The Oldest Atheist in the world

rccaulfield

eoin5 wrote: »

Sorry for going OT here but I've never heard anything like that. Where did you pick that up?

A dictionary. hypothesis is formed, prediction is then made, hypothesis is tested for years and years if needs be using the scientific method, if right its peer reviwed, published and tested by other scientists. Only after this level of scrutiny can the hypothesis be called a theory. Ah i'm not explaining it great - just watch the vid- http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/23/zcavPAFiG14

Weidii

See, the flaw is in the question. First of all, the concept of a deity has to exist before anyone can not believe in that concept. Also it's a mental thing, it's not like belief in God can be measured physically. See, asking "how old was the oldest atheist?" is like asking "how old was the first person who didn't like yoghurt?", neither can be determined until you know when people invented God/yoghurt.

pH

rccaulfield wrote: »

A dictionary. hypothesis is formed, prediction is then made, hypothesis is tested for years and years if needs be using the scientific method, if right its peer reviwed, published and tested by other scientists. Only after this level of scrutiny can the hypothesis be called a theory. Ah i'm not explaining it great - just watch the vid- http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/23/zcavPAFiG14

Right then, explain why the tentative (and completely untested) idea that the universe is made up of tiny multidimensional vibrating strings is called String theory.

Sam Vimes

Weidii wrote: »

See, the flaw is in the question. First of all, the concept of a deity has to exist before anyone can not believe in that concept. Also it's a mental thing, it's not like belief in God can be measured physically. See, asking "how old was the oldest atheist?" is like asking "how old was the first person who didn't like yoghurt?", neither can be determined until you know when people invented God/yoghurt.

But Stephentlig is approaching the question as someone who thinks that Adam and Eve literally existed as fully formed human beings who were beamed into the Garden of Eden. The question of when people invented god is meaningless to him

marco_polo

pH wrote: »

Right then, explain why the tentative (and completely untested) idea that the universe is made up of tiny multidimensional vibrating strings is called String theory.

In fairness the naming of String Theory remains highly controversial. It certainly doesn't appear to fit the criteria for a fully fledged scientific theory in many respects.

I think Richard Feynman couldn't have put it better than this

"String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses."

On a side note 'Trouble with Physics' is an excellent good book on the subject.

Galvasean

It really should be called String Hypothesis to be honest.

Turtwig

pH wrote: »

Right then, explain why the tentative (and completely untested) idea that the universe is made up of tiny multidimensional vibrating strings is called String theory.

It very debatable. Laurence Krauss pretty much views it as pseudo science. Other string theorists argue that it is a theory because it makes testable predictions that we just haven't the technology to test yet, but we will be able to test them. They also argue that current experiments like CERN and various Quantum related experiments will be able to test some aspects of String Theory. For example, CERN should be able to find multiple dimensions. If there's no fifth dimension then String Theory has got a lot problems.
As I know practically nothing about string theory, I can only speculate, but it seems most theorists are well aware of the present testing limitations of the theory.

Brian Greene talks about it testing it with LHC.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

it seems most theorists are well aware of the present testing limitations of the theory.

I think it's more likely that all string theorists are aware of the testability issues.

Basically, it's a mathematical framework which, at the scale of the very small, is compatible with quantum theory, while at the scale of the very large, is compatible with general relativity. I don't believe there's any other framework which can do this at the moment, hence, it's where the main work in fundamental physics is currently taking place.

I've suspect that physicists are bearing in mind Murray Gell-Mann's development of the Quark Model. Originally, his musings were quite similar to where ST is now -- just a mathematical curiosity which lacked physical testability. But, as time passed, it became clear that they were testable, and that, once tested, Gell-Mann turned out to be spot on.

For the moment, I believe it's the best description available. That may change as the mathematics is developed, and the degree of testability evolves.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

I think it's more likely that all string theorists are aware of the testability issues.

