Do you believe in God(s)? Official Poll #4

[Sentinel]

Do you believe that there exists one or several (conveniently) invisible, omnipotent beings, who once created the world and now for some reason choose to test our faith in them by not appearing anywhere ever? Ie, do you believe in god(s)?

Vote here!

See also the three previous polls, which ran from 2004 to 2006 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/god-t17856/index.html?t=17856&highlight=poll), 2006 to 2008 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/god-t46875/index.html), and 2008 to 2010 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-believe-t72955/index.html?t=72955). The most recent poll ended as follows: 502 voters, 21,12% voted 'Yes', 67,33% 'No', and 11,55% 'Uncertain'.

[Sogdian]

I am the God.

Vote for me or you'll burn in hell :D

[Philzer]

religion is a strategy

-->> revleft.com/vb/communism-and-religion-t73036/index7.html

Kind regards

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yes. Enough said.

[4N4RCHY]

If the Abrahamic god exists, then he's a complete and total hypocrit.

[Klaatu]

I believe that we are descendent from aliens. The Bible has an interesting account of a UFO encounter in the Book of Ezekiel.
That, to me, is more believable than supernatural gods.

[Che a chara]

Yes, not just because I was brought up a catholic, but there's too much stuff that science can't explain and also just think about it .... just lie and relax back and look up at the sky... how can this earth not have been created... and look at us humans how advanced and what we are able to do... reproduce, invent, think etc, etc .... to me it's all just more than an accident, but I don't let the whole thing worry me too much ;)

[Philzer]

Hi!


I believe that we are descendent from aliens. The Bible has an interesting account of a UFO encounter in the Book of Ezekiel.
That, to me, is more believable than supernatural gods.

I´m afraid you are to move in a circle: :D

And where did the aliens come from? From other aliens ........

Kind regards

[Demogorgon]

No, I am as reasonably sure as one can be that no God or other supernatural force that might be substituted in such a manner is in existence.

[RedStarOverChina]

So Revleft is progressively atheist. That's good to know.

[Sogdian]

Yes, not just because I was brought up a catholic, but there's too much stuff that science can't explain and also just think about it .... just lie and relax back and look up at the sky... how can this earth not have been created... and look at us humans how advanced and what we are able to do... reproduce, invent, think etc, etc .... to me it's all just more than an accident, but I don't let the whole thing worry me too much ;)

I was born and brought up a Muslim in a rather religious family/society, but that didn't stop me to emancipate myself from religious chains, from that irrational idea of God. As I grew up I just couldn't sit back and relax and admire God's omnipotence, omnipresence, love, creations and so on... while I daily saw, heard and watched news from my neighbourhood and around the world how people were dying from natural disasters, hunger, diseases and especially injustice all over the place. I was about 15 when I just stopped praying and questioned God seriously. Then with agnostic mind read Darwin's Origin of Species and Dawkins' Selfish Gene in about a week, which led me to common sense conclusion that both scientifically and morally there was no need to God in my or any other rational person's life. Since then I never looked back... Some time ago people thought the earth was flat and religious establishment insisted the sun was circling the earth... Science isn't koof-soof magic, it takes a lot of human hard work and sacrifices to come to a certain conclusion or explanation... We certainly know much more, live better and longer lives than hundred years ago thanks to science...

Anyway, I'm sometimes so stupefied how in the 21st century some people still believe in just plain nonsense.

[Che a chara]

I was born and brought up a Muslim in a rather religious family/society, but that didn't stop me to emancipate myself from religious chains, from that irrational idea of God. As I grew up I just couldn't sit back and relax and admire God's omnipotence, omnipresence, love, creations and so on... while I daily saw, heard and watched news from my neighbourhood and around the world how people were dying from natural disasters, hunger, diseases and especially injustice all over the place. I was about 15 when I just stopped praying and questioned God seriously. Then with agnostic mind read Darwin's Origin of Species and Dawkins' Selfish Gene in about a week, which led me to common sense conclusion that both scientifically and morally there was no need to God in my or any other rational person's life. Since then I never looked back... Some time ago people thought the earth was flat and religious establishment insisted the sun was circling the earth... Science isn't koof-soof magic, it takes a lot of human hard work and sacrifices to come to a certain conclusion or explanation... We certainly know much more, live better and longer lives than hundred years ago thanks to science...

Anyway, I'm sometimes so stupefied how in the 21st century some people still believe in just plain nonsense.

Believe me i'm not chained to religion. it has little if no part in my life. I just have a belief in God, and I don't think too much or get in depth about it.

God put us here, but what we do with our time on this earth is up to us. Most of the destruction caused on our planet is man made.... do the natural disasters that occur have something to do with the vengeance of God because of the way we have treated 'his creations' ? I don't know. Is it just a cycle of mother nature that's unstoppable ? maybe.

I curse God all the time, call him all the names under the sun, threaten him and say he doesn't exist, but I always have that feeling that he does. But that doesn't make me mad or stupid. As I said in a previous thread, a belief in religion or a God can be comforting and rehabilitating, and because of that it is something that should be cherished, not abolished or challenged.

Here's a question for the non-believers, have you at anytime during a period of turmoil, prayed or looked to the 'heavens' ?

[Philzer]

Hi!


Anyway, I'm sometimes so stupefied how in the 21st century some people still believe in just plain nonsense.

first: you forgot that religion is also a strategy ->

1. Religion as theory of cognition

2. Religion as rulers affirmation, and also to justify corruption:
__- democracy(pantheism): justify exploitation of other peoples and the nature
__- most non-democratic societyties(f.example Monotheism): exploitation of women

3. Religion as comfort

4. Religion as ethic

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-and-religion-t73036/index7.html

second, question:

Are you sure that you not only switched from Monotheism to the Pantheism of Bourgeoisie ? Most people in democratic countries mean they are atheists if they are to contract out from their traditional church. In reality they are only switched to next higher god-abstraction, to the pantheism of bourgeoisie with the highest level of threedimensional freedom that allows to destroy the world (growing population and consume-opportunism). According to the paradoxon of freedom* (Karl Popper) this freedem also destroys itself after the end of all resources. (drinking water, fertile grounds, mineral oil etc.)

* I would call them: The paradoxon of three dimensional freedom.

Marx:


It´s not enough not to believe in god.http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html

Criterias for this religion are things like:

- esoteric pluralism = freedom of opinion ( instead a scientific pluralism for communists)

- or an unscientific idea / illusion of freedom for example

Kind regards

[anticap]

No

[Philzer]

No (negation of negation)

[Comrade Anarchist]

Every man is a god and he has the ability to reach his full potential. Religion makes man sacrifice and burn the idea of humanity and subsequently kills greatness. So no i don't believe in a god, gods, or any other thing that is tyrannical to humanity.

[anticap]

Every man is a god and he has the ability to reach his full potential.

Wow, it's like you were made (by a god? :ohmy:) to oppose me:


The idealist believes that a particular species of ape, Homo sapiens, is effectively a god who makes the world go 'round. Naturally, therefore, those apes who have an especially bright idea that helps the world turn faster are entitled to actually live as gods (with the rest being admonished to pay close attention so that they, too, might one day eat and dress better than those good-for-nothing apes who refuse to live up to their godlike potential).

The materialist laughs at this primitive hubris.

[Revy]

No, I don't believe in God. I consider myself an atheist.


I believe that we are descendent from aliens. The Bible has an interesting account of a UFO encounter in the Book of Ezekiel.

That, to me, is more believable than supernatural gods.

I have noticed that passage as well. The Raelians believe that aliens created humans. or something like that. But I think such an idea contradicts evolutionary theory.

In 1917 the idea of UFOs was "alien" to most people. And so it is far more plausible that the Miracle of the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun) was a UFO sighting rather than a miraculous message from God. Witnesses testified that a "spinning opaque disc" appeared in the sky and cast multicolored lights across the landscape. This disc was thought to be the Sun, but I've never heard of the Sun descending below in a zigzagging pattern. These thousands of people couldn't explain what they saw, so they attributed it to God.

[John_Jordan]

I don't believe in those strange things that were in the OP, but I do believe in God.

[mikelepore]

I believe that we are descendent from aliens. The Bible has an interesting account of a UFO encounter in the Book of Ezekiel.
That, to me, is more believable than supernatural gods.

I think both of those explanations are less believable than the possibility that the contents of all religious histories are stories that imaginative people made up.

[vyborg]

I used to believe in Santa Claus but then I discovered my parents bought the presents not Santa...

God cannot exist but he/she can do a lot of damage anyway.

[Mumbles]

Yes, I believe in God in the sense that without some sort of extra-or-out-of-dimensional-being I don't understand how reality, matter, energy, existence could appear out of nothing. If there ever was nothing. And even then where did the non-nothing come from?

[Sentinel]

Transhumanism/bioconservatism diversion split into new thread in Sciences & Environment. Link (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bioconservatism-t131592/index.html)

[Black Sheep]

Ban everyone who said yes god dammit!:cursing:

[Morgenstern]

I do believe in a God but it's not a hypocritical one like the Abrahamical. My view is quite Agnostic.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't believe in gods or any other supernatural beings. Apart from anything else, it's truly the height of arrogance to assume that a being with the powers traditionally ascribed to "gods" would be remotely anthropomorphic.

However, there may be beings with powers and qualities that could be considered "god-like", but of entirely natural provenance.

[Marksman110]

Religion is just a another way to control the people.

[Tread Softly]

Whatever else religion is, it is certainly a successful meme. Blame hellfire.

[Duthchas]

Religion is just a another way to control the people.
Religion is the opium of the masses and a form of social control but faith in God or any other spiritual being or ideal is not necessarily. Religion is just the appropriation of faith. Marxists agree that private appropriation of the means of production is exploitation and a source of suffering for many but most would equally agree that production within itself is not a bad thing. If production was not beneficial to humanity then we would be advocating the status quo instead of changes to the order of things.

For me the same can be said of religion. Faith in god is not destructive but adherence to a religious doctrine can be. Doctrine is just the privatised interpretation of faith: just as capitalism is the privatised interpretation of production.

