It was a clear night in 6022 BC. Two ancient humans were pondering the starry sky...

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: ...and religion was born.

One caveman sayeth to the other, "Look up there! Those bright sky lights looketh like the shapeth of a warrior." The other caveman sayeth, "Yeth, and he talketh to a lowly woman, and the lowly woman trieth to give the man something to eateth."

"Oh, I see wickedness amongeth them," sayeth the first man."

"And, I see a serpent slithereth amongeth them," sayeth his friend. We shall calleth them "Adam" and "Eve." The lowly woman will shareth her nameth with the serpent, and she and the serpent shall be called "HWWH" for all the days of their lifeth, and the lowly womaneth shall suffereth all the days of her lifeth until the latter days when she will be emancipated from the rib of her husbandeth.

...and holy books were written by men, for men, and of men, and they were believed to be true, historical accounts throughout the ages, and women were made subservient to men for all times. This is what was written. This is what was preached. This is what was believed to be true.

...and religions sprungeth upeth across the Eartheth.

In latter days, men retranslated the stars. Many gods became one god, and monotheism was born. The Sun was the one true monotheistic god. Then for convenience sake, the Sun had a son who was called the Sun of God. The Solstices formed a cross North to South, East to West across the sun, the centereth of the universeth, and the sun-son died on that cross to rise again in three days to conquereth deatheth. And that story was retold throughout the ages and people believed this story was about a dying demigod savior who died to give them eternal life, but they were wrong. The only eternal life is the duration of the sun which will outliveth us all.

...and religion became abusive and controlling and many millions of innocents died because of this myth created by ancient humans with low intelligence.

...and they eventually calleth it Christianity, but it becameth an illusion of evil, because nothing about it ever existed in reality. It was just the false myth of astrology written in a holy book called the bible, and billions of low intelligence were deceived.

References:

http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/star_of_bethlehem.htm

http://www.usbible.com/usbible/home_a.htm#astrology

http://www.usbible.com/usbible/default_2.htm

http://www.usbible.com/usbible/default_3.htm

http://www.usbible.com/Astrology/eden_to_babel.htm

 

[Hapsburg]

The conversation probably went more along the lines of:
Caveman1: "Uh! Bugg-a-unhh! Unaa-muh bunga bunga! Bunga uh!"
Caveman2: "Boog!! OOh! Moog-a-hahha-bah! Boog a dooga boo!"

But otherwise, yup.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

The conversation probably went more along the lines of:
Caveman1: "Uh! Bugg-a-unhh! Unaa-muh bunga bunga! Bunga uh!"
Caveman2: "Boog!! OOh! Moog-a-hahha-bah! Boog a dooga boo!"

But otherwise, yup.

*************
M*W: Yes, you are correct. That was the original language. I only translated it into modern English.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

I get the point that you are trying to make (not that I support it), but I'm not sure why it is your opinion that only "low intelligen[t people]" were deceived. If it is a deception, then it would be quite a task to support the opinion that it was and is only those of low intelligence who have fallen for this deception. You could not define "low intelligence" with any standardized test, because then it would be too easy to prove your opinion based on the same foundation you view the "Christian opinion".

Max

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

*************
M*W: Yes, you are correct. That was the original language. I only translated it into modern English.

Modern Shakespearean English but a bit too eth-ical.

 

[Hapsburg]

I get the point that you are trying to make (not that I support it), but I'm not sure why it is your opinion that only "low intelligen[t people]" were deceived. If it is a deception, then it would be quite a task to support the opinion that it was and is only those of low intelligence who have fallen for this deception. You could not define "low intelligence" with any standardized test, because then it would be too easy to prove your opinion based on the same foundation you view the "Christian opinion".

Max

No, it's more of, primitive man thought of some way to explain the phenomenon he was witnessing. We have evolved both mentally and scientifically beyond that, yet some people, for some inexplicable reason, cling to thier old beliefs.
Why?
We live in an age where aa sattellite in space can see an ant shitting on a floorboard in Queens, New York. We live in a time where cellular phones, pagers, beepers, text messagers, mp3 players and all sorts of silly doodads and thingamajigs and commonplace. Yet, people still bow down to the sun and stars. Don't you think the species as a whole should be a bit more mature than that?
Thusly, it is not so much a question of intelligence, rather, 'tis a question of maturity.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

Well, had Medicine Woman used the word "maturity," then I would have shaped my comment around that word. But the wording that was used was "low intelligence."

But to comment to you, I fail to see how technological advancements translate to "religious people are immature." When I bought my iPod, I didn't see the warning that "he who buys this product can no longer be religious." I feel that I must attach this statement: Do not take that literally, but figuratively.

"Bowing down to the sun and stars" is a broad oversimplification that is just totally wrong when describing modern religion. I would call it a description "not fully worked out by the mind." Ironically, that is the complete opposite of the definition for mature.

 

[SkinWalker]

The conversation probably went more along the lines of:
Caveman1: "Uh! Bugg-a-unhh! Unaa-muh bunga bunga! Bunga uh!"
Caveman2: "Boog!! OOh! Moog-a-hahha-bah! Boog a dooga boo!"

But otherwise, yup.