Nah, I'v learned from experience that there always tends to be at least one bolloxed up scientist that follows his own personal beliefs just that little bit too much. They also tend to be one that appears in media spotlight crying foul when the experiments goes against their beliefs.

pH

Crikey, I said string theory was tentative and untested, and you all jumped on and told me it was tentative and untested, what you didn't do is explain why it's called String theory.

Look guys, I know you're attached to the current meme we use to discount the creationist "It's just a theory" nonsense, but it's just a meme, you're making a fool of yourself by repeating it.

Science uses the word theory to cover the whole spectrum, from tentative idea to fully tested model. Claiming that science only uses the word theory for the best and most tested of them is plainly untrue.

For example, here's a page about alternatives to General Relativity, where you will find the word theory used liberally, and let's be clear here, many of them (including my original choice - string theory), would seem to be fairly described as "just a theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity

sink

pH wrote: »

Crikey, I said string theory was tentative and untested, and you all jumped on and told me it was tentative and untested, what you didn't do is explain why it's called String theory.

Look guys, I know you're attached to the current meme we use to discount the creationist "It's just a theory" nonsense, but it's just a meme, you're making a fool of yourself by repeating it.

Science uses the word theory to cover the whole spectrum, from tentative idea to fully tested model. Claiming that science only uses the word theory for the best and most tested of them is plainly untrue.

For example, here's a page about alternatives to General Relativity, where you will find the word theory used liberally, and let's be clear here, many of them (including my original choice - string theory), would seem to be fairly described as "just a theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity

It's a fair point, but it doesn't entirely refute the argument. In the context of evolution the word theory means something completely different to the creationists interpretation of it. The argument needs refinement not abandonment.

So instead of saying "in all science 'theory' definitively means X"; we should say "taken in the context of 'the theory of evolution', the word theory is taken to mean X". It's more contrived but it's more accurate.

pH

sink wrote: »

So instead of saying "in all science 'theory' definitively means X"; we should say "taken in the context of 'the theory of evolution', the word theory is taken to mean X". It's more contrived but it's more accurate.

Well yes and no. I was responding to this post:

A dictionary. hypothesis is formed, prediction is then made, hypothesis is tested for years and years if needs be using the scientific method, if right its peer reviwed, published and tested by other scientists. Only after this level of scrutiny can the hypothesis be called a theory. Ah i'm not explaining it great - just watch the vid- http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer...23/zcavPAFiG14

I'm saying that part in bold is incorrect. Yes I know we're arguing about words and definitions, evolution is, and doesn't matter what you call it, but stating that serious scientists only ever dare to use the word theory after years of rigorous testing is factually incorrect.

I mean if what was said above was true, Einstein wouldn't have dared use the word theory when he published his general relativity hypothesis would he? Here check for yourself!

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/Images/rel1916.jpg

rccaulfield

The fact that the word theory is misused to promote someones hypothesis changes nothing. For 99% of issues its plainly obvious what are theorys and what are hypothesis' or untested ideas. You can argue about tidbits but your just confusing the issue and any anti-evolutionists reading this will be copying and pasting your words!
I do agree that there should be a third state of theory- in between the word theory and hypothesis -that ideas that are on their way to becoming a scientific theory but are not completely untested ideas could dwell!

pinksoir

robindch wrote: »

That's the Pirahã Indians of the Amazon you're thinking of.

Documented in enjoyable detail in this book.

Sorry to go back to this, but it got me thinking...

Doesn't this sort of negate the 'hard-wired to believe' theory? Agency in nature and all that. Or can cultural memes explain belief better? In the case of the Pirahã Indians a cultural meme of non belief? Are there any other examples of atheistic tribes?

er... eh...

Pax Christi.

Turtwig

pinksoir wrote: »

Sorry to go back to this, but it got me thinking...

Doesn't this sort of negate the 'hard-wired to believe' theory? Agency in nature and all that. Or can cultural memes explain belief better? In the case of the Pirahã Indians a cultural meme of non belief? Are there any other examples of atheistic tribes?

er... eh...