There are many deeply religious people in the world who support Marxist ideals and can apply a Marxist analysis to society. Church Ministers, Priests, Imams, Buddhists (including the Dalai Lama himself) have spoken in favour of Marxism as a means of ending suffering and inequality. If they can embrace Marxism then Marxists should surely at best tolerate faith. Faith encourages us to lead better and fairer lives and their ideals are not totally dissimilar to Marxist ideals (I am not and never have been religious either).

That is at least my humble opinion. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Religion is the opium of the masses and a form of social control but faith in God or any other spiritual being or ideal is not necessarily. Religion is just the appropriation of faith. Marxists agree that private appropriation of the means of production is exploitation and a source of suffering for many but most would equally agree that production within itself is not a bad thing. If production was not beneficial to humanity then we would be advocating the status quo instead of changes to the order of things.

Production isn't a bad thing because without it, any technological civilisation grinds to a halt. The same cannot be said for belief in supernatural entities.


For me the same can be said of religion. Faith in god is not destructive but adherence to a religious doctrine can be. Doctrine is just the privatised interpretation of faith: just as capitalism is the privatised interpretation of production.

Faith in god isn't destructive? Say that to the children of those who believe in faith healing who have died thanks to lack of medical treatment. Wait, you can't.

And unlike say, the Catholic Church, the faith healing movement is not a multi-million dollar international enterprise.


There are many deeply religious people in the world who support Marxist ideals and can apply a Marxist analysis to society. Church Ministers, Priests, Imams, Buddhists (including the Dalai Lama himself) have spoken in favour of Marxism as a means of ending suffering and inequality. If they can embrace Marxism then Marxists should surely at best tolerate faith.

No, because those religious leaders who say "nice things" about Marxism etc. are at best confused and at worst are lying for political gain.


Faith encourages us to lead better and fairer lives and their ideals are not totally dissimilar to Marxist ideals (I am not and never have been religious either).

"Fairer"? Really? "The poor ye shall always have with you" said Jesus. Doesn't sound all that revolutionary to me!

[Invincible Summer]

In 1917 the idea of UFOs was "alien" to most people. And so it is far more plausible that the Miracle of the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun) was a UFO sighting rather than a miraculous message from God. Witnesses testified that a "spinning opaque disc" appeared in the sky and cast multicolored lights across the landscape. This disc was thought to be the Sun, but I've never heard of the Sun descending below in a zigzagging pattern. These thousands of people couldn't explain what they saw, so they attributed it to God.

At 5:16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xRugfZMsv4


Anyways, I'm a staunch atheist. Religious belief, IMO, is irrational. I always stay by the old atheist chestnut about invisible pink unicorns.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Yes.

[Black Sheep]

Yes http://www.revleft.com/vb/../images/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../images/polls/bar2.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../images/polls/bar2-r.gifhttp://www.revleft.com/vb/../clear.gif 14 21.54%
Well, that's disappointing. :(

[The Gallant Gallstone]

What if you're down with Spinoza and believe God to be essentially an infinite substance without personality or will from which emanates the laws of nature?

[cska]

Seriously? 20% here have an invisible friend? Seriously why can't people grow up?

[mikelepore]

What if you're down with Spinoza and believe God to be essentially an infinite substance without personality or will from which emanates the laws of nature?

The people who believe in that shouldn't use the same word "God" that is used by people who believe in the Zeus-like being. If they can't think of a good name for it they would be better off calling it "the law of nature emanator."

[Anti-Zionist]

Seriously? 20% here have an invisible friend? Seriously why can't people grow up?

They're deluded. They're yet to see the light, but they insist they have.

[Yawn]

yes i do, no debater with fancy words will convince me otherwise

[Sir Comradical]

I believe in Sachin Tendulkar.

[Velkas]

No. I see absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings; rather, it seems far more logical to me that such beings do not exist.

Additionally, organized religion has long been used as a tool of the ruling classes.

[kitsune]

When someone asks whether I believe in god, my first thought is: "Which one? Izanagi? Uzume? Ameratsu? Benzaiten? Fukurokuju? There are so many. I think I saw Uzume dancing in a club in Roppongi, but I could be mistaken. I was pretty drunk at the time."

My view, arrived at through both Zen and physics, is that there is fundamental nonduality, and that there is no self-existent thing in the phenomenal universe. Every apparent thing is part of a complex web of relationships (fundamentally, energetic relationships of quantum fields, but it's also true at the level of molecules and at the level of stars and planets and galaxies).

The most fundamental thing that we can be certain of at this point is energy. All phenomena are the result of the interaction of quantum energy fields. That energy may exist on a brane, which may exist alongside other branes, which may... but all that is theoretical, so I can't speak of it with any certainty.

It seems reasonable to assume that whatever is fundamental must be self-existent. After all, if it is fundamental, how could it depend on anything else for its existence? To many, this very thing is the god concept. To my Taoist and Zen way of thinking, what is fundamental, self-existent, and nondual cannot be assigned any dualistic qualities, so I just think of it as Tao.

[Burn A Flag]

I hate when the rationale, "if there's no god how did the earth get created?" is used. If god did it, who created god?

[Adi Shankara]

I believe in a higher power, yes. does it have a face? no. does the illusory element have a face? maybe. this is unclear, and not for me to know.


I hate when the rationale, "if there's no god how did the earth get created?" is used. If god did it, who created god?

Dharmists believe that god and life are inseparable, and that god just always was, as it was never something that needed creation in the first place, for creation implies a beginning, and an end.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I believe in a higher power, yes. does it have a face? no. does the illusory element have a face? maybe. this is unclear, and not for me to know.

I don't really understand what the "illusory element" is, and thus I also cannot understand how it could have a face.

But are you even more-or-less able to describe what this higher power is like? And what's the basis for your own belief in it?


Dharmists believe that god and life are inseparable, and that god just always was, as it was never something that needed creation in the first place, for creation implies a beginning, and an end.

Why is it better to imagine a "god and life" who are inseparable, rather than just believe in the plain old life that all of us are actually capable of seeing all around us?

[Adi Shankara]

But are you even more-or-less able to describe what this higher power is like? And what's the basis for your own belief in it?

The higher power (brahman), is life itself; the very act of "consciousness" that all sentient beings experience, the act of creation, the big bang, the "playing field" that we pawns inhabit.



Why is it better to imagine a "god and life" who are inseparable, rather than just believe in the plain old life that all of us are actually capable of seeing all around us?

I think my biggest issue with dialectical materialism is it can seem a bit solipsist at times--afterall, are you suggesting that dreams, our thoughts, and psychedelic hallucinations are all not real? afterall, we can't see them, and there is no way to prove they exist, can we?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

The higher power (brahman), is life itself; the very act of "consciousness" that all sentient beings experience, the act of creation, the big bang, the "playing field" that we pawns inhabit.

But why combine all of these into one wholly different term ("God") to basically stand over and above these things? I certainly believe in consciousness, a universe that we inhabit, and so on. Some things and concepts from our daily lives are readily apparent, some are deductions, some are just probable or are suggested by our common sense, and some are facts and theories we acqurie from scientific work.

What reason is there to believe that there is more -- a God either above, beyond, or within all these things?


I think my biggest issue with dialectical materialism is it can seem a bit solipsist at times--afterall, are you suggesting that dreams, our thoughts, and psychedelic hallucinations are all not real? afterall, we can't see them, and there is no way to prove they exist, can we?

I generally like Marx's ideas, but I am no big fan of dialectical materialism, since it's derived from Hegel's dialectics. Nor do I really see its great explanatory power.

I also regard metaphysics as a waste of time: its well-developed theories about fundamental things have naught to do with real experience. It asks us questions that should not be asked, and all its answers are without merit.

Now, I can give an answer once I say all that: dreams, thoughts, and hallucinations as we perceive them are real to us as subjective temporary states that are distinguished from the patterns of our normal waking life. (And the belief in dreams, in thoughts, and in hallucinations does not at all rely on solipsistic views. It's logical and common-sense.)

And if you're interested in my views on the solipsism question, sure: epistemology cannot rule out solipsism a priori.

But why are you concerned with that? Even without an a priori basis for the existence of other people's minds, there is good reason to assume that there are other minds -- the mere experience of our ordinary lives. We see that there are people -- they seem to be much like us. We interact with them, and their behavior, like our own, must be attributed to mental states as well. We reject solipsism simply because our daily interactions involve the attribution of thoughts and similar subjective states to people we encounter in our world all of the time.

A normal life leads to the practical rejection of solipsistic views, and this belief in other minds requires no more for it to be sustained.

I say that we believe in other people's minds because of our normal experience. And we believe in dreams, hallucinations, and ideas because we can subjectively experience such states.

If that is so, why do we need a God? What further things -- what better views about the world -- are there to gain from that idea?

[Philzer]

Hi!


I believe in a higher power, yes. does it have a face? no.

No problem. This is exactly pantheism, the religion of bourgeois.

The god (his sanity) is set into the matter.

This is the highest level in god-abstraction and, linked with it, also the highest level in opportunism.

Only the own benefit counts, nothing else.

( three dimensional behaviour, strategies from the unconsiousness life: carelesness in biotop over-consumtion-> basis for the next wars, prinziple of the strongest, is nessesary for the anarchism of capital.... )

pantheism1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3)

pantheism2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1847586&postcount=10)

Kind regards

[Sosa]

No reason to believe in a supernatural deity

[Snowball]

No, I find it hard to believe that any member of the left would.

[ChrisK]

No. The word "God" has no meaning. If a word has no meaning it is nonsensical. Speaking of "God" or arguing about "gods" is speaking of nonsense.

[PhilippineRed]

I believe in God but I do not believe in Religion, there is always an upper power who created the world, we cannot simply say that the world came with a bang, there is always a beginning, a creation, like a baby, Man and Woman made love w/ each other thus creating a baby, Religion is but a piece of crap used by the hypocrites that think they are righteous and thus created a religion and an organization (e.g., the Catholic Church, the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc...) but all I can say is that these people are a bunch of Hypocrites who doesn't abide by the law their "God" created, consider themselves as holy but in reality are your typical fucking middle age homos who masturbate before and after the mass and have sex w/ their colleagues .

