Arigato gozaimus for clearing that up.

Some should, some shouldn't ... have children!

:up: :pray:

Arigato gozaimus — Agent Smith

ありがとうございます!

but those gods are the foundation of democracy and western civilization — Athena

I disagree. Humanism is the foundation of democracy, same with civilisation regardless of geographical direction. Democracy is anti-autocracy, it is an enemy of divine dictates, the divine rule of kings, devotion to messiah's, acceptance of aristocracies or theocracies. It does not even demand respect for so called 'superiors.' Democracy is born from a human demand for justice, fair treatment and equality of status for all. Nothing to do with fairy stories about gods. Gods came from human primal fears, end of story. Just a case of early humans looking around and concluding 'circle of heat and light in sky makes us warm and we can see our enemies.' 'circle moves across sky and goes away at night, it gets cold and we cant see our enemies as good.' 'we need the big heat and light, we must love it or it wont come back(primal fear)!'
The nefarious simply used this fear to control people and benefit themselves. Its time we dropped this BS in the dirt. I do not see most theists as bad people(although some certainly are!). I see theism as pernicious. I see theists as duped but I wish to convince them, not hurt them.

They are the substance of liberal education and our laws. — Athena

Again imo and with all due respect, gods and all stories associated with them are CREATED BY HUMANS! If you think that a story about ficticious characters such as Hades and Demeter exemplifies an issue of morality which relates to 'liberal education' or 'human laws,' then fine BUT! I see no value to the future of the human race in doing that. Why not use a story from the revolution of spartacus to illuminate the same concepts. Why use IRRATIONAL god fables?

As you found fault in what I said........, — Athena

I think you are being rather 'precious' about your need to protect or defend 'what you said,' we are debating with no malice aforethought, surely. we are in dialogue about each others position. We do not have to declare each other hostile because you are over-sensitive to some phrases I choose to use.
How would you survive a debate on a heated issue with such an approach? It would be like the start of the fabled battle of Camlann (Arthur/Excalibur legend). Somebody takes out their sword by mistake to kill a snake (garden of Eden reference) which causes both sides to attack each other. "War by mistake/misunderstanding." But we don't need god fables or Arthurian legends to exemplify such cautionary tales, we could just use the more tame example of your misunderstanding of what I am typing.

I can not imagine anything of importance that we would know without the effort to understand cause and effect and universal truths. — Athena

We do understand cause and effect. We also understand infinite regress arguments as a tool theists use to claim that a first cause god is therefore proved. But this has already been convincingly debunked! The Kalam cosmological argument via William Lane Craig is almost at the 'dead' stage as a claim imo.
Give me an example of a 'universal truth,' without which we would be unable to know anything of importance!

ありがとうございます! — javi2541997

:smile:

universeness — universeness

We would not have an argument if you were not doing exactly what I said atheists do. You are using a Christian concept of God and creation for all your arguments. Stop it.

Yes, the gods are the foundation of our laws, democracy and western civilization. The book "Laws, Gods, & Hero's Thematic Readings in Early Western History" by H.A. Drake and J.W. Leedom explains the human story and should not be confused with theism.

And don't yell at me about humans creating those stories because you have to distort everything I am saying to believe you have an argument with me. Joseph Campbell, the expert on such mythology, explains how we come to have similar myths and the importance of those myths. You are the one applying superstition to my arguments because that supports your atheist cause. My cause is democracy, rule by reason as opposed to authority over the people, and my sense of purpose is raising awareness of the foundation of democracy, an imitation of the gods arguing until they have a consensus on the best reasoning.

If you don't ask the right questions, you won't get the right answers.

But we don't need god fables or Arthurian legends to exemplify such cautionary tales, we could just use the more tame example of your misunderstanding of what I am typing. — universeness

Yes, we do. However, we do not have to apply superstitious notions to them.

We would not have an argument if you were not doing exactly what I said atheists do. You are using a Christian concept of God and creation for all your arguments. Stop it — Athena

I accept that this is your interpretation of what is going on between us but it is certainly not mine.
I have been in dialogue mode with you but if you misrepresent atheism and atheists with misinterpreted generalisations then I will try to point such shortfalls out to you and give my reasons and examples.
I have no particularly christian concept of god, if you are going to state such generalisations then you must quote examples from my typings, and explain why my words display an EXCLUSIVELY Christian perspective. If you cant do that successfully then you are just making erroneous claims.