Pax Christi.

They still believe in spirits and supernatural agents. We're hardwired to be superstitious and believe in the supernatural. It doesn't necessarily mean we're hardwired to believe in a God.:)

pH

rccaulfield wrote: »

The fact that the word theory is misused to promote someones hypothesis changes nothing. For 99% of issues its plainly obvious what are theorys and what are hypothesis' or untested ideas. You can argue about tidbits but your just confusing the issue and any anti-evolutionists reading this will be copying and pasting your words!

I think you probably have that the other way round, I'd say in science the majority of times the word theory is used it refers to something hypothetical (or even complete disproved - for example have a look at Lorentz ether theory )

I don't think that the best way to combat creationist lies and dishonesties is to become liars or dishonest ourselves (you may disagree I guess) -I'm just saying that your original statement that nothing in science is a theory until after years of testing is plainly wrong, if you don't want to admit that then fair enough.

chozometroid

Stephentlig wrote: »

but whether or not I beleive in their view, it does not make me atheistic as I believe there is a God.

If it is possible for things to exist without any evidence of that existence, then our theories are just assumptions and no more real than an episode of the wildest fairytale going.

I remember being in the car with my father and I asked him, ''dad, isnt a theorie though the best explanation of something we have no evidence for? and arent scientists more clever than we are?'' he replied ''Son, you can be intelligently stupid''.

however I'm afraid I'm gonna have to conclude this conversation as I'm on the hunt for evidence of the oldest atheist, not the worlds longest debate. My study is aimed at proving how atheism was invented and ( you'll have to be Christian to believe this one) is a result of original sin.

Thank you
Pax Christi.

Stephen.

Regardless of how old the world is, as a religious person, you would have to believe Satan started "atheism." As soon as there were people to convince that there is no God, Satan got to work. He would attack the pride of man, using the sin he first developed in heaven. Lucifer didn't want a God.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Regardless of how old the world is, as a religious person, you would have to believe Satan started "atheism." As soon as there were people to convince that there is no God, Satan got to work. He would attack the pride of man, using the sin he first developed in heaven. Lucifer didn't want a God.

Never quite got this argument

It is hard to think of anything more prideful (real word?) or egotistical than the stuff most religions teach.

Atheists tend to think there is nothing significantly special about themselves. We are just a species of animal, a life form that evolved on Earth like billions of other ones due to an interesting but ultimately purposeless process of Darwinian evolution.

Christians on the other hand think they are made in the image of a god and that this makes sense to them. You got to admit there is a bit of pride going on there, this idea that we are inherently special and important and chosen by God for a particular purpose.

This feeds into the need some people have to feel like they matter, that they are important in the grand scheme of things.

Galvasean

I think the atheistic pride argument comes from the idea that atheists see themselves as their own masters as opposed to servants of a higher being.
Of course I still agree with Wicknight, in that it seems pretty prideful to consider yourself a disciple of the one true faith.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Never quite got this argument

It is hard to think of anything more prideful (real word?) or egotistical than the stuff most religions teach.

Atheists tend to think there is nothing significantly special about themselves. We are just a species of animal, a life form that evolved on Earth like billions of other ones due to an interesting but ultimately purposeless process of Darwinian evolution.

Christians on the other hand think they are made in the image of a god and that this makes sense to them. You got to admit there is a bit of pride going on there, this idea that we are inherently special and important and chosen by God for a particular purpose.

This feeds into the need some people have to feel like they matter, that they are important in the grand scheme of things.

The "pride" thing should not be so offensive. I'm not saying atheists are arrogant jerks. I'm saying Satan is using pride as a weakness. It's easy to use someone's pride as means of getting them to reject authority or reject the idea of being submissive. Satan wanted to be at the same level as God, which is no different than saying he wanted to be his own master.

Being created in God's image is not an egotistical claim. It's a claim of origins, and one of great importance. It's a reason to take life seriously and realize we have great responsibility. Realizing we have God as our authority and He has expectations for us, along with the fact that we are powerless to overcome the weaknesses of our natural sinful state, puts us in a position where we must trust Him and submit ourselves to Him.