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I believe in God but I do not believe in Religion, there is always an upper power who created the world, we cannot simply say that the world came with a bang, there is always a beginning, a creation, like a baby, Man and Woman made love w/ each other thus creating a baby, Religion is but a piece of crap used by the hypocrites that think they are righteous and thus created a religion and an organization (e.g., the Catholic Church, the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc...) but all I can say is that these people are a bunch of Hypocrites who doesn't abide by the law their "God" created, consider themselves as holy but in reality are your typical fucking middle age homos who masturbate before and after the mass and have sex w/ their colleagues .

You might want to consider a change of language - using words like "homo" in a derogatory manner is not considered acceptable on this board.

[Astarte]

Some people call it "God", some call it the "Tao" some call is Buddha-consciousness... Gnostics call it the "Ineffable Monad". Basically it is a "Force" which supercedes human comprehension and is not able to be described verbally or visually but can only be known subjectively in one's own mind. This is why there are many different religions - many different people have conceived of this "Ineffable" in many different ways.

Yes, it can be used to manipulate people - this in no way refutes its reality though - in fact it only strengths the reality of the existence of the Ineffable "G-d" or "Tao" - religion is a "strategy" which can easily manipulate people because it resonates with the very core of their beings. Thus the crafty, if they so happen to have stumbled upon the discovery of inner gnosis find it an easy task in manipulating others with belief, but little first hand experience.

[ken6346]

I consider myself an agnostic Quaker; I vest my trust in the figure called Jesus. Call it a Christian equivalent of bhakti yoga if you will.

[Astarte]

No, I don't believe in God. I consider myself an atheist.



I have noticed that passage as well. The Raelians believe that aliens created humans. or something like that. But I think such an idea contradicts evolutionary theory.

In 1917 the idea of UFOs was "alien" to most people. And so it is far more plausible that the Miracle of the Sun was a UFO sighting rather than a miraculous message from God. Witnesses testified that a "spinning opaque disc" appeared in the sky and cast multicolored lights across the landscape. This disc was thought to be the Sun, but I've never heard of the Sun descending below in a zigzagging pattern. These thousands of people couldn't explain what they saw, so they attributed it to God.

IF the aliens are "extraterrestrial" why is it that they never leave any PHYSICAL evidence. The only "physical" evidence that is left are affects, but never never pieces of craft or anything left behind from space visitors. In this day and age, with quantum physics proving that particles seem to appear and disappear out of no where on the sub-atomic level, and string theory offering ideas of 11 dimensions, is it so hard to conceive of beings that are compose purely of energy and are actually from other dimensions? See Jacques Vallee's hypothesis on the Extra-dimensional origin of the "aliens".

I do not think alien creation (be they extradimensional or extraterrestrial) contradicts evolution at all. Scientists do not have nearly all the answers as to how homosapiens suddenly appeared. If humans were created from a species which can manipulate time and space in this reality it would hardly negate darwinistic evolutionary theory, but rather demand it be uplifted to a qualitatively higher theoretical level.

[Property Is Robbery]

I definitely wouldn't consider what I believe in to be "god" more like metaphysical speculation about matter, energy and the collective unconscious.

[Revolution starts with U]

"Sudden appearance" of homo sapiens?
Are you sure about that?

[TheFutureOfThePublic]

I believe that we are descendent from aliens. The Bible has an interesting account of a UFO encounter in the Book of Ezekiel.
That, to me, is more believable than supernatural gods.

Being related to aliens is much more likely than being created by some god who is apparently all powerful but cant even convince us he exists

[Astarte]

"Sudden appearance" of homo sapiens?
Are you sure about that?

I am no evolutionary biologist, but I am fairly certain the fossil record of humans evolving from "ape to man" is fairly sketchy.

None the less, even if the fossil record was complete and conclusively proved the evolution of humans from ape to man, then there is the sudden origin of the state to be dealt with. And I am a historian, so I feel more apt in dealing with this matter.

For nine tenths of human existence they lived in small hunting/gathering bands, and then suddenly between about 9,500 to 8,000 BC sedintary civilization began, followed by irrigation techniques, statecraft, organized religion and classes.

The creation myths of most cultures explicitly say that Kingship descended from Heaven, that it was established from the gods from above.

[Revolution starts with U]

I am no evolutionary biologist, but I am fairly certain the fossil record of humans evolving from "ape to man" is fairly sketchy.

None the less, even if the fossil record was complete and conclusively proved the evolution of humans from ape to man, then there is the sudden origin of the state to be dealt with. And I am a historian, so I feel more apt in dealing with this matter.

For nine tenths of human existence they lived in small hunting/gathering bands, and then suddenly between about 9,500 to 8,000 BC sedintary civilization began, followed by irrigation techniques, statecraft, organized religion and classes.

The creation myths of most cultures explicitly say that Kingship descended from Heaven, that it was established from the gods from above.

We can trace human evolution (directly mind you) back 7 million years and growing. The fact that humans share a common ancestor w modern apes (not that apes evolved into humans, we didn't come from chimps, we're just related) is virtually undeniable. (culturally modern homo sapiens - anatomically modern homo sapiens - homo erectus - homo habilis/ergaster - austrolopithicenes... there's an episode of Futurama that explains this debate very well. Scientists find a "missing link" but skeptics say it doesn't account for the "missing missing link" etc ad infinitum [into infinity])
Getting into the development of agriculture, cities, and the state tho is much more interesting. Part of the problem is the misguided popular notion of early civilized man as a small family (maybe 10 people) settling down and putting up a wall. This is far from reality.
In fact, it was very large of hundreds or even thousands of people who had certain territories they went back and forth through during the seasons. Eventually temples were set up, of course there is no writing so perhaps these were temples to gods, aliens, or just star movements.
You can actually trace the development of agriculture over 2 or 3k years as starting out as just seeds falling and growing around the camps from transport by the gatherers. People started figuring this process out and growing their own seeds. This allows far more people to not be hunters, and simply can stay and farm. Of course they will gather around the temples so they can trade the hunters of the tribe meat for grains.
Mind you this is from a mesopotamian perspective, but the pattern is pretty universal from china to europe to the americas. Once agriculture develops cities will happen.
I actually get into the ancient aliens evidence, but as an anthropologist, I don't think they guided civilization building. I think our myths are more like the cargo cults of the south pacific during WW2.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am no evolutionary biologist, but I am fairly certain the fossil record of humans evolving from "ape to man" is fairly sketchy.

None the less, even if the fossil record was complete and conclusively proved the evolution of humans from ape to man, then there is the sudden origin of the state to be dealt with. And I am a historian, so I feel more apt in dealing with this matter.

For nine tenths of human existence they lived in small hunting/gathering bands, and then suddenly between about 9,500 to 8,000 BC sedintary civilization began, followed by irrigation techniques, statecraft, organized religion and classes.

The creation myths of most cultures explicitly say that Kingship descended from Heaven, that it was established from the gods from above.

That doesn't mean aliens, or extradimensional beings or whatever, handed class society down to us. I think the development of agriculture was a more salient factor; you can have agriculture without the state, but you can't have the state without agriculture.

[Astarte]

I am fairly familiar with the transition from the paleolithic to the neolithic. At any rate, the advent of gathering to rainwater/seed farming to river irrigation, on a macro-scale took place very rapidly.

My main concern is what the ancient peoples themselves said about how they acquired this information - and of course since writing did not exist for quite a while later, by the time records began the origin of society took on an ancient and mysterious aspect. The thing with myths and legends is though, no matter how outlandish things seem to become in them, a kernel of truth remains.

Take the Sumerian King's list for example:

"1-39After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king; he ruled for 28800 years. Alaljar ruled for 36000 years. 2 kings; they ruled for 64800 years. Then Eridug fell and the kingship was taken to Bad-tibira. In Bad-tibira, En-men-lu-ana ruled for 43200 years. En-men-gal-ana ruled for 28800 years. Dumuzid, the shepherd, ruled for 36000 years. 3 kings; they ruled for 108000 years. Then Bad-tibira fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Larag. In Larag, En-sipad-zid-ana ruled for 28800 years. 1 king; he ruled for 28800 years. Then Larag fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Zimbir. In Zimbir, En-men-dur-ana became king; he ruled for 21000 years. 1 king; he ruled for 21000 years. Then Zimbir fell (?) and the kingship was taken to Curuppag. In Curuppag, Ubara-Tutu became king; he ruled for 18600 years. 1 king; he ruled for 18600 years. In 5 cities 8 kings; they ruled for 241200 years. Then the flood swept over."

They state these things so matter of fact, and hardly seem to inflate "After the kingship descended from Heaven ..." with any kind of mythic language whatsoever...

Also we have the document "the Rulers of Lagash" which elaborates on civilization coming from the Heavens:

"1-16. After the flood had swept over and brought about the destruction of the countries; when mankind was made to endure, and the seed of mankind was preserved and the black-headed people all rose; when An and Enlil called the name of mankind and established rulership, but kingship and the crown of the city had not yet come out from heaven, and Ninĝirsu had not yet established for the multitude of well-guarded (?) people the pickaxe, the spade, the earth basket and the plough, which mean life for the Land -- in those days, the carefree youth of man lasted for 100 years and, following his upbringing, he lasted for another 100 years.
17-31. However, he did not do any work. He became smaller and smaller, ……; his sheep died (?) in the sheepfold. In those days, because the water of Lagaš was held back, there was famine in Ĝirsu. Canals were not dug, the levees and ditches were not cleaned. The large arable tracts were not ……, there was no water to irrigate abundantly all the cultivated fields: the people relied on rain; Ezina did not make dappled barley grow, furrows were not yet opened, they bore no yield; the high plain was not tilled, it bore no yield.
32-49. None of the countries with numerous people libated emmer beer, liquor, ……, sweet liquor or …… for the gods. They did not till large fields for them with the plough.
10 lines missing
…… the canal. …… its (?) fields.
50-65. In order to dig canals, to clean the levees and ditches, to …… the large arable tracts, to …… all the cultivated fields, he established for the people the pickaxe, the spade, the earth basket, and the plough, which mean life for the Land. Then he turned his attention to making barley sprout. He made the people stand before the maiden, and they raised their heads day and night, at the appointed times. Before Ezina who makes the seeds grow, they prostrated themselves and she made them grow (?). Before (?) Ezina who makes the dappled barley grow, they …… "

Above we see basic technologies of statecraft's advent attributed to Ningirsu, the God of the city-state of Lagash.

