Who come first the theist or the atheist

AID-

Aqueous Id said:
Yes, I enjoy these materials for the myths they bust. You will find lengthy analysis in the reference I gave if you care to research it. It's truly amazing how ancient religions shared common ancestral ideations of horror, guilt and punishment by the forces of nature they did not understand.

Boas' work is old enough to capture primitive cultures before civilization altered them, and young enough to be relevant. I did not introduce Boas, your camp did, thru wynn. I merely rebutted that Boas supports your camp's position, by citing him. Boas was an eyewitness, therefore not easily dismissed as you think.

The last two cites were given:

(1) to rebut your claim that Semitic and Ugaritic roots are uncorrelated
(2) to demonstrate the polytheistic nature of the proto-Israelites
(3) to demonstrate the common thread, as far away as the ends of Phoenicia, to the mythical El of Hebrew lore.

You are particularly focused on the semantics of Elohim. You claim mastery of something in connection with Hebrew. A lexicon, apparently, but what good is that without the artifacts to support the context? My contention is that at best you can only master some variant of the modern incarnation. The original was dead in the common sense, that is, was not the common speech of any society, for about 2 millennia. It wouldn't even matter if it had never died out. People today have no connection to the cultural implications of the words they casually toss around, believing that the lexicon, merged with personal ideation, reveals the meaning. For the same reason, it's irrelevant whether cantors have kept it alive in the synagogues.

By way of analogy, ancient Hebrew is as lost to you as is the mythology from which the meaning of the story emerged. So the semantics discussion will never pay off for you. You might as well trash all the artifacts and start your own Version 2.0.

If you wish, you can try to explain the first sentence of Genesis within the context of the Semitic-Ugaritic link.

From the cultural artifacts, we have:

El = Chief god of the Ugarit/proto-Israelite tradition
El(ohim) = Sons of God (usu., the lesser deities)

Now we need a singularized plural grammar for the Sons of God:

Collective form (plural sense, singular number) = Pantheon

Translation:

In the beginning the Pantheon created..(etc)

Then the mixed number grammatical form conveys the apparent meaning.

They were polytheists in their earliest days. Deny it, but only in a protective bubble, to preserve your creed, not to serve historical facts and evidence.

This is why I say your posts fall. It's not me toppling them - it's the artifacts of history, the crush of all that clay.
Click to expand...

Er, myths they bust? Your sources do not support your claim!

Look lad, I’ve been plain with you, now I will ask again. Can you prove that Elohim was meant to be read as “the gods” when the text was first written?

Your own source says Elohim was a singular.

It is disingenious to say that I am ignoring the overall culture and artifacts, as you aren't presentign actual artifacts from those who wrote Genesis 1. It is also dsingenious to claim that I can't know what the Text actually said, for if this is True then why should we Trust your assesssment? Woudln't it be just as lost to you as to me?

I am telling you again, there is no way you can read the Creation account and see Elohim as "the gods” because the verb tense is singular.


If you disagree with this, then present evidence.

It is not evidence to say “Ancient Hebrew is lost to us” and “You only know a modern version”, I want you to prove by direct evidence that the text is referring to a plurality of gods. It is not direct evidence to site Boas who wasn’t dealing with Ancient Hebrews. It is not direct evidence to take a snippet of a book you either quote mined or never read and someone else quote minded to support an overall contention. The only thing that matters here is that you prove that your claim that Genesis Chapter 1 was written by Polytheists and modern Bible translators are hiding this by Translating it “God” as opposed to “The gods”.



This is not a Semantic, this is a record. Your specific argument that they were polytheistic rests on this and yet this is utterly false.

As I said we can discuss the rest later. I just want you to either demonstrate that Elohim was indeed meant to be Plural, or admit you have no such evidence.
 
Last edited:
elte said:
Lightgigantic, I appreciate the response you have given. I don't feel the need to go any further in our discourse since it seems we understand each other's position pretty well, yet it seems you just can't accept my view, likewise I yours. I believe much differently than you do. I'll just leave it there. Best Regards
Click to expand...
Try accepting this :
All assertions about atheism are imagination. Perhaps I would accept atheism if it was proven to me, but in the meantime atheists should simply be quiet and keep atheism to themselves. Even an atheist who has personally proven to them self that atheism is true should also be quiet since inevitably they would fall folly to the pitfalls of "human" communication.

:shrug:
 
Why do atheists have to prove that your mythology is not real? Shouldn't you have to prove that it is?
 
Aren't these things rather more out of the ordinary than naturalism? Aren't they so lacking in evidence that it requires faith to believe them?
 
lightgigantic said:
only atheists who declare it is imagination or a mythology, since use of these words take the subject beyond mere agnosticism.
;)
Click to expand...

myth

noun

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth
 
Enmos said:
myth

noun

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth
Click to expand...
hence the suggestion that one use more neutral terminology if they want to make it clear that they are steering clear from the assertion that the claim is fiction
 
spidergoat said:
Aren't these things rather more out of the ordinary than naturalism? Aren't they so lacking in evidence that it requires faith to believe them?
Click to expand...
I guess it depends whether one already has the faith that the ordinary and current thresholds of naturalism translate as the sole voice in evidencing a claim (a view that is not only remarkably shallow but renders an absurd world view)
:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
hence the suggestion that one use more neutral terminology if they want to make it clear that they are steering clear from the assertion that the claim is fiction
Click to expand...

Using the word 'mythology' to indicate a religion does not by definition set it apart as fiction.
 
Enmos said:
myth

noun

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth
Click to expand...

Natural explanation Jesus is born to young Jude, and Mary. After 24 hours Jude goes to Egypt to prepare for the coming king. Joseph is appointed to watch over the mother and child. The flight into Egypt was Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and about 25 others. All but Mary, Jesus, and two or three more men meet their ends on the flight when Joseph hands off Jesus, and Mary to Jude along with Jude's brother and uncle of Jesus, James, and one or two more others. The rest travel north until the Roman army catches and executes them for treason. For the protection of Jesus, Jude had to remain the apostle of Jesus to protect the child from further persecution.
 
Knowledge91 said:
Natural explanation Jesus is born to young Jude, and Mary. After 24 hours Jude goes to Egypt to prepare for the coming king. Joseph is appointed to watch over the mother and child. The flight into Egypt was Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and about 25 others. All but Mary, Jesus, and two or three more men meet their ends on the flight when Joseph hands off Jesus, and Mary to Jude along with Jude's brother and uncle of Jesus, James, and one or two more others. The rest travel north until the Roman army catches and executes them for treason. For the protection of Jesus, Jude had to remain the apostle of Jesus to protect the child from further persecution.
Click to expand...
What...??
 
Enmos said:
Just read the definitions I posted.
Click to expand...
I did

Thats why I asked you to provide us with a list of myths that don't suffer in credibility for being labelled as such.

Of course both you and I know that you can't provide such a list because both you and I know that coining something a "myth" is not neutral terminology which no doubt explains why both you and I know that its atheists who exclusively describe a host of claims surrounding theism as myths
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top