We want to live up to our calling. As for thinking we have the "one true faith," I must say, how else should we live? We have a belief and if it's one we think is true enough to dedicate our lives to, we must believe it's "true," even if by saying so, we are declaring all others "false." We can't walk around saying, "I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, but you might be right, too." Fully trusting in God will not allow us to be so "wavering" in our faith.

Atheists like to say that our desire to think our life is important is why we embrace religion. This doesn't mean a whole lot if you consider the possibility that our lives actually do mean something. Of course we should like the idea that our lives are important. If you consider the possibility that our beliefs are true, then you should expect us to have great joy in the fact that our lives have importance and meaning. The fact that some people have a "need to feel like they matter" doesn't say anything about how true our beliefs are.

goose2005

6th century BC is the emergence of many coherent atheist systems: Carvaka, Buddhism, Jainism

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I'm sure there is, this is just the first thing I thought of :pac:

I've heard there was an isolated tribe that never had any sort of religion or belief in the afterlife, I'll see if I can find anything.

The Piraha, although only one guy has properly studied them.

Stephentlig wrote: »

Supposing that evoltution was true ( which I dont believe it is ) wouldnt there be evidence that they were atheists? rather than us just presupposing and assuming they were atheists?

so basically I'm asking for evidence for the first atheistic human being, not theorys or might bes.

thank you for your help weidii.

Your idea of religion and god would be very different to Stone Age people's. For them, "science", "medicine", "sexuality", "drugs", "magic" and "religion" would be blended in many ways, and it would be difficult to tell what "belief" was, or the difference between gods, evil spirits, ancestor spirits etc.

I remember being in the car with my father and I asked him, ''dad, isnt a theorie though the best explanation of something we have no evidence for? and arent scientists more clever than we are?'' he replied ''Son, you can be intelligently stupid''.

Them thar sine-tists with thar fancy book-larnin'...

pinksoir

Malty_T wrote: »

They still believe in spirits and supernatural agents. We're hardwired to be superstitious and believe in the supernatural. It doesn't necessarily mean we're hardwired to believe in a God.:)

Aha. Forest spirits and so on... got it.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

The "pride" thing should not be so offensive. I'm not saying atheists are arrogant jerks. I'm saying Satan is using pride as a weakness.

Its not offensive, it is just odd.

It is like an atheist saying "I can't believe in God, I see humans as wretched flawed things and I can't believe a creator would have made us, I'm so ashamed to be human" for a Christian to turn around and say "Ah yes, the pride of man" :P

chozometroid wrote: »

It's easy to use someone's pride as means of getting them to reject authority or reject the idea of being submissive.

But that has never been an argument for atheism. It requires belief in God to reject him as an authority, and most atheist don't reject authority they just reject authority from beings they don't believe exist.

It would be some what odd to blame "pride" for why you don't follow the word of Zeus, I'm not sure why you would blame pride for why I don't follow the word of Yahweh

chozometroid wrote: »

Being created in God's image is not an egotistical claim. It's a claim of origins, and one of great importance.

A claim of origins that makes mankind special and important, with a particular god given purpose and position as favourite creation . Thus it is quite egotistical.

It is odd that there are very few religions in the world that place dolphins as the important species on Earth, and we are just there to serve them.

All human religions place humans at the center of Earthly animals because all human religions are egotistic and are trying to explain why humans are vastly more important to their gods than an ant or a swallow.

chozometroid wrote: »

It's a reason to take life seriously and realize we have great responsibility.

Because we are very very important.

Everyone likes feeling like they have a much more important role in life than they actually do.

Taken to an extreme it is the reason people believe in conspiracy theories ("I know the truth!!") or think the CIA is poisoning their corn flakes.

The reality, at least from an atheists point of view, is that you ain't that important, we ain't that important, to the grand scheme of things.