There is really an abundance of texts like this in the records of the early literate Mesopotamian civilizations.

One text which is sort of like a modernization of the above too from the early centuries AD which echoes the same thing is the Book of Enoch.

"8.1. And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all colouring tinctures. 2. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. 3. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. 4. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . ."

Sorry about the lack of links, it seems I can't post them until I have 25 posts... anyway, I am just intrigued by the way these people took the establishment of state civilization as being established from Above so concretely as fact. Why did they not attribute it to Gods from the underground, or mostly (i know there were some) from the Sea? The majority of the Gods are attributed as being from the stars - and in fact the Sumerian cuneiform glyph "DIN.GIR" (it is the one that looks like a *) means both God and Star. The Sumerians were enthralled with astrology and vigilantly tracked the course of the planets and luminaries - and their gods were personifications of these heavenly bodies... of course this idea carried over to to Assyria and Babylon and then found their way to Greece and Rome...

[William Howe]

I believe in a God, but I don't follow any set religion.

[Cham_Empire]

I am an aerotheist.

[Astarte]

I believe in a God, but I don't follow any set religion.

Why do you believe in God? Do you have any specific reasons? Do you feel spirituality could be useful in terms of a revolutionary movement?

[Revolution starts with U]

I am fairly familiar with the transition from the paleolithic to the neolithic. At any rate, the advent of gathering to rainwater/seed farming to river irrigation, on a macro-scale took place very rapidly.

What are you considering "rapid?" Comparably, 2k years is pretty rapid to the 10s of thousands technological advance would have taken before agriculture. But 2-4 thousand years is not exactly "rapid" in a real-time sense.

My main concern is what the ancient peoples themselves said about how they acquired this information -
I agree, and i think this is something very much overlooked by conventional archaeologists.



Take the Sumerian King's list for example:

They state these things so matter of fact, and hardly seem to inflate "After the kingship descended from Heaven ..." with any kind of mythic language whatsoever...

The problem is that these histories don't match up with the archeological evidence, which I find to be far more reliable than any written histories. That is why I suggest, if there were ancient aliens, it was more of a cargo cult, maybe with some rogue aliens who attempted diplomatic contact.
Like, I don't buy into the "we were created to be gold slaves" arguments, etc.


Also we have the document "the Rulers of Lagash" which elaborates on civilization coming from the Heavens:

Above we see basic technologies of statecraft's advent attributed to Ningirsu, the God of the city-state of Lagash.

There is really an abundance of texts like this in the records of the early literate Mesopotamian civilizations.

One text which is sort of like a modernization of the above too from the early centuries AD which echoes the same thing is the Book of Enoch.

That's why I say it seems to me, and these stories seem to show, that it was not like a Cabal of "gods" with armies set to rule over the savage hominids. It would seem more like rogue aliens came to help us out.

Sorry about the lack of links, it seems I can't post them until I have 25 posts... anyway, I am just intrigued by the way these people took the establishment of state civilization as being established from Above so concretely as fact. Why did they not attribute it to Gods from the underground, or mostly (i know there were some) from the Sea? The majority of the Gods are attributed as being from the stars - and in fact the Sumerian cuneiform glyph "DIN.GIR" (it is the one that looks like a *) means both God and Star. The Sumerians were enthralled with astrology and vigilantly tracked the course of the planets and luminaries - and their gods were personifications of these heavenly bodies... of course this idea carried over to to Assyria and Babylon and then found their way to Greece and Rome...
The fixation with the stars probably stretches very far back, if you ask me. Roaming nomads would want/need to know these things; agriculture would only make it more neccessary. But I also share your wonder at the nearly universal "gods from heavan came and taught us to be civilized" aspect to mythological history. And tho I find conventional archaeology to be mostly sufficient, I think this is a valid and nearly universal phenomenon they have no explanation for.

[Astarte]

What are you considering "rapid?" Comparably, 2k years is pretty rapid to the 10s of thousands technological advance would have taken before agriculture. But 2-4 thousand years is not exactly "rapid" in a real-time sense.

I agree, and i think this is something very much overlooked by conventional archaeologists.


The problem is that these histories don't match up with the archeological evidence, which I find to be far more reliable than any written histories. That is why I suggest, if there were ancient aliens, it was more of a cargo cult, maybe with some rogue aliens who attempted diplomatic contact.
Like, I don't buy into the "we were created to be gold slaves" arguments, etc.

That's why I say it seems to me, and these stories seem to show, that it was not like a Cabal of "gods" with armies set to rule over the savage hominids. It would seem more like rogue aliens came to help us out.

The fixation with the stars probably stretches very far back, if you ask me. Roaming nomads would want/need to know these things; agriculture would only make it more neccessary. But I also share your wonder at the nearly universal "gods from heavan came and taught us to be civilized" aspect to mythological history. And tho I find conventional archaeology to be mostly sufficient, I think this is a valid and nearly universal phenomenon they have no explanation for.

The problem is there were not 10's of thousands of years of "technological development" leading up to the advent of agriculture. In fact, for tens of thousands of years humans remained hunter/gatherers using stone tools which remained quite fixed for a long time... for tens of thousands of years, sure there were quantitative changes in technology which allowed better hunting methods, and perhaps allowed population numbers to grow slightly - but the real qualitative change came as suddenly as a boiling point - the population explosion which resulted from river irrigation farming.

As you probably have realized by now, I do not believe the "aliens" are strictly physical beings - but from another dimension; energy beings which have the ability to manipulate their molecules into solid matter, thus just as there is no physical evidence of a dream or a hallucination, there will not be found in the historical record any direct physical evidence of these "aliens" - the only historical evidence of them we have is what the ancient people recorded about their "gods". I suggest, if it was a "cargo cult" type of scenario in which we were dealing with actual "flesh and blood" beings then the archeological record would have turned up some kind of artifact(s) - like "the cargo". It seems that the cargo was not a physical one though, but one of ideology, psychology, and technique. The same problem is so for the modern "UFO" phenomena - not one single physical artifact has been found - but video tape and radar sitings are numerous, as are first hand eyewitness reports which are verified by thousands who simultaneously witnessed the same aerial spectacles.

I also do not buy the Sitchin "gold slave" hypothesis.

I do not believe it is either a colonizing alien force, or a group of kindly "rogue" aliens. I believe whatever it truly is, is far beyond human comprehension, and that these things may be popping in and out of our reality and having fun with us just as a kid would have fun stepping on ants, or throwing sticks at birds ...

[Revolution starts with U]

The problem is there were not 10's of thousands of years of "technological development" leading up to the advent of agriculture. In fact, for tens of thousands of years humans remained hunter/gatherers using stone tools which remained quite fixed for a long time... for tens of thousands of years, sure there were quantitative changes in technology which allowed better hunting methods, and perhaps allowed population numbers to grow slightly - but the real qualitative change came as suddenly as a boiling point - the population explosion which resulted from river irrigation farming.
That's a little misleading I think. You're taking a 2-5k year period and summing it up as "rapid sudden change." You can literally trace the development of unintentional seed spreading to intended agriculture starting sometime before 12k years ago. It is most certainly not like one day people were growing grains and herding cows. This process took quite some time to develop.


As you probably have realized by now, I do not believe the "aliens" are strictly physical beings - but from another dimension; energy beings which have the ability to manipulate their molecules into solid matter, thus just as there is no physical evidence of a dream or a hallucination, there will not be found in the historical record any direct physical evidence of these "aliens"
Argument from convenience?

- the only historical evidence of them we have is what the ancient people recorded about their "gods". I suggest, if it was a "cargo cult" type of scenario in which we were dealing with actual "flesh and blood" beings then the archeological record would have turned up some kind of artifact(s) - like "the cargo"
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Remember Troy.

. It seems that the cargo was not a physical one though, but one of ideology, psychology, and technique. The same problem is so for the modern "UFO" phenomena - not one single physical artifact has been found - but video tape and radar sitings are numerous, as are first hand eyewitness reports which are verified by thousands who simultaneously witnessed the same aerial spectacles.
That begs the question, why would an interdemensional matter-manipulator need a spacecraft at all?
I think this unknowable entity you posit is just as likely as the Gods, just wrapped up in modern pop-science vocabulary.

[Astarte]

That's a little misleading I think. You're taking a 2-5k year period and summing it up as "rapid sudden change." You can literally trace the development of unintentional seed spreading to intended agriculture starting sometime before 12k years ago. It is most certainly not like one day people were growing grains and herding cows. This process took quite some time to develop.


Argument from convenience?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Remember Troy.

That begs the question, why would an interdemensional matter-manipulator need a spacecraft at all?
I think this unknowable entity you posit is just as likely as the Gods, just wrapped up in modern pop-science vocabulary.

We need to set some concrete dates we can agree on. Homosapiens have been around for ... what 200,000 years, "reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago."

And also that there are many different theories as to the advent of agriculture and that no archeologist has really any concrete, or definite explaination for how exactly it started.

What I always considered to be the true beginning of the Neolithic is Jericho (9500-9000) BC. Having considered the "Neolithic Revolution" to have lasted about 500 years, I would say 500/200,000 years of human existence is a fairly short amount of time. Even considering the "behavioral modernity" age of humans being 50,000 years ... 500/50,000 is still a very short amount of time.