Considering there is evidence of cities going back to 9000 BCE and certainly 7000 BCE, not to mention the earliest evidences of agriculture and ceramic technology also date to these periods in various regions of the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia, I'd say the odds are good that the spoken languages were complex and robust. Writing didn't appear until 3500-3200 BCE, but it's almost certain that people were speaking thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years prior to that.

 

[Hapsburg]

But to comment to you, I fail to see how technological advancements translate to "religious people are immature."

Humans have a mature enough sense of the world around them, that we can go to the moon and back, we can generate nuclear energy, we can manipulate electrical pulses, we can do such things because we have an understanding of the physical world. People in ancient times did not understand the world around them, they did not have a good grasp of physics and chemistry, and had to explain such natural phenomena, phenomena that we now understand, with gods and powerful beings and spirits. In modern times, we not only comprehend and understand such things, we can control them as well. Seeing as we understand, for example, what causes lightning, and seeing as we can control it via lightning rods, do you not think that simple explanations as "god willed it" or "zeus throws 'em" are vastly inaccurate and outdated? Seeing as we can explain accurately several natural occurences with science, the old explanations of "the gods did it" have become obsolete, and along with them, the key entity of the said obsolete explanation. Usage and belief of a severely obsolete entity and system fall under "immaturity" in my book, albeit an odd sort of immaturity.

 

[geeser]

I get the point that you are trying to make (not that I support it), but I'm not sure why it is your opinion that only "low intelligen[t people]" were deceived. If it is a deception, then it would be quite a task to support the opinion that it was and is only those of low intelligence who have fallen for this deception. You could not define "low intelligence" with any standardized test, because then it would be too easy to prove your opinion based on the same foundation you view the "Christian opinion".

people of that time had no other reference thus they believed what ever they saw, (earthquake, the gods are angry) or were told, it made sense to them, but now we are educated.

"To believe in God or in a guiding force because someone tells you to is the height of stupidity. We are given senses to receive our information within. With our own eyes we see, and with our own skin we feel. With our intelligence, it is intended that we understand. But each person must puzzle it out for himself or herself. "
Sophy Burnham

so it can only be put down to small mindedness and conceit.

"What is the first business of one who practices philosophy? To get rid of self-conceit. For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows."
Epictetus (55 AD - 135 AD)

"Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons"
Will Cuppy

"The smaller the mind the greater the conceit."
"What a splendid head, yet no brain. "
Aesop

"Conceit is God's gift to little men."
Bruce Barton

it is much easier to persuade people of low intelligence.

"Persuasion is often more effectual than force."
Aesop

 

[seekeroftheway]

Hapsburg, are you so sure that technology makes us more mature? Are you saying that teens don't worship their cell phones and ipods in almost the exact same manner? That there aren't millions of adults out there that are so attached to their belongings that they might as well believe them God(s)?

I personally think that if that were the case, it would be better, more people have died in the name of God than for any other reason in the history of mankind. It's still...igh, though...

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Modern Shakespearean English but a bit too eth-ical.

*************
M*W: Cute. Yes, I used modern Shakespearean English for affect, because I have a problem with period piece movies, regardless of the country they take place, seems they always speak Queen's English.

I'm glad you caught that!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Well, had Medicine Woman used the word "maturity," then I would have shaped my comment around that word. But the wording that was used was "low intelligence."

*************
M*W: Well, I wasn't considering Neanderthal types to be mature humans, although compared to their predecessors, they probably were. I specifically used the term "low intelligence," because, let's face it, they were compared to the generations of their followers.

"Bowing down to the sun and stars" is a broad oversimplification that is just totally wrong when describing modern religion. I would call it a description "not fully worked out by the mind." Ironically, that is the complete opposite of the definition for mature.

*************
M*W: Again, I wasn't describing "modern religion." I was describing how religion got started... how and where it originated. Regardless of what modern religion has become, it came from the stars and constellations. Only the names have changed. Modern religion has not matured one iota from the first night it was created, probably after a big meal of mammoth washed down by rotten grapes. So, maturity has nothing to do with modern religion. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, all religion began from placement of the stars and planets. Monotheism came out of sun worship. Sun worship invented the sun of god (just in case the Sun was busy or something, the sun's son was always available to die and rise again). There is no difference. Religion has been the same for the past 8000 years... and there NEVER has been a real person who existed and died for the sins of others. I'm sorry to say, there's no maturity to be found in modern religion.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

Humans have a mature enough sense of the world around them, that we can go to the moon and back, we can generate nuclear energy, we can manipulate electrical pulses, we can do such things because we have an understanding of the physical world. People in ancient times did not understand the world around them, they did not have a good grasp of physics and chemistry, and had to explain such natural phenomena, phenomena that we now understand, with gods and powerful beings and spirits. In modern times, we not only comprehend and understand such things, we can control them as well. Seeing as we understand, for example, what causes lightning, and seeing as we can control it via lightning rods, do you not think that simple explanations as "god willed it" or "zeus throws 'em" are vastly inaccurate and outdated? Seeing as we can explain accurately several natural occurences with science, the old explanations of "the gods did it" have become obsolete, and along with them, the key entity of the said obsolete explanation. Usage and belief of a severely obsolete entity and system fall under "immaturity" in my book, albeit an odd sort of immaturity.