Of course people don't like thinking like that, so they gravitate towards religions or philosophies that teach the opposite.

chozometroid wrote: »

Atheists like to say that our desire to think our life is important is why we embrace religion. This doesn't mean a whole lot if you consider the possibility that our lives actually do mean something.

As it doesn't mean a lot if the CIA are actually trying to poison your corn flakes. But they probably aren't.

It doesn't stop people wanting to believe they are important, or more important than they actually are.

The point doesn't really hinge on if your religion is true or not. Either way you still really really want it to be true so you can feel like you have more importance and significance in the vast universe than you would if it wasn't true.

And thus it is hard to escape the conclusion that it is about ego and the human desire to feel significant.

Again there are very few human religions that teach that humans aren't actually significant or important. Given that they can't all be true there is obviously a strong human desire to feel like we are.

It reminds me of Star Trek IV when the alien probe comes to Earth and tries to communicate but no one at Star Fleet can understand it.

It takes Spock to point out that perhaps the message was not actually meant for humans, but for another species on Earth. Humans just don't think like that. We are a very egotistical species and we tend to always think what is happening is happening for us.

chozometroid wrote: »

The fact that some people have a "need to feel like they matter" doesn't say anything about how true our beliefs are.

Of course not, you might be feeling important because you actually are important. I don't think so, but heck what do I know, I'm a smelly atheist :P

But it makes it quite odd that you would see atheists are succumbing to pride by rejecting this idea that we are very important and significant in the grand scheme of things.

strobe

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm saying Satan is using pride as a weakness.

Man I'm getting mightily p1ssed of with all your Satan bashing. What did the poor chap ever do to anyone? He tried to over throw God? Well look at all the evil sh1t that guy got up to in the following years. Who would have known God better than Lucifer, his right hand man? He knew what he was really like. Plus one third of all the angels in heaven took Lucifers side, despite the severe risks involved in trying to over throw that particular dictator. One third, thats enough for a vote of no confidence in any democratic government in the world.

Then what, he let Eve discover the difference between right and wrong? And?? God was trying to keep them in the dark, Satan showed them how to gain knowledge they didn't have.

So nowadays God turns away anyone that, in a huge percentage of the cases through no fault of thier own, doesn't follow his rules to the letter. And when the souls of these innocent men, women and children have nowhere else to go after being turned away from the gates of heaven, Satan takes in every last one of them, regardless of race, religion, sexuality, or anything else, the good and the bad, the rich and the poor.

So next time you start trying to take cheap shots at the Dragon, Lord of the underworld, perhaps temper your comments with the acknowlegement that the Devil has been the number one humanitarian of all time, mankinds staunchest supporter.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

But that has never been an argument for atheism. It requires belief in God to reject him as an authority, and most atheist don't reject authority they just reject authority from beings they don't believe exist.

It would be some what odd to blame "pride" for why you don't follow the word of Zeus, I'm not sure why you would blame pride for why I don't follow the word of Yahweh
...

But it makes it quite odd that you would see atheists are succumbing to pride by rejecting this idea that we are very important and significant in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not trying to argue that atheists have their position as a result of pride. I was originally making a point about Satan's origins and the fact that he would be the source of the first and oldest atheist (assuming Christianity to be true). Of course modern atheists have much more complex reasons for denying God than pride, and are possibily in denial that there is any connection there.

Sam Vimes

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm not trying to argue that atheists have their position as a result of pride. I was originally making a point about Satan's origins and the fact that he would be the source of the first and oldest atheist (assuming Christianity to be true). Of course modern atheists have much more complex reasons for denying God than pride, and are possibily in denial that there is any connection there.

Do you think our reasons for rejecting your god are different to our reasons for rejecting Zeus? I presume you think we have good reasons for rejecting the thousands of gods that you also reject but bad reasons for rejecting yours?

chozometroid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you think our reasons for rejecting your god are different to our reasons for rejecting Zeus? I presume you think we have good reasons for rejecting the thousands of gods that you also reject but bad reasons for rejecting yours?