If we want to include the earliest date for the "early" Natufians of 12,500 BC who did not even engage in rainfall agriculture but only gathering what grew wild and stretch that to the latest date for Jericho and rainfall agriculture of 9,000 BC then we get 3,500 years for the Neolithic "revolution" (hardly a revolution - why would so many academics call it that...)

So, if we compromise between my 500 years for the transition to the Neolithic to the Paleolithic and your 3,500 we get about 2,000 years. Even still If we look at the macro-historical perspective of humanity 2,000/200,000 is only 1% of the entire span of the existense of humans. Two thousand years out of 50,000 years is only 4% of humanity's existence in their "age of behavioral modernity". Indeed, I must re-state that when dealing with the lifespan of an entire species, this 2,000 years of time is indeed, an extremely short time period.

It really did not take that much time to develop as lonely Jericho took only 500 years to develop into a Neolithic city state ... and lonelier Tell Qaramel (complete with temples) maybe 1,300 years .

I'm not sure how saying the "aliens" are extradimensional is an argument from convenience, because there is plenty of evidense which demonstrates that there actually is an abundance of written and non-tactile evidence of these beings - more so, in fact, than evidense for extraterrestrial origins.
Right, a lack of evidence is not an argument for its absense - but the extradimensional hypothesis is a lot less lacking in actual evidence than the extraterrestrial one - so I must say - absense of evidence of extradimensional beings and even God for that matter is not evidence of absense... but seeing as though there are a multitude of texts associating these beings (the aliens) with supraphysical attributes throughout the ancient history ... and even in the renaissance (see the nuremburg broadsheet, as well as the basel broadsheet), compounded by the abundance of video, radar footage, and first hand accounts in the modern - yet no physical evidense - we come to conclude that we must not be dealing with material beings here - since the likelihood that is witnessed by so many, and videorecorded, and picked up on radar in the modern age and written about and depicted in artwork throughout history would not leave a shread of material affect behind, I am afraid, outweighs your catechism - and can only leave other alternatives.

As far as why "an interdimensional matter-manipulator" needs a space craft... I am actually glad you asked that - because now we can get to the meat of the subject. These beings are beyond physical form - and project their visual appearance to us as our individual unconsciousness and in turn the collective unconsciousness believes we should see them. Modern humans will no longer believe in "the gods". If they appeared as "golden rings" as they did to a certain Pharaoh, or as angelic or demonic apparitions as they did to devout medieval man, or as crosses, and musket-like shapes as in the Nuremburg and Basel broadsheets of the German renaissance it just would not work - it would be absurd.
And you are right. It is just as likely as God, but remember, you said it yourself - "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Remember Troy".

I will leave you with a quote by Carl Jung , From his essay "UFOs: a modern myth of things seen in the sky":
"If these things are real - and by all human standards it hardly seems possible to doubt this any longer - then we are left with only two hypotheses: that of their weightlessness on the one hand and their psychic nature on the other. ... The question of anti-gravity is one which I must leave to the physicists, who alone can inform us what chances of success such an hypothesis has. The alternative hypothesis that UFO's are something psychic that is ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN PHYSICAL PROPERTIES seems even less probable, for where should such a thing come from? If weightlessness is a hard proposition to swallow, then the notion of a MATERIALIZED PSYCHISM opens a bottomless void under our feet".

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not sure how saying the "aliens" are extradimensional is an argument from convenience, because there is plenty of evidense which demonstrates that there actually is an abundance of written and non-tactile evidence of these beings - more so, in fact, than evidense for extraterrestrial origins.

THe fact that you posit they would not leave physical evidence is an argument from convenience akin to "god did it" in relation to the big bang. I'm not, nor ever will be, interested in things that can interact with the physical world but leave no demonstrable trace of it.


As far as why "an interdimensional matter-manipulator" needs a space craft... I am actually glad you asked that - because now we can get to the meat of the subject. These beings are beyond physical form - and project their visual appearance to us as our individual unconsciousness and in turn the collective unconsciousness believes we should see them. Modern humans will no longer believe in "the gods".
God did it, is not science.

If they appeared as "golden rings" as they did to a certain Pharaoh, or as angelic or demonic apparitions as they did to devout medieval man, or as crosses, and musket-like shapes as in the Nuremburg and Basel broadsheets of the German renaissance it just would not work - it would be absurd.
I'm going to be far more akin to describe these as simple hallucinations.



I will leave you with a quote by Carl Jung , From his essay "UFOs: a modern myth of things seen in the sky":
"If these things are real - and by all human standards it hardly seems possible to doubt this any longer - then we are left with only two hypotheses: that of their weightlessness on the one hand and their psychic nature on the other. ... The question of anti-gravity is one which I must leave to the physicists, who alone can inform us what chances of success such an hypothesis has. The alternative hypothesis that UFO's are something psychic that is ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN PHYSICAL PROPERTIES seems even less probable, for where should such a thing come from? If weightlessness is a hard proposition to swallow, then the notion of a MATERIALIZED PSYCHISM opens a bottomless void under our feet".
I would agree with Jung here. THe idea that psychic beings can interact w the physical world yet leave no trace is absolutely ridiculous. It may be true, but just as it is with God, I will not rely on faith to verify it.

[Astarte]

THe fact that you posit they would not leave physical evidence is an argument from convenience akin to "god did it" in relation to the big bang. I'm not, nor ever will be, interested in things that can interact with the physical world but leave no demonstrable trace of it.


God did it, is not science.

I'm going to be far more akin to describe these as simple hallucinations.


I would agree with Jung here. THe idea that psychic beings can interact w the physical world yet leave no trace is absolutely ridiculous. It may be true, but just as it is with God, I will not rely on faith to verify it.

It has nothing to do with faith, but everything to do with gnosis. We'll leave it there.

[Raúl Duke]

I am no evolutionary biologist, but I am fairly certain the fossil record of humans evolving from "ape to man" is fairly sketchy. I take Physical Anthropology this semester and we cover this subject.

One, there's genetic similarities between ape and man

Two, all beings to my knowledge have evolved from a previous species. Evolution is fact, the only thing that is theoretical is the mechanisms of evolutions. Scientists are not exactly sure which one (or more than one) evolutionary mechanism is true and which is the most important. Stephen Gould has written an article, called Evolution as fact and theory, about this.

Three, to say homo sapiens just came to be out of thin air is ridiculous claim in face of fact #1 which according to its logic leads one to tentatively assume that humans evolved from a common ancestor that apes also share. Also, this theory has more proof/weight than any religious explanation.

However, as of yet, we have not been able to find fossils of the common ancestor (the species where the austrolipithecus/homo/etc and the line for apes line split off; the crossroad specie) and we can only be 100% once we find this. But for now, it's most very likely that we are "related" (not evolved from apes, at least not any existing one).


And I am a historian, so I feel more apt in dealing with this matter.I'm a history major (see, I can play the "appeal to authority," which is a logical fallacy, game too) and I really doubt you are apt in dealing with that matter, I don't know what you were trying to prove with this obscure statement:


For nine tenths of human existence they lived in small hunting/gathering bands, and then suddenly between about 9,500 to 8,000 BC sedintary civilization began, followed by irrigation techniques, statecraft, organized religion and classes.

The creation myths of most cultures explicitly say that Kingship descended from Heaven, that it was established from the gods from above. Also, I think archeologists, anthropologists, and historians would say that agriculture came first and than centralized politican structure. I suggest taking a look into Catahalyuk, a somewhat pre-historic agricultural settlement site that points to no exact centralized authority.

Most scholars I think would say the whole "divine right to rule" was made up after the fact rule was established.

[Astarte]

I take Physical Anthropology this semester and we cover this subject.

One, there's genetic similarities between ape and man

Two, all beings to my knowledge have evolved from a previous species. Evolution is fact, the only thing that is theoretical is the mechanisms of evolutions. Scientists are not exactly sure which one (or more than one) evolutionary mechanism is true and which is the most important. Stephen Gould has written an article, called Evolution as fact and theory, about this.

Three, to say homo sapiens just came to be out of thin air is ridiculous claim in face of fact #1 which according to its logic leads one to tentatively assume that humans evolved from a common ancestor that apes also share. Also, this theory has more proof/weight than any religious explanation.

However, as of yet, we have not been able to find fossils of the common ancestor (the species where the austrolipithecus/homo/etc and the line for apes line split off; the crossroad specie) and we can only be 100% once we find this. But for now, it's most very likely that we are "related" (not evolved from apes, at least not any existing one).

I'm a history major (see, I can play the "appeal to authority," which is a logical fallacy, game too) and I really doubt you are apt in dealing with that matter, I don't know what you were trying to prove with this obscure statement:

Also, I think archeologists, anthropologists, and historians would say that agriculture came first and than centralized politican structure. I suggest taking a look into Catahalyuk, a somewhat pre-historic agricultural settlement site that points to no exact centralized authority.

Most scholars I think would say the whole "divine right to rule" was made up after the fact rule was established.

Alright, I wasn't going to reply to this, but you tweaked me a little when you said "I major in history so I can use the appeal to authority". If you can appeal to "authority", then I can appeal to greater authority because I have a degree in history, specifically European but I also studied China, ancient Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, the 19th and 20th century, Jungian psychology, religion, and mysticism.

Anyway, you said it yourself: "However, as of yet, we have not been able to find fossils of the common ancestor (the species where the austrolipithecus/homo/etc and the line for apes line split off; the crossroad specie) and we can only be 100% once we find this. But for now, it's most very likely that we are "related" (not evolved from apes, at least not any existing one)"

I am not arguing against evolution at all. I believe in evolution as well as macro-cosmic events like higher species and beings manipulating the flow of evolution by such means as genetic engineering, etc... there is no "crossroad species" as you put it. Every ancient people essentially says "the gods" created us. Pagan and Abrahamic alike... why not take a closer look at why they said this ... even for the psychological value of it.

