning and retaining observational experiences. The other day, a mom and dad, with their three year old, who I was waiting on cashiering, showed how their three year old read from various items around and said what he read. It blew my mind. I'm thinking that your example of the little one, probably read it off somewhere without anyone noticing. I think, in some cases, certain little ones probably picked it up from somewhere. I think they do that very well.

The concept of God is philosophical. Some religions have been built around interpretations of this concept, but that doesn't make it intrinsic to religion.

There are non-theistic religions as well.

I think that term is used loosely as an analogy. Edited February 24, 2016 by TheMustardLady

[psyche101]

We don't really know the exact origin of monotheism.

Exactly right, we do know at least how old it is from written word, but verbal myths would have to be developed for that to culminate into a supreme being, no doubt an evolution from animal worship.

All we know for sure is that it existed in antiquity, likely as an outgrowth of polytheistic beliefs. Of course, the belief in God is of philosophical and spiritual nature. It follows that ancient people would develop set of doctrines and teachings based on their interpretations. It can be argued (from a deistic perspective) that humanity no longer needs those religions with the advent of the scientific method and that arguments for God can be made purely from philosophical and scientific standpoints.

Exactly right, nice to be on the same page for a change.

But that isn't for me to say. If religion works for some people than so be it.

It is for you to say, we are developing this world in our generation, we steer the way out children will live on this planet. Imagine if we took the same attitude with slavery, eco systems or global warming. We would already have destroyed the earth to a point where we would all be facing extinction.

Religion gives some people a feelgood personal perspective. So did slavery. People suffer a great deal for relgion, it is selfish, and people do not have the right to allow others to suffer for a personal viewpoint. THings like 911 and Catholic sex scandals have made today's world one where relgion must become accountable for all it's actions.

Not in my view. The form of ID I tend to believe in doesn't exclude evolution (defined as 'change over time') and natural selection. I do accept the tree of life proposed by Darwin in his book On The Origin Of Species. Where I disagree is that natural selection and random mutations alone can explain the origin of life.

Creationists accept Darwin's tree of life, they just refuse to admit it and modify it, they cut it about half way up and say "the evolution part proposed by Darwin is a lie, Godidit". They are just hypocrites.

RNA is the key to understanding the origin of life, I feel we are much closer to that answer than you allow for, and ID is just redundant in that highly likely scenario. Everything evolved, planets as well as stars as well as life. Proto life is a transition from RNA to DNA and self replicating multiple celled organisms. In fact some even feel the conundrum is solved, they just need that final observation to complete the theory.

There are different schools of Buddhism which vary in their metaphysical views. Some are completely non-theistic.

Buddhism is often described as non-theistic, since Buddhist authorities and canonical texts do not affirm, and sometimes deny, the following:

• The existence of a creation, and therefore of a creator deity
  
• That a god (deva), gods, or other divine beings are the source of moral imperatives. Instead, the Dharma is an attribution of the universe
  
• That human beings or other creatures are responsible to a god or gods for their actions
  

Source: https://en.wikipedia...sm_and_religion

As I stated, The Buddha himself said that Deveas exist as God, that man reinterprets that which he hypocritically labels as holy only furthers what I am saying and further detracts from the overall concept as valid. Man pretends to respect God, but it strikes me that rewriting his word is anything but. Reformation of Christianity was just a soft approach to admitting the Bible is wrong and full of BS. All religions do this, worshipers claim to give themselves over completely, then challenge the word of their God (or guru). Hypocrites really. That God's word has to be rewritten by man shows that it is redundant.

There is also Jainism, Taoism, Confucianism, Humanistic Judaism, LaVeyan Satanism, Raelism ect. that you might want to look at for non-theistic religions.

Do not think you know all that much about the religions you copied and pasted there. Satan is a deity just as God is, I already covered Jainism, and Raelism is just a sex cult with very suspicious practises as they have broad ideals on what a sexual age of consent is, it is just a cult of perverts.

Many of those groups are not recognised as religions either, they are just cults that base their ideals from relgion, or religious rebellion. Rather childish and stupid really. Grown people playing make believe to annoy other people playing make believe by worshiping that which the people they are winding up see as evil

Edited February 24, 2016 by psyche101

[+Nuclear Wessel]

Thanks guys ... Walker is railing frantically against it of course .... but it rreally doesnt matter what he says ... as you all have him on ignore

Ha ha ha ha ha harrrr !

The man just can't stand being incorrect, I swear.

[Euphorbia]

The man just can't stand being incorrect, I swear.

Well, he does use Walkerpedia...

[+Sherapy]

The man just can't stand being incorrect, I swear.