I'm sure in general, the reasons are the same, which allows you to reject the idea of the supernatural or "deities" as a whole.
But more specifically, when considering claims related to Jesus Christ or Zeus, the reasons are probably not the same. Not all pagan gods have as much going for them as Maitreya even (whom I believe is just another false Christ of Satan).
My God is not made by the hands of men, and not represented by idols or entities such as the sun.

To me, gods such as Zeus, Odin, Ra, or Thor have obvious origins in mythology and no basis in history or personal revelation. If someone has something to support these gods, I'll look into it.

iUseVi

chozometroid wrote: »

To me, gods such as Zeus, Odin, Ra, or Thor have obvious origins in mythology and no basis in history or personal revelation. If someone has something to support these gods, I'll look into it.

Oh the irony. This is what many of us feel about the judeo-christian god, don't you get that yet? It's not some satanic conspiracy ffs, we just think the evidence is not at all convincing.

chozometroid

iUseVi wrote: »

Oh the irony. This is what many of us feel about the judeo-christian god, don't you get that yet? It's not some satanic conspiracy ffs, we just think the evidence is not at all convincing.

Yeah, I "get that," but if you think Norse mythology is as equally compelling as Christianity, then that's quite revealing too.

I think the OP is gone but in the terms of his clarification:

I reckon the first atheist was Cain whose sacrifice to god was rejected in favour of Abel's and who didn't give him anyone other than his mother or possibly sisters to sleep with.

chozometroid

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the OP is gone but in the terms of his clarification:

I reckon the first atheist was Cain whose sacrifice to god was rejected in favour of Abel's and who didn't give him anyone other than his mother or possibly sisters to sleep with.

Riiiight, Cain didn't believe in the God that convicted him of murdering his brother and put a mark on him to prevent anyone from killing him.

iUseVi

chozometroid wrote: »

Yeah, I "get that," but if you think Norse mythology is as equally compelling as Christianity, then that's quite revealing too.

I never said they were equally compelling, but they both fall short of having any actual proof. If you really did get this you would not be harping on about satan.

Daftendirekt

chozometroid wrote: »

To me, gods such as Zeus, Odin, Ra, or Thor have obvious origins in mythology and no basis in history or personal revelation. If someone has something to support these gods, I'll look into it.

But do you not think that the existence of Zeus and co might have seemed equally likely to people back in the day as the Christian god does to you? And that people might have talked about even more ancient deities in the way that we now talk about the Norse pantheon?

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Yeah, I "get that," but if you think Norse mythology is as equally compelling as Christianity, then that's quite revealing too.

How compelling a religion is largely depends on the person though, doesn't it.

Some people find Christianity compelling and become Christians. Some find Islam compelling. Some find Norse religion compelling. Some Scientology.

Doesn't really have anything to do with how true or not a religion is, or how ridiculous the religion seems to non-followers, just how many boxes it ticks for a particular person.

There really is no difference between you embracing Jesus because the story "makes sense" to you over someone embracing Odin because that makes sense to him (I actually know someone who follows Norse religion).

You may not like it but to an atheist like myself the stories in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, sound as ridiculous and made up as the stories in Greek mythology or Norse mythology. What is the difference between Pandora being the first woman or the first woman being the rib of Adam.

Of course everyone thinks their religion is the sensible one. :P

JuliusCaesar

Malty_T wrote: »

They still believe in spirits and supernatural agents. We're hardwired to be superstitious and believe in the supernatural. It doesn't necessarily mean we're hardwired to believe in a God.:)

Actually, we are not hard-wired to be superstitious or to believe in the supernatural. We have cognitive biases (shortcuts in thinking). These are evolutionarily determined to provide us with quick responses - and also explain the popularity of taboids and Joe Duffy contributers (my own bias) because thinking is hard. Thinking requires effort. Thinking is not for the lazy.

here(for those too lazy to follow the link) are a few:
Bandwagon effect – the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink, herd behaviour, and manias. Carl Jung pioneered the idea of the collective unconscious which is considered by Jungian psychologists to be responsible for this cognitive bias.
Confirmation bias – the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.
Disconfirmation bias – the tendency for people to extend critical scrutiny to information which contradicts their prior beliefs and uncritically accept information that is congruent with their prior beliefs.

anyone who is interested could also google information about ingroups and outgroups. I'm too lazy!