Absolutely agriculture came before complex class stratification - under meager rainwater farming and local gathering class stratification was not so pronounced at all, herding had an affect, but also the need for administration when the hydraulic state emerged - since canal digging was able to yield so much more food the population grew and with that a ruling priest caste which appropriated the foodstuffs into the granaries for the city-states god. - the introduction of herding and irrigation canal digging is when the real qualitative leap came, i believe sometime around 6,800 BC during the "Ubaid" culture.

[ArrowLance]

No, but I can dream can't I.

[Revolution starts with U]

Actually I graduated from Kent, and Dr. Lovejoy is working (under secret contract) on that transitory species now. They're not allowed to say anything till the results are published but, the other prof's are saying it appears it was more bipedal than modern chimps, suggesting we are closer to the ape ancestor than any living ape... which would be very interesting. But it's all speculation now. Lovejoy hasn't said anything, merely denied some things asked of him.

[Raúl Duke]

Alright, I wasn't going to reply to this, but you tweaked me a little when you said "I major in history so I can use the appeal to authority". If you can appeal to "authority"If you read my little notice in parenthesis after words you would realise I was being sarcastic in a sense, since I pointed out that an appeal to authority (i.e. your educational attainment) is a logic fallacy (i.e. not an argument, does not mean you are smart; does not mean we don't have the right to question your arguments/find them incorrect).

There are people with degrees in poli sciense, economics, etc that I and many people still will find to be idiots/wrong on something, even on something in their own field.


I have a degree in historyI don't defer, especially if I think they're wrong, to people over the fact they have a paper that says they reach an arbitrary educational attainment. There will be people in my department who will graduate this semester that I will still find to be incorrect on certain subjects/topics and/or down-right dumber than me. The same goes true for masters graduates and doctorate graduates. After all, there are Ph.Ds in Economics that say that capitalism is wunderbar and Ph.D. in biology that say we are sexist, et. al because of evolutionary traits; conclusions I reject (and so do many here) because I find that the facts I know do not validate their claims.


Every ancient people essentially says "the gods" created us. Pagan and Abrahamic alike... why not take a closer look at why they said this ... even for the psychological value of it.and? All it tells me it's an important facet of culture and their world-view but it doesn't tell me that theism/etc is true or not.

What are you looking for? All because most ancient peoples believed in gods doesn't mean that is proof of anything. Also, do not say it's proof that "people need religion, it's hardwired into their brains" because it ain't solid proof for that either.

[Astarte]

What are you looking for? All because most ancient peoples believed in gods doesn't mean that is proof of anything. Also, do not say it's proof that "people need religion, it's hardwired into their brains" because it ain't solid proof for that either.

Why do you shrug it off so easily? It is a very interesting subject to study from a psychological point of view - even a materialist one. Seems like something in the collective unconsciousness of the population was drawn towards the heavens so much so that they associated all their creation gods with the stars and planets - why wouldn't we want to know why?

[Ele'ill]

I don't believe in a god because I have not seen any proof that a particular one exists.

If I did see proof that a particular one exists how would I differentiate it from an extraterrestrial of higher intelligence- and why would I serve it.

If I could prove that it was in fact a god- Why would I serve it?

I do believe in various 'systems' or 'mechanisms' that we haven't tracked yet with our sciences that could possibly explain Karma, chance encounters, people you seemingly were supposed to meet.

[Raúl Duke]

Why do you shrug it off so easily? It is a very interesting subject to study from a psychological point of view - even a materialist one. Seems like something in the collective unconsciousness of the population was drawn towards the heavens so much so that they associated all their creation gods with the stars and planets - why wouldn't we want to know why? In the context of this thread, I'm just suspicious of motive. Some people want to use that question (why the collective "unconscious" of an hypothetical population was drawn towards the heavens so much so that they associated all their creation gods with the stars and planets) as some sort of faulty argument ("therefore god(s) exist, he/she/they put it in their heads!")

One simple theory is that it provided explanations or conferred a special status to certain natural phenomena.


all their creation gods with the stars and planetsThere are certain spiritual practices, such as among the Native Americans, where creation gods are not associated with stars and planets with the possible exception of the sun.

Also, for the Greeks and Romans, it was more like we associated Greco-Roman gods to planets instead of the other way around; I think.

[Astarte]

In the context of this thread, I'm just suspicious of motive. Some people want to use that question (why the collective "unconscious" of an hypothetical population was drawn towards the heavens so much so that they associated all their creation gods with the stars and planets) as some sort of faulty argument ("therefore god(s) exist, he/she/they put it in their heads!")

One simple theory is that it provided explanations or conferred a special status to certain natural phenomena.

There are certain spiritual practices, such as among the Native Americans, where creation gods are not associated with stars and planets with the possible exception of the sun.

Also, for the Greeks and Romans, it was more like we associated Greco-Roman gods to planets instead of the other way around; I think.

We all have motives besides political ones which come down materialism vs. spirituality. I'm sorry you're suspicious of my motives perhaps not being as purely materialistic as yours, sorry to break formation.

Your "simple" explanation is just that ... an extremely simple explanation. Notice how most of the creation gods and myths of the pre-state civilizations like the Native North Americans and Aborigines have more gnostic-like mythologies about their origins, rather than a Dogma of the gods establishing civilization.

I say it would be interesting to study from a psychological point of view, particularly Jungian because if they are not recording actual "gods coming down" - then it most likely sounds like some kind of apotheosis occurred, perhaps by ingesting certain plants.

[Pravda Soyuz]

I do not believe in god(s), and for the most part i do not support religion at all. They are ideas contrived to control the populace, and often have negative effects. Although mainstream religion must be hailed under certain circumstances for its value as a moral authority, for the most part, it is useless.

[AussieSocialist]

I am not an atheist. I believe that if there are apparitions then there must be an individual called God, my choice would be God mentioned in the Bible.:blushing:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I believe in the supreme god of consciousness from which all dialectics spring (hence my name).

I don't believe in a religion. The idea of joining a particular religion and submitting yourself to a clerical class contradicts the words of true spiritual mystics. But these institutions do provide social benefits in addition to the obvious social costs resulting from excessive dogmatism.

[Sadena Meti]

A great book on this subject is "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins which goes through all the proofs and disproofs for the existence of God. You can get the book, and indeed the audio book, off my website.

http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Richard%20Dawkins%20-%20The%20God%20Delusion.pdf

http://www.sadena.com/Books-Texts/Richard%20Dawkins%20-%20The%20God%20Delusion/

[Viet Minh]

I would love to be truly atheist, but I am weak and gullible sadly. I believe in everything, Gods, witches, demons, werewolves, leprechauns, bigfoot, aliens.. :D

[Heathen Communist]

I voted yes, but my gods are very different from the Abrahamic ideas of god. I do not feel my gods are omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. They are simply very powerful, very wise, and they have helped me many times before.
Wæs Hæl

[Dumb]

Don't know, don't care - though I have to admit that I kind of hope that there really is a hell. I feel as though it would be my duty to go there. Revolt of the downtrodden souls!:thumbup1:

[altnet]

I entirely reject the notion of any deity as I am an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist in the sense that I do not believe that the existence of a god can be proven or disproven currently, although it may one day be possible through science. I chose to rise above antiquated superstitions which have plagued humanity throughout history.

[LostDesperado]

I do not believe in an omnipotent invisible deity. I believe that humans are the most powerful and are the ones responsible for preserving life. But Nature should be left untampered with.

[Che a chara]

Q for the religious folk in the house. I'm sure as heck no bible freak, so i'm not sure of the answer or the content in the bible, but what about those who were born before JC, did they still go to heaven despite their sins and probable non-belief in a 'God' ? Did they have any 'salvation', or was God discriminant against those who had the unfortunate occurrence of being born before JC ?

[tracher999]

no i dont believe in god its all fucking bulshit:D

[Inquisitive Lurker]

Those that vote uncertain need to study the Invisible Unicorn and Interplanetary Teapot arguments.

Either be delusion and believe or be rational and don't.

[Thirsty Crow]

I entirely reject the notion of any deity as I am an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist in the sense that I do not believe that the existence of a god can be proven or disproven currently, although it may one day be possible through science. I chose to rise above antiquated superstitions which have plagued humanity throughout history.
It will never be possible to prove the existence of a "being" which is currently a theological concept based on numerous logical fallacies.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No. I don't see any reason to believe that there are Gods. I believe in man, as I can see him and can be fairly sure that he exists as a part of material reality.

[ComradeMan]

No. I don't see any reason to believe that there are Gods. I believe in man, as I can see him and can be fairly sure that he exists as a part of material reality.


So you only believe what you see as material reality- thus you are not so sure about that- otherwise you would know, and then there wouldn't be the factor of belief?
;)

[Bardo]

I voted no, I don't believe in a concious, supernatural creator.

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." - Einstein

[stuckinarut]

There has been no evidence for any god(s).

Not to mention, I have yet to find somebody who can define the term 'god' without resigning to logical fallacies, or improper argument structure. The concept of a god(s) is not logical.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

So you only believe what you see as material reality- thus you are not so sure about that- otherwise you would know, and then there wouldn't be the factor of belief?
;)

yeah i guess you're right!

[TheCuriousCommunist]

Yes.

[Comrade_Oscar]

I don't believe in a god but I do like the teachings of Islam more than any other religion. I am a communist and I think that religion should be phased out slowly.

[WeAreReborn]

Q for the religious folk in the house. I'm sure as heck no bible freak, so i'm not sure of the answer or the content in the bible, but what about those who were born before JC, did they still go to heaven despite their sins and probable non-belief in a 'God' ? Did they have any 'salvation', or was God discriminant against those who had the unfortunate occurrence of being born before JC ?
I am not religious but was raised as such. I was taught that all the good people before Jesus were in a limbo state, and when Jesus died they were allowed to go into heaven. So pretty much they were in line for a few hundred years.

[CommieTroll]

Believing in any supernatural being that watches anything you do is just irrational:laugh:

[Hebrew Hammer]

Yeah, I believe in G-d.

[Zoid789]

Some belive that we are all just artifical intelligence on a computer simulation and that God is a just the person running the simulation.

