@ Koldaramor, Rhythm

(November 14, 2011 at 6:33 am)Koldaramor Wrote: Hi sir

What do you think about Pharaoh Akhenaten (Akheneton) ? Can you think of Abraham the prophet Akhenaten?

IMO was the ancient Egyptian and Sumerian polytheist. The idea of one God emerged with the Pharaoh Akhenaten. With the figure of Moses, the Jewish faith has occurred. Canaan destroyed by the Babylonian, and Assyrians, Jews settled in monotheistic belief.

The Arabs took the Jewish faith, mixed with pagan and Sumerian myths. Created and Islam.
What do you think?

Hi to you too sir,

I think that monotheism sprang from the unification of the gods Amen and Ra as the German Egyptologist Jan Assmann believes. His opinion is quoted below.

In order to show that the idea of the one and only god emerged into the environment of the Egyptian priesthood, some striking passages (as they are called by W. Budge) from the Egyptian texts –collected by the German Egyptologist Heinrich Brugsch- will be cited.

God is one and alone, and none other existeth with Him.
God is the One, the One who made all things.
God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the spirit of spirits, the great spirit of the Egyptians, the divine spirit.
He begetteth, but was never begotten; He produceth, but was never produced;
He begat himself and produced himself.
He createth but was never created; He is the maker of his own form, and the
Fashioner of His own body.

This is only a small sample. It is to be noted, however, that these attributes belonged to the head god of each company of gods.

Assmann writes as follows:

The Theban theology of these decades (18th dynasty, 1570-1293) can be interpreted as an attempt to fill the hyphenated formulation Amun-Re with theological content, that is, to develop a divine concept sufficiently comprehensive to include all the traditions concerning Amun and all those of Re as well. The pure Amun aspect of the city god and the pure Re aspect of the of the sun god are connected by the concept of the supreme being who had already emerged in the theological fragments of the Middle Kingdom (c. 2000-1800) in his aspects of primeval god, creator god, and god of life.
I call this process “additive,” for I have the impression that this new concept of a supreme being was arrived at primarily by accumulation and juxtaposition. All aspects of divine unity –preexistence, creator, sustainer- were combined and connected with one another by means of simple but well ordered juxtapositions of sequences of predicates of Amun and Re.

An indication that Amen-Ra was the first “One and Only God” is the fact that Jews, Christians and Muslims use to close their prayers by invoking his name: “Amen”

As regards Akhenaten, I think he was a clever atheist who fought the clergy.
An atheist ruler cannot reveal his atheism. He preaches the new “true” god!

Vaal and Marduk before him had said that the gods they had killed had time enough to recognized them (Vaal and Marduk) as their superiors!!

Jew people may had never been to Egypt, but their scholars were taught in Egypt as is the case with the Greek philosophers (Akhenaton is an historical figure while Abraham is a mythical one).

(November 14, 2011 at 12:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's a bit more than the names that are different, unless you're very focused on ignoring large swaths of material which disagree with your point; in order to find the lines that agree.

You seem to forget that I am interested only in the original idea. Once people are informed of the existence of god they commence adapting his image to their taste.

As regards the material I ignore, could you name one that is at least 2,000 years old?

Yes, but herein you're assuming that all mytholgies have some "original idea" that connects them, with very little evidence that this is the case. Again, you're referring to similarities between judaism, christianity, greek and egyptian traditions. Three of these border one and other (or are in fact portions of each other) and the fourth's influence (and being influenced by) the first three is very well understood. These are not "all" of the worlds mythologies, they are not representative of the rest of the worlds mythologies, and they cannot speak authoritatively for the entirety of the worlds mythologies as presented. I know, I know, it's terrible to imagine that more than one thing may have been going on with the strange stories our ancestors told. It would be much simpler if there were a smoking gun. There just isn't. The next time a theist reared their ugly head I could yell "Shut up neanderthal apologist!". "Stop practicing godless egyptian magic Tom Cruise!" It would make me sick to my stomach to do so.

(March 9, 2010 at 12:15 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Without further ado, here’s the evidence: Humans are the only species, out of millions of species, which have evolved into an intelligent life form. Other species live pretty much to eat and sleep -- survival. If our evolution were only a result of natural selection, shouldn’t other species, or even just one, have evolved into intelligent beings after millions of years? But the fact is that no other species have been able to develop science, literature, art, music and intelligent thought process as humans have. Isn’t this evidence that God exists?

Yes it is, and for several reasons. For one thing it corroborates what’s written in the bible, which is that God created man in his image, and that animals are inferior. But to truly understand why my evidence points towards a deity one needs to be able to appreciate the grandness of this gift that is human intelligence. And you have to ask yourself, why are we the only species, out of millions, that have achieved this type of intelligence? Evolution is about natural selection, but shouldn’t at least one other species, out of millions, have benefited from intelligence? I think so. And there would be a myriad of other intelligent species if there were no God. If you can appreciate the grandness and uniqueness of human intelligence, then you’ll understand why only humans were given this gift, and you'll know why what I've outlined here points to a God.

It's important to remember that evolution is not a fundamentally progressive process even if sometimes it appears to be that way, and more importantly evolution cannot work towards a pre-determined goal. It's unlikely that if we were to reset the clock and run evolution that things would turn out the same again, especially given the huge number of events which had to happen just-so in order for the human species in it's current form to evolve. None of this means that God is required to ensure things turned out just-so since depending on ones perspective many possible combinations of events can be considered as being just-so if the outcome is perceived as being favourable. I reasonable understanding of evolution and the role which contingency plays in it is required to fully appreciate this idea.