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

How compelling a religion is largely depends on the person though, doesn't it.

Some people find Christianity compelling and become Christians. Some find Islam compelling. Some find Norse religion compelling. Some Scientology.

Doesn't really have anything to do with how true or not a religion is, or how ridiculous the religion seems to non-followers, just how many boxes it ticks for a particular person.

There really is no difference between you embracing Jesus because the story "makes sense" to you over someone embracing Odin because that makes sense to him (I actually know someone who follows Norse religion).

You may not like it but to an atheist like myself the stories in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, sound as ridiculous and made up as the stories in Greek mythology or Norse mythology. What is the difference between Pandora being the first woman or the first woman being the rib of Adam.

Of course everyone thinks their religion is the sensible one. :P

Everything does come down to the individual, sure.

Zombrex

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Actually, we are not hard-wired to be superstitious or to believe in the supernatural. We have cognitive biases (shortcuts in thinking).

Well it is a bit more complicated than that

Studies have shown that people invent agents in nature that act in a benevolent way towards us, and are more prone to do this in times of stress or feelings of loss of control.

This would explain, to my mind at least, why so many people seem to embrace religion in times of "rock bottom".

The evolutionary reasons for this are that we find it easier to organise data about the world in terms of human like interactions.

JuliusCaesar

Studies? which?

28064212

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm sure in general, the reasons are the same, which allows you to reject the idea of the supernatural or "deities" as a whole.
But more specifically, when considering claims related to Jesus Christ or Zeus, the reasons are probably not the same. Not all pagan gods have as much going for them as Maitreya even (whom I believe is just another false Christ of Satan).
My God is not made by the hands of men, and not represented by idols or entities such as the sun.

To me, gods such as Zeus, Odin, Ra, or Thor have obvious origins in mythology and no basis in history or personal revelation. If someone has something to support these gods, I'll look into it.

Ummm... what? Do you have any reason to believe the bible over Greek mythology? The likes of (to take Zeus as an example) Zeus had pretty much the exact same things going for them at the height of their 'power' as the biblical Jesus, perhaps even moreso. Can you give a reason why Christian mythology is more compelling than Norse mythology?

Galvasean

28064212 wrote: »

Can you give a reason why Christian mythology is more compelling than Norse mythology?

Answer: Because I was raised in a Christian society.

Zombrex

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Studies? which?

There was a big feature about this in New Scientist last year, I'll see if I can dig up the references

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

There was a big feature about this in New Scientist last year, I'll see if I can dig up the references

This one?

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

This one?

Nope, that one was from 3 weeks ago

But it probably references some of the same material.

Turtwig

Wicknight wrote: »

Nope, that one was from 3 weeks ago

But it probably references some of the same material.

This one?(God confirms what people already believe.)
Or this one? (Praying to God is the same as talking to a friend.)
Or this one? (Religion needs both shocking images and repeatable rituals to prosper.)

Wicky tell me what exactly you are looking for and I'll find it for you.

chozometroid

28064212 wrote: »

Ummm... what? Do you have any reason to believe the bible over Greek mythology? The likes of (to take Zeus as an example) Zeus had pretty much the exact same things going for them at the height of their 'power' as the biblical Jesus, perhaps even moreso. Can you give a reason why Christian mythology is more compelling than Norse mythology?