This conclusion can be considered logical if you accept, that at some point, somewhere, someone creates artificail intelligence and then creates a simulation of his universe and if in this simulated univeres someone creates AI and builds his simulated universe and this keeps on happeninging infinetly, it becomes very likely that we are living in one of these simulations

[UltraWright]

I have thought a lot and renounced my faith since I voted on this poll, how can I change my vote? :D

[Ingraham Effingham]

I voted no, I don't believe in a concious, supernatural creator.

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." - Einstein

Same

[Nox]

Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with situations it cannot understand.

[ComradeMan]

Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with situations it cannot understand.

So it's not the abstract and symbolic set of codes eminating from the desire of humankind to seek out understanding which in turn represents the true course of the human spirit?
:thumbup1:

[Luc]

I am not religious but was raised as such. I was taught that all the good people before Jesus were in a limbo state, and when Jesus died they were allowed to go into heaven. So pretty much they were in line for a few hundred years.

Yeah, It's somthing like that when he died before he was resurrected he went to hell and brought the souls of the faithful to heaven. Then he was resurrected or somthing along thoose lies. oops I mean lines.:lol: Atleast thats the christian version as muslims believe Jesus was lifted to heaven and another man was crucified.

Oh, btw I voted No.

God is both unecessary and undesirable. (opinion)

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

nope but if im wrong i get to chill in hell with stalin, and lenin and marx and che and moa:thumbup:

[Patchd]

nope but if im wrong i get to chill in hell with stalin, and lenin and marx and che and moa:thumbup:
???

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuzpCTp1bPssq0243I5u94LBxjpZO2Y 2k4V6KsQPWnmpHP0pbviw

Religion, tis the only crutch people should be willing to kick away.

[Aspiring Humanist]

only one god for me
based god

[DarkPast]

"God" can have different meanings.

I don't believe in a conscious, omnipotent creator of everything. I do believe it's possible that there are beings that are vastly more powerful, intelligent etc. than humans. But there's nothing "supernatural" about them.

[Rafiq]

So it's not the abstract and symbolic set of codes eminating from the desire of humankind to seek out understanding which in turn represents the true course of the human spirit?
:thumbup1:

But what is this 'human spirit' and how can you determine whether or not it's real?

[Kornilios Sunshine]

No.Religions are big lies in my opinion and they cause trouble to the people and it is a reason why there is not world peace.Besides, if our lovely god exists why doesn't he save us from bad things?:sleep:

[ComradeMan]

But what is this 'human spirit'

We don't know- hence the enquiry.


and how can you determine whether or not it's real?

Through enquiry...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think there is a single "human spirit". Humans are divided by space and time and culture and upbringing and genetics. That's not to say we can't overcome those barriers in the future (and as a transhumanist I think there are further barriers we should attempt to overcome) and form a cosmopolitan global culture, although I'd like to think in such a case we'd maintain pockets of true diversity no matter how varied the global meta-culture is.

[Tenka]

Yes my pantheon includes the daemon sultan Azathoth and Kisaki head of UCP, but neither of them care about me so it's like there's not even a god at all! :ohmy:

[Nox]

I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster - word on the street is that his existence is more likely than God's. Maybe the humans that wrote the Bible didn't see the countless contradictions. ;)

[Column No.4]

I believe in a god much like the natives did, or still do. I dont think people are held to a set of rules but i think theyre judged on how they treat one another, the enviroment, animals, etc.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

Yes, I believe in God. Takbir! Allahu Akbar!

[Mythbuster]

I have a god. I call it "Science."

(in other words, I'm atheist)

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I have a god. I call it "Science."

(in other words, I'm atheist)

I love the Science god....you know it actually exists and that it isn't going to fuck you over for loving men.Plus it has that thing called "logic" which only makes it sweeter.

[Red Rabbit]

Yes, I believe in many gods.

[kombatwombat]

I am uncertain, and to be honest, I don't think I actually care.

[Schizophrenia]

Used to think God spoke to me, but then I was admitted to a Hospital.

Not anymore.

[Azraella]

I believe in many gods which are all aspects of a divine force. I don't care what others think either.

[The Jay]

I have a god. I call it "Science."

(in other words, I'm atheist)

Your answer to the great question is different than mine; therefore, I must eat your entrails on my tummy.


In all seriousness though, I am an atheist.

[ВАЛТЕР]

No, I do not believe in a god. Especially not in a benevolent god.

God, if he or she exists is an asshole and isn't worth my time. I have more important things at hand. Like anything else that may cross my mind ever on any given day.

We'll all find out in the end, and I'm not wasting my time worshiping anybody or anything. I only believe in humanity, only we can pull ourselves up. No god, or magical force is going to save anybody from starving, or being exploited. Only humans can help each other, and have a duty to do so.

[Che a chara]

I know this is basic materialist comprehension, but still something that I have come quite frequently from others-- believers -- even moderates -- who conclude that 'these are the cards that I have been dealt' when they are going through a bad time. Meaning that they don't actually believe in themselves to make good a bad situation -- instead they look for answers 'elsewhere' -- praying and asking for guidance. I used to be of this mindset or something similar, where there would be coincidences at certain times, especially bad coincidences, which used to make me think "why, .... is this some sort of test ?." It's a dangerous belief to be of that thought and it can in certain situations make you complacent -- especially when you feel you have done no wrong and shit goes bad through no fault of you own.

Believe in yourself first and be pro-active. I know it sounds as easy as piss, but I've come across those who wait for things to fall in line (which i've unfortunately been guilty of in the past) because they believe that something or someone will change circumstances.

Though saying that, I still believe in something up there, but 'it' has no intervention, hindrance or involvement on events and actions on earth. In any case, communists, socialists etc. should have nothing to fear from 'God' through a humanistic, moral and ethical sense.

[The Insurrection]

I'm glad that people are mostly rational.

[ComradeNarwhal]

I voted uncertain. I consider myself agnostic but often hold a hostile stance toward organized religion.

[ComradeMan]

I'm glad that people are mostly rational.

..and on what basis do you decide whether something is rational or not? :confused:

[Broletariat]

I can't understand the question because it contains the meaningless word "god."

[CommunityBeliever]

Over time evolution will replace all forms of theism. All intelligent beings are a product of a gradual process of evolution. There are no intelligent beings such as god which violate this universal principle.

[Guy Incognito]

Nope, but it'd be interesting if there were some kind of creator. Like some giant space baby. Or an astronaut. Or a shiny metal murder machine covered in spikes.

[pax et aequalitas]

Over time evolution will replace all forms of theism. All intelligent beings are a product of a gradual process of evolution. There are no intelligent beings such as god which violate this universal principle.

What if God is in fact an alien who through evolution reached godhood? I think I read short story about that some time ago. Was pretty interesting. I'm not saying I believe it is true per se, but it is an interesting way to look at it IMO.

[Deicide]

Which God?

[CommunityBeliever]

What if God is in fact an alien who through evolution reached godhood?

In that case you would have to define "godhood" as something you can reach. The definition of god I was using being refers to a being which contradicts the principles of evolution, such a being most certainly doesn't exist.

[zoot_allures]

No, and unlike many atheists, I'm not at all agnostic about it. I'd say I know there is no god.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Yes, not just because I was brought up a catholic, but there's too much stuff that science can't explain and also just think about it .... just lie and relax back and look up at the sky... how can this earth not have been created... and look at us humans how advanced and what we are able to do... reproduce, invent, think etc, etc .... to me it's all just more than an accident, but I don't let the whole thing worry me too much ;)
It just wasn't, IMHO. There are things that science cannot explain, yet. But we know the physics of how this earth was created by physical forces acting on matter. The argument that it just "seems" like there must have been a plan is at the heart of a lot of reactionary stuff, especially Creation Science, uh, I mean Intelligent Design Theory. At the core is the argument that, well, gosh darn it, it sure seems like there is an intelligence behind this design. I would remind you that a thousand years ago, it sure seemed like the world was flat and that matter was solid and that the Earth was the center of the universe.

There are no gods. It's just shit that people made up for a host of reasons. When people say things like, "god is energy," I reply, "in that case, let's call it "energy." When they say, "god is love," I reply, then why don't we just call it "love."

If and when we meet other intelligent species from other places in our galaxy, that will be a further blow to the mysticism that we can't seem to get rid of. That and socialist revolution.

[Astarte]

If and when we meet other intelligent species from other places in our galaxy, that will be a further blow to the mysticism that we can't seem to get rid of. That and socialist revolution.

So, if we have intelligent beings travelling millions of light years to reach us, is it safe to assume that these beings have mastered aspects of reality which humans obvious have not yet? What makes you so certain they won't tell you things like there actually are other dimensions to reality that humans can not as yet perceive via their senses and tools?

[Human Lefts]

I picked "no" because there wasn't a "fuck no, I'm not into illusions" option.

[Revolution starts with U]

So, if we have intelligent beings travelling millions of light years to reach us, is it safe to assume that these beings have mastered aspects of reality which humans obvious have not yet? What makes you so certain they won't tell you things like there actually are other dimensions to reality that humans can not as yet perceive via their senses and tools?

I'm pretty certain tho that they will arrive their using scientific methods more than some guy eating mold in a cave and telling us what God said.

Think Kerry Mullins, rather than Hermes Trismegistus.

[hatzel]

Unless they use 'science' to test the hypotheses of the mould-eating guy...

[Revolution starts with U]

Exactly my point. There's a world of difference between testing hypothesis and just saying God told you... even if she really did.

[hatzel]

But then we still need the mould-eating guy to give the hypothesis! And the mould-eating guy is equally glad to see his hypothesis backed up. It's a...mutually-beneficial relationship we've got going on here, me likey :cool:

[Ostrinski]

I don't know what is being discussed but anyone who eats mould should be disregarded.

[hatzel]

I don't know what is being discussed but anyone who eats mould should be disregarded.

...you been eating that mould again, bro? :confused:

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't know what is being discussed but anyone who eats mould should be disregarded.