Wow, there are a lot of assumptions in that statement, and none of them address the problem.

The first assumption is that we understand the world around us. That is just false. There are many things that we do not have an accurate explanation for. To think otherwise is to make the same inaccurate assumption the Enlightened Age did, "We have discovered and understand everything there is to discover and understand." And using your logic it would still be mature (not necessarily correct) for us to say that "God did it" for all the things that we don't fully comprehend.

Another assumption is that ancient people HAD to explain what they saw as being from a "greater power." That isn't true, as well. They didn't have to do anything of the sort. They could (and I would say that many did) just accept that things happen. Or instead, and what really happened, was many people throughout history thought, "Well, what steps were involved in making this happen." Then, they investigated the steps. But you don't have to take God out of the steps to figure something out and many people didn't. Issac Newton is arguably the smartest human to ever live and he was quite religious. He wanted to see the steps involved in nature. He never said, "God is striking the earth with lightning because I did something wrong." And he also never said, "Because I can explain a phenomenon like gravity, God did not create the phenomenon gravity."

Another assumption is that all religion has this "God did it" mentality. That is also false. There could be a God that created what you see and then plays no other role. There doesn't have to be a "God did it" explanation for things.

A final assumption I will address is that religion is static. This is also not true. There are people who will cling to "outdated" thought in the face of reason, but it is those people who are "outdated," not the concept of religion. It's easy to attack those people. But those that shape religion around reason are much harder to attack, because for them there is no barrier between scientific discovery and religion.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

Modern religion has not matured one iota from the first night it was created, probably after a big meal of mammoth washed down by rotten grapes.

First, I would like to point out that I was not responding to you when I was talking about modern religion, but someone else who responded to me.

Second, your quote above is just false. I won't get into a linguistic battle over the generally accepted definition and usage of the word "mature." But not everyone views religion as this "starry night" as you seem to think. In my opinion it is your belief that everyone views religion the same as they did then is not a "matured" belief.

People have done the best they can with the knowledge they have. Aristotle cannot be faulted for what his generation just didn't yet know, that's just ridiculous.

Geeser, I would agree to an extent that believing in God because someone tells you to is stupid, but don't we do that with everything. It is impossible for me to reproduce every single scientific experiment or reinvent calculus, but I have to take it for granted that the people who performed the experiments did a perfect job, and that what they tell me is true. I'm not implying that the science might be wrong, but that the scientist might be wrong.

It is still possible to believe in God without someone telling you you have to.

 

[Hapsburg]

Yes, I used modern Shakespearean English for affect,

I hate shakespeare. English bastard. Damn english, trying to conquer scotland, land of me ancestors...

 

[geeser]

Geeser, I would agree to an extent that believing in God because someone tells you to is stupid, but don't we do that with everything.

no, when we are children we accept without question, but when we become adult we put away childish things, and only accept things that effect our sense's, or have some kind of evidence.
we do however accept some things, on face value until we find out otherwise. but things are only accepted if they have basis in reality

It is impossible for me to reproduce every single scientific experiment or reinvent calculus, but I have to take it for granted that the people who performed the experiments did a perfect job, and that what they tell me is true.

exactly, because they can produce evidence to back the information they present we accept it, it would be infantile to accept it any other way.

I'm not implying that the science might be wrong, but that the scientist might be wrong.

hence why nothing in science is accepted until it's tested and re-tested until the possiblities of the information being wrong are so miniscule, that they are almost invisible.

It is still possible to believe in God without someone telling you have to.

sorry no, if you have'nt became an adult, and learned to question, and not to accept things on faith alone, then you will remain indoctrinated.
being indoctrinated is the only way you got to know a god in the first place,
we are all born non-believers.
and the strange thing is that some people, get indoctrinated as adults, they must be so in need of the religious security blanket, that they should really be going to see a doctor not a priest.
unfortunately, if it was'nt for these type of people, we would have never had the dictators and leaders we had throughout history, some people are just so easily lead, hence why the myth jesus is called the shepherd, as is followers are all sheep.

 

[audible]

your quote above is just false. not everyone views religion as this "starry night" as you seem to think. In my opinion it is your belief that everyone views religion the same as they did then is not a "matured" belief.

sorry mad, it's not just her opinion it's the concensus of opinion, people who follow a religion have'nt matured, they still need that starry eyed, safety blanket they call god, most definately not a mature concept.

I would agree to an extent that believing in God because someone tells you to is stupid, but don't we do that with everything.

no, but two thirds of the world do, those being the religious lot.

It is impossible for me to reproduce every single scientific experiment or reinvent calculus, but I have to take it for granted that the people who performed the experiments did a perfect job and that what they tell me is true. I'm not implying that the science might be wrong, but that the scientist might be wrong.,

only because their experiments are tested, a thousand fold until they cant test no more..

It is still possible to believe in God without someone telling you you have to.

how?, you would have to be born alone and left alone forever, then and only then could you come up with a god scenario, but you would have probably gone mad with the lonelyness.
and thus would imagine things.