There is also the fundamental problem that you are judging organsism purely from a human perspective. Humans may be capable of things which other organisms aren't capable of but when judged against other criteria humans are easily found to be woefully lacking. Other organisms are only inferior if you choose to judgement them in a manner which is predisposed to find them as such, and vice versa.

In regard to the Bible it only corroborates your perception of the world which is not entirely unexpected given that it likely played a formative role in said perception.

(March 9, 2010 at 12:15 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Without further ado, here’s the evidence: Humans are the only species, out of millions of species, which have evolved into an intelligent life form.

And there is no possibility that the dominant intelligence killed off any potential competition? As for the "millions" of species, there is a certain brain size necessary which brings that "millions" down to thousands, maybe hundreds, maybe less.

@ Rhythm, IATIA

(November 14, 2011 at 3:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, but herein you're assuming that all mytholgies have some "original idea" that connects them, with very little evidence that this is the case.

It is either the “original idea” or God having planted into our brains the god-detecting-spot, which is a very theistic approach to the problem of the origin of religion.

(November 14, 2011 at 3:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: These are not "all" of the worlds mythologies, they are not representative of the rest of the worlds mythologies, and they cannot speak authoritatively for the entirety of the worlds mythologies as presented.

For me it will suffice if you accept as correct my theory based on only these four traditions.
They are the basic ones because they are the ones with the earliest recorded oral traditions.
The Bible says that the sons of the God married the daughters of men and according to Japanese tradition the male heavenly Kami made love with the female earthly Kami. What is the difference?

(November 15, 2011 at 2:05 am)IATIA Wrote: And there is no possibility that the dominant intelligence killed off any potential competition?

Since the time of the Australopithecines there were always more than three types (or races) of the hominid or the human of the given time.
When Homo sapiens sapiens emerged, living were still the Neanderthals, the Early Modern Homo sapiens, the lately recognized Denisovans and most probably some other races in the Far East.

You can dispense with the “possibility,” there is ample evidence for “certainty.”
And, of course, any other kind of intelligence –not in human form- would have been easier to exterminate.

I don't think you've accurately represented the field of plausible explanations with only these two options.

I would readily agree that the traditions that sprung up in and around the fertile crescent are littered with similarity. I invoke a simpler and more well demonstrated explanation for those similarities (contact and cultural transfer).

Fun. The flood narrative could easily be explained as neanderthals stealing women before a warming period in which home sapiens sapiens were the winner. The problem in doing so is that it would require that you bend not only the myth but our knowledge of prehistory, all of this when simpler explanations are offered.

(My entire family is filled with red heads, does that mean I can claim neanderthals as my ancestor definitively? In that case, I resent the hateful view of my entire ancestral race as a bunch of rapists! Like they would have mated with your disgusting homo sapien sapien women. The notion is absurd sir, absurd! Perhaps if your ancestors were larger, and more manly, you wouldn't have to wonder where your women went when they snuck off?)

(November 15, 2011 at 9:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: I don't think you've accurately represented the field of plausible explanations with only these two options.

What is the third one?

(November 15, 2011 at 9:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: I would readily agree that the traditions that sprung up in and around the fertile crescent are littered with similarity. I invoke a simpler and more well demonstrated explanation for those similarities (contact and cultural transfer).

What about Far East and the Americas?

(November 15, 2011 at 9:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: Fun. The flood narrative could easily be explained as neanderthals stealing women before a warming period in which home sapiens sapiens were the winner. The problem in doing so is that it would require that you bend not only the myth but our knowledge of prehistory, all of this when simpler explanations are offered.

Fun. Neanderthals were exterminated 20k years before the sea level even begun to rise.

(November 15, 2011 at 9:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: (My entire family is filled with red heads, does that mean I can claim neanderthals as my ancestor definitively?

We have the same problem because when spread the palm of my hand measures 27.7 cm.
But you have it all wrong. The flow of Neanderthal genes went one way: From Neanderthals to moderns and not vice versa. Evidence that the mating was forced. Who forced it? Who was the rapist? The victor Hss, of course, not Neanderthal the underdog.

The main reason I don't believe in god or an 'infinite being' is because of the vast number of religions and gods. Think when we die, all the gods are just chilling together in heaven? The buddah's having a few pints with ganesh and anubis. "God" isn't really a name for a god anyway, it's just saying what it is. The vikings made up gods for all of the natural occurring events. Thor was the god of thunder and they also believed a wolf god took away the sun (which we now know as being a solar eclipse) and in order to scare the 'wolf' away, all the vikings could do was roar! And sure enough, the sun returned...

(January 12, 2012 at 6:08 pm)Braveheart Wrote: The main reason I don't believe in god or an 'infinite being' is because of the vast number of religions and gods. Think when we die, all the gods are just chilling together in heaven? The buddah's having a few pints with ganesh and anubis. "God" isn't really a name for a god anyway, it's just saying what it is. The vikings made up gods for all of the natural occurring events. Thor was the god of thunder and they also believed a wolf god took away the sun (which we now know as being a solar eclipse) and in order to scare the 'wolf' away, all the vikings could do was roar! And sure enough, the sun returned...

Buddha isn't god. He's an enlightened human. Just saying.

My bad haha! I seem to have misspelled his name too lol.