Lsd was synthesized from Margot mold. Mullins discovered pct on Lsd. Your hypothesis is false.

[Guy Incognito]

You mean like Penicillin(sp?)?

[ParaRevolutionary]

I believe in an Earth God of sorts.

[Vlad tdf]

uncertain ... if there is a god, i hate him!

[Robespierres Neck]

Metaphorically, I worship Ra - the Egyptian sun God.

But realistically, no.

[Brosip Tito]

Heathens, the lot of you.

You cannot see her, but she exists. She is pink, majestic and all powerful. Hail the Invisible pink unicorn!

You cannot prove she does not exist, for she is invisible!

[Yefim Zverev]

Pope benedict opened 92 revleft accounts to vote for yes

[Red Rabbit]

Pope benedict opened 92 revleft accounts to vote for yes

Oh please.

[Dzo Komunjara]

God is just a myth.

As we can see through our history people always had to pray to some imaginary god/s or world.
I'm sick of hypocrit believers.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It's funny, a man flying around the world and giving presents to everyone in one night is considered ludicrous yet a magical man in the sky giving you presents and helping you all the time is considered perfectly logical. :laugh:

Religion is a joke.

[Dzo Komunjara]

I'm on the highway to hell. :laugh:

Why god doesn't help to the poor, hungry, sick?
If a god would exist, he would be communist.

[Railyon]

Do you believe that there exists one or several (conveniently) invisible, omnipotent beings, who once created the world and now for some reason choose to test our faith in them by not appearing anywhere ever? Ie, do you believe in god(s)?

I am more of the simulated reality and alien creator type persons. Both are not opposed to evolution in any way. THIRD POSITION ALL THE WAY

I'm agnostic really. I think while musing about Gods and immaterial beings is fun and dandy, it bears little impact on our here and now.

So, say I believe aliens gave human evolution a big push in the right direction. What does it say really? Nothing about any greater purpose I think, else they would have left us a clue.

Same with simulated reality, while one may think our world is simulated it doesn't contradict materialism in the slightest.

[Yefim Zverev]

Oh please.

stupid troll trying to get reputation on my posts

[Red Rabbit]

stupid troll trying to get reputation on my posts

lol are you serious?

[Freethinker1]

"Religion is the opium of the people" Never a truer phrase was spoken... there I posted, now get off my back about it.

[Avocado]

Do you believe that there exists one or several (conveniently) invisible, omnipotent beings, who once created the world and now for some reason choose to test our faith in them by not appearing anywhere ever? Ie, do you believe in god(s)?


No way!

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Why not?
Is religion really a danger to you in any way.
All I am saying is that people should not be discriminated in any way, even in religion.
Most atheists have a thing for discriminating religious people.
What wrong is there with believing in "one or several (conveniently) invisible, omnipotent beings who once created the world and now for some reason choose to test our faith in them by not appearing anywhere ever"?

Religion should be separated from the church, in a world where there was freedom of religion you would see that most people (religious) would adopt pagan, agnostic faiths.

And by the way I don't consider bhudism a religion, because there is no god involved.

[eyeheartlenin]

Let's see (and feel free to stop reading if you have heard these stories before): A few years ago, I was walking back from town with a comrade and his girl friend and their daughter. Our paths diverged, and they watched as I crossed the street. As I reached the sidewalk on the other side, a car jumped the curb, landed in the grass, near enough to leave dirt from the raised numbers on the tire, on my pants leg. I was unhurt. The three witnesses I have to this are all convinced atheists. (The driver sped away.)

A few years ago, on a Saturday night, I was crossing a big intersection near where I lived, and out of nowhere, a slow-moving car turned into the pedestrian crosswalk, under a red light, hit me, and I fell forward onto the hood of the car that hit me. The driver stopped. I got back on my feet, and my only injury was a scratch, just under my knee. (The driver asked me if I was all right and then drove away; I did not have the presence of mind to look at the license plate, since, when I was on the hood of the guy's car, I thought I was going to die.)

Another time, a few years ago, I was walking home from town, under a pleasant spring rain, when lightning struck the sidewalk some yards in front of me. I remember it distinctly; it looked like a large yellow sheet. I was a little shaken, but unharmed.

Unfortunately, there are no witnesses for the latter two events, but I am not lying.

So I think there must be something out there (we are not completely alone in the universe); after my experiences, I would make a lousy atheist. :)

[Avocado]

Why not?
Is religion really a danger to you in any way.
All I am saying is that people should not be discriminated in any way, even in religion.
Most atheists have a thing for discriminating religious people.
What wrong is there with believing in "one or several (conveniently) invisible, omnipotent beings who once created the world and now for some reason choose to test our faith in them by not appearing anywhere ever"?

Religion should be separated from the church, in a world where there was freedom of religion you would see that most people (religious) would adopt pagan, agnostic faiths.

And by the way I don't consider bhudism a religion, because there is no god involved.


I'm not saying there is anything wrong with believing in religion.
The question was; Do you believe in God(s)?
I don't and replied... No way!


If you want me to elaborate then that is different, but that is a different question. Something along the lines of (going by your reply) Do you think religion is dangerous?

Well yes I do. people kill each other because of it. They become fanatics. They delude themselves and encourage or force others to live a life according to some dogma.




And by the way I don't consider bhudism a religion, because there is no god involved.

I have read quite a few books on Buddhism and unless I am mistaken there are bucketfuls of supernatural beings in that one too.

[Red Rabbit]

Well yes I do. people kill each other because of it. They become fanatics. They delude themselves and encourage or force others to live a life according to some dogma.

Atheists have killed quite a few people too in the name of atheism. *Cough*Mao and Stalin*cough*


I have read quite a few books on Buddhism and unless I am mistaken there are bucketfuls of supernatural beings in that one too.

Not Theravada Buddhism.

[Avocado]

Fair enough. One of the books I have read 'Buddhism without Beliefs' (Batchelor), did not convince me otherwise. I do understand however that as dharma practise moves 'West' and westerners try to make sense of it, it is inevitable that it will be benchmarked against mainstream faith systems which is unfortunate. That aside, I am no expert and am happy to take your knowledge of it as reliable.

[Grenzer]

Atheists have killed quite a few people too in the name of atheism. *Cough*Mao and Stalin*cough*

I disagree. I doubt Stalin had anyone killed over religion alone. I believe Lenin had a bunch of priests executed, but it had nothing to do with religion. The priests were acting as a rallying force for reactionaries. I can't recall for certain, but I seem to remember reading something about them even attempting to inspire peasant uprisings.

Similarly, Maoist China's militant action against the Tibetan priests had little to do with religion. Again, it was more that they served as a reactionary political force. Most of the deaths that occurred in the PRC, similarly to Russia, were the result of the disastrous policy of forced collectivization.

I'm not a fan of either of those leaders, but it only seems fair to point that out.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

And the anarcho-syndicalists from the CNT-FAI burned the churches and executed the priests, how does that support freedom?

[Red Rabbit]

I disagree. I doubt Stalin had anyone killed over religion alone. I believe Lenin had a bunch of priests executed, but it had nothing to do with religion. The priests were acting as a rallying force for reactionaries. I can't recall for certain, but I seem to remember reading something about them even attempting to inspire peasant uprisings.

Similarly, Maoist China's militant action against the Tibetan priests had little to do with religion. Again, it was more that they served as a reactionary political force. Most of the deaths that occurred in the PRC, similarly to Russia, were the result of the disastrous policy of forced collectivization.

I'm not a fan of either of those leaders, but it only seems fair to point that out.

That was their excuse anyways. I can't speak for the Churches and clergymen in Russia, but I know the Monks in China and Tibet were doing nothing but peacefully practicing their religion. Had they been asked to, they would have stepped down from their political positions if it meant less violence.

[Revolution starts with U]

In fact they were told they could keep their social structure if they joined in the prcs nationalist campaign

[kashkin]

No, and on Dawkin's scale I would be a 6.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Nyet.

[wsg1991]

don't know , for religion it has little effect or use in my personal life except religious holidays ) , i am a medical student , i have enough scientific knowledge to explain ( and i have the basics science to learn ) almost every question that most religious people say it's godly power . rarely rely on metaphysical explanations . but the amazing complexity of human body \ biochemistry \ physiology made me question if there any supernatural power behind it . Now for the evolution theory it's a scientific FACT , open up any biochemistry , Microbiology , anatomy , immunology , physiology , histology , physic chemistry book and you will find a mention for it . current religions i know failed to answer this questions \ full with crap . there is god or not ? that's something i can't answer with my available knowledge :(

[.Commie]

I believe in God but in a very platonic sense. A source,a beginner,even a planner but as we see the perfect world is the one we create! As Karl Marx stated "Philosophers interpret the world,the real purpose is the change it". NO GOD,NO CZAR,NO SAVIOUR WILL SAVE US! WE NEED TO DO IT ON OUR OWN!

[MotherCossack]

I am starting to dwell on the idea that there is a thing we all have a bit of it in us..... call it god ....small g though....
yeah so... we all have a bit of it ... bit like conscience....
and all of our consciences... our bits of god... together...
make up a strong force... or something....
it is hard to quantify or even explain....
but lots of us together .... there is often an electricity... and crowds can be moving and it can be uplifting.... then conversely... a crowd can become a pack... and generate powerful negative vibes and it is definitely something that works without us consciously doing anything....

[fabian]

Voted no. I don't believe in God, I think that God exists. Big difference, deism as oppossed to theism.

[Rafiq]

That was their excuse anyways. I can't speak for the Churches and clergymen in Russia, but I know the Monks in China and Tibet were doing nothing but peacefully practicing their religion. Had they been asked to, they would have stepped down from their political positions if it meant less violence.

Yeah, and "peacefully" enslaving the population and raping their kids.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Revolution starts with U]

^This. Also, They were asked to "peacefully give up their position" and refused. Case closed :lol:

On another note; I don't "believe" in (anything) G-D. But I do agree with Yah when he said "I am that I am." me 2 :thumbup1:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I voted no but I'm Agnostic.