And don't yell at me about humans creating those stories because you have to distort everything I am saying to believe you have an argument with me. — Athena

What? I have no idea what you are typing about here? Humans did invent every god story in history or are you suggesting that real gods communicated with the Greeks? If they didnt then the stories about mount Olympus and its pantheon of characters are fairy tales, yes?
Not stating the falsity of all god stories just encourages people to waste their time following other useless dead end paths such as the ancients were in fact communicating with aliens :lol:, which is why some people will actually buy utter nonsense such as 'Chariots of the gods' written by total con men such as Erich von Däniken.

Joseph Campbell, the expert on such mythology, explains how we come to have similar myths and the importance of those myths. You are the one applying superstition to my arguments because that supports your atheist cause. — Athena

Perhaps some thing like:

Might help you understand the atheist viewpoint in a more accurate manner.

My cause is democracy, rule by reason as opposed to authority over the people, and my sense of purpose is raising awareness of the foundation of democracy — Athena

Well, we have common cause in this but I think your ideas as to the foundation of democracy is flawed and I don't mind a few having authority over a majority as long as that few are democratically elected and are 100% answerable to that majority who have the power to remove and replace any member of that few if they fail to meet and maintain compliance with well established, powerful but fair, checks and balances.

an imitation of the gods arguing until they have a consensus on the best reasoning. — Athena

So you advocate for imitating that which has never existed, instead of encouraging the human race to grow up, take full responsibility for all that has happened in the past and plan a better future for everyone, without attempts to scapegoat gods or employ the fairy stories made up about them as a guide to establishing better sociopolitical systems. We don't need god fables as a moral base for establishing better social or political systems. We need progressive human thinking not regressive.

But we don't need god fables or Arthurian legends to exemplify such cautionary tales, we could just use the more tame example of your misunderstanding of what I am typing. — universeness

Perhaps the word "epistemology" can be used to explain the importance of the gods? Epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epistēmē, meaning "knowledge", and the suffix -logia, meaning "logical discourse". Exactly where did our ideas come from, and how were they changed as they moved from place to place and throughout time? That is a very different study than theology.

I choose to use epistemology to argue against theology. Rather than refuse to talk about what theorist believe as the atheists do. Eden (uncultivated plain) Adam (settlement on the plain) and Eve (the Lady of the rib and the lady who makes live) come from Sumerian mythology and I would bet this story is an account of climate change, but over the years of the truth of the story is forgotten and we get myth instead of accurate information. There are several prototypes of Jesus. As Christians convert millions of people by giving the people's gods and seasonal celebrations a Christian interpretation, my intent is to reverse this process and raise awareness of the pagan beginning of those ideas.

I know what epistemology means and what it refers to.

Rather than refuse to talk about what theorist believe as the atheists do — Athena

Another false claim!
Where is your evidence that atheists refuse to engage (theorist? I assume you meant theists or theologist)?

Eden (uncultivated plain) Adam (settlement on the plain) and Eve (the Lady of the rib and the lady who makes live) come from Sumerian mythology and I would bet this story is an account of climate change, but over the years of the truth of the story is forgotten and we get myth instead of accurate information. There are several prototypes of Jesus. As Christians convert millions of people by giving the people's gods and seasonal celebrations a Christian interpretation, my intent is to reverse this process and raise awareness of the pagan beginning of those ideas. — Athena

Uncultivated plain (the days of the hunter-gatherer),Adam (settlement on the plain) (early humans became agricultural and settled in small groups or tribes)
See, no need to inject god fables into your descriptions, you can tell the real story!

What Sumerian story are you relating to climate change? The flood in the fable of Gilgamesh?
You can achieve what you suggest very quickly by honestly stating that all god stories are untrue!
We don't need to stroke the theist ego and pander to lies. We need to value and profess historical TRUTH as best we can based on the very limited accuracy of the historical documentation we have.

Eve (the Lady of the rib and the lady who makes live) come from Sumerian mythology — Athena

Just a small aside! Did you forget about Adam's first wife, Lilith? Made from the same dirt/earth/clay that Adam was made from in that particular fable. If you don't want to be guided too much by christian versions of fables then why is Lilith not important here as 'first woman'?

I have no particularly christian concept of god, — universeness

Perhaps you live in China? Only if you have always lived in a region that is not Christian-dominated can you not have "particularly Christian concepts of god". That is true because all the stories from the Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