THIS:

According to Norse myth, the beginning of life was fire and ice, with the existence of only two worlds: Muspelheim and Niflheim. When the warm air of Muspelheim hit the cold ice of Niflheim, the jötunn Ymir and the icy cow Audhumla were created. Ymir's foot bred a son and a man and a woman emerged from his armpits, making Ymir the progenitor of the Jötnar. Whilst Ymir slept, the intense heat from Muspelheim made him sweat, and he sweated out SurtrI][URL="http://boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#002bb8]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I, a jötunn of fire. Later Ymir woke and drank Audhumbla's milk. Whilst he drank, the cow Audhumbla licked on a salt stone. On the first day after this a man's hair appeared on the stone, on the second day a head and on the third day an entire man emerged from the stone. His name was Búri and with an unknown jötunn female he fathered Borr(Bor), the father of the three gods Odin, Vili and Ve.

No one seems to think these 9 worlds or this cow licking salt are metaphorical. At least the God of Creation created the universe through His own power and through a believable sequential process. I don't think they are really that similar.
I don't expect you to support the "believability" of Christianity, though, so no use beating that dead horse.

doctoremma

chozometroid wrote: »

THIS:

According to Norse myth, the beginning of life was fire and ice, with the existence of only two worlds: Muspelheim and Niflheim. When the warm air of Muspelheim hit the cold ice of Niflheim, the jötunn Ymir and the icy cow Audhumla were created. Ymir's foot bred a son and a man and a woman emerged from his armpits, making Ymir the progenitor of the Jötnar. Whilst Ymir slept, the intense heat from Muspelheim made him sweat, and he sweated out SurtrI][URL="http://boards.ie/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][COLOR=#002bb8]citation needed[/COLOR][/URL][/I, a jötunn of fire. Later Ymir woke and drank Audhumbla's milk. Whilst he drank, the cow Audhumbla licked on a salt stone. On the first day after this a man's hair appeared on the stone, on the second day a head and on the third day an entire man emerged from the stone. His name was Búri and with an unknown jötunn female he fathered Borr(Bor), the father of the three gods Odin, Vili and Ve.

Please, if you can, read through the Genesis version of creation with as skeptical an eye. You think a woman was made out of a man's rib but discount the idea that a child was made from a foot or an armpit.You appear to be suggesting that of two impossible stories, this is more impossible. For me, impossibility is a threshold and once you're past it, it doesn't really matter how far past it you are.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

At least the God of Creation created the universe through His own power and through a believable sequential process. I don't think they are really that similar.

Depends on how you define "believable sequential process" I guess

I find it very hard to understand how you would read one magical story about god(s) and creation as any more believable than any other one.

Do you accept that Genesis, from Creation to the Flood to the Tower of Babel, didn't actually happen?

chozometroid

I expected these responses which is why I said I wasn't going to beat a dead horse. I'm not going along with your game. Thanks for letting me know how you view them comparatively, though. Enlightening, indeed!

iUseVi

chozometroid wrote: »

I expected these responses which is why I said I wasn't going to beat a dead horse. I'm not going along with your game. Thanks for letting me know how you view them comparatively, though. Enlightening, indeed!

What "game", there is no "game" tbh. These are actual real live people's actual views. You can't answer how making a woman out of a rib is any different from the Norse stories, so you are running away.

chozometroid

iUseVi wrote: »

What "game", there is no "game" tbh. These are actual real live people's actual views. You can't answer how making a woman out of a rib is any different from the Norse stories, so you are running away.

I'll play your little game, tbh. :pac:

God created Adam with His own hands. This is a direct act of a Creator God and created being. It is then said that God formed Eve from Adam's rib. Whether this is literal or metaphorical doesn't really matter, because God is there performing an act of creation. The significance of the rib is spiritual. Adam and Eve were to be "one flesh" physically and spiritually, as man and wife. The rib is at the middle of the body, signifying the role Eve had as Adam's equal "helpmate." It also relates to the idea that we are all part of the body of Christ.

Ymir's foot, armpit, and sweat making other gods whilst sucking a cow gods's milk whilst the cow god licked salt which made some more gods is a little bit different.

But hey, to each his own. I will run away now, but only for the exercise.