Indeed, I'd agree with you and offer my opinion or what I think keeping in mind it really is meaningless and is to be taken with a grain of salt. For MW, being right at all costs is a core value to him. And, he has posted countless times his parents taught him it's better to be right then anything else. Even with a University education he holds to this value --for all its worth--he has not revised or updated this know-it-all attitude of an example he grew up under. I think he notices how often he is wrong, or out of the loop because he spends post after post trying to make it "not so," I don't see it as sad, but I can appreciate why you would as it is like watching someone chase their own tail or beating a dead horse. For me, it would be exhausting, a hell of my own making, I would be desperate, and obsessed and cling to any kind of Google article that promised stress relief. I have been reading him for years and he remains unchanged.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Sherapy

[back to earth]

Exactly right, we do know at least how old it is from written word, but verbal myths would have to be developed for that to culminate into a supreme being, no doubt an evolution from animal worship.

The pre-Zoroastrian ' Mazdayasni ' seem to be first recorded 'monotheists' ( seeing Zoroaster as a reformer of an earlier religion that became corrupted by .... ( * see below) . I read that this is believed to have originated from within Siberian Shamanism and into the Aryan tribes via the Eurasian Steppe and Kazakhstan ( and follows the development of 'domesticated horse cultures' ) , but no source or reference was given. .

Creationists accept Darwin's tree of life, they just refuse to admit it and modify it, they cut it about half way up and say "the evolution part proposed by Darwin is a lie, Godidit". They are just hypocrites.

Wallace and Broome made interesting presuppositions to the latter parts of the theory.

RNA is the key to understanding the origin of life, I feel we are much closer to that answer than you allow for, and ID is just redundant in that highly likely scenario. Everything evolved, planets as well as stars as well as life. Proto life is a transition from RNA to DNA and self replicating multiple celled organisms.

That is interesting ! RNA is not alive but DNA is ( forget the rest of life, as I do see DNA as being self replicating , hence alive. And 'life' is the missing link between the 2 ?

More info ? ( maybe a ref for me, so as not to divert the thread too much ? )

I n fact some even feel the conundrum is solved, they just need that final observation to complete the theory.

Ooooow ....... then they would not be scientists in my book. My least fav thing in science is this .... a type of scientism decalring they know how to make life or they know how life evolved (I have seen this written in pop science articles )

Bad science ! This one I call ; 'The case of the time travelling scientist.

It goes like this .

Life may have evolved in a primordial soup of nutrients in a warm ocean stimulated by chemical reactions and electric discharges from the atmosphere, Simple self replicating life began and developed through evolution to what we see today . They cite the 'flask experiment ' to show that science can replicate the process and produce enzymes that are 'the building blocks of life' . Now, admittedly we have not yet managed to turn those enzymes into 'life' , but we are confident that in the future, we will be able to do this. Once they have the first organism, then scientific experiments , observation and theory do seem to show they understand the rest of the process.

But doing an experiment or series of them, and leaving out the most crucial and important step, and saying the process is presently valid by filling the present gap, by drawing some scientists from the future that we speculate might be able to do it, and inserting him into the past (our present ) ...... errrrmm .... aint really science ..... is it ?

When they can do the experiment properly and successfully then science will have been able to understand and create life in the lab.

As I stated, The Buddha himself said that Deveas exist as God, that man reinterprets that which he hypocritically labels as holy only furthers what I am saying and further detracts from the overall concept as valid. Man pretends to respect God, but it strikes me that rewriting his word is anything but.

* Devas, originally where the 'baddies' , the Mazdayasni had wars with them ; monotheists Vs polytheists

Deva - Sanskrit, Daeva - Avestan, Div - Persian . Not the Gk. or Lt. Dios or Deus as the Avestan was usage was first , although the Sanskrit vedic meaning is the same 'Gods'. But a 'div' a 'bad spirit' ; devil, deviate, diverge. Of course, the Vedic Aryan polytheists made the Iranian Aryan monotheist Gods , eventually, demons themselves - although in the earliest vedas they (Asuras) are acknowledged as the 'Elder Gods ' ( which could have been before the first 'Great War of Religion' - see 'The Vendidad and The Shahnameh' )

Reformation of Christianity was just a soft approach to admitting the Bible is wrong and full of BS. All religions do this, worshipers claim to give themselves over completely, then challenge the word of their God (or guru). Hypocrites really. That God's word has to be rewritten by man shows that it is redundant.

Its a sticky wicket that one !

Do not think you know all that much about the religions you copied and pasted there. Satan is a deity just as God is, I already covered Jainism, and Raelism is just a sex cult with very suspicious practises as they have broad ideals on what a sexual age of consent is, it is just a cult of perverts.

yeah .... stupid dorks, they ..... wait ! ... a sex cult you say ?

Ohh ... they dont sound toooo bad

Many of those groups are not recognised as religions either, they are just cults that base their ideals from relgion, or religious rebellion. Rather childish and stupid really. Grown people playing make believe to annoy other people playing make believe by worshiping that which the people they are winding up see as evil

Well, obviously devas are deviates, asuras are demons not gods and 'you'r God is my devil ......

and on and on 'we' go

[back to earth]

The man just can't stand being incorrect, I swear.

Here is the standard joke we used about him (aside from the one about being another Basil Fawlty) ;

[+Sherapy]

Well, he does use Walkerpedia...

Walkerpedia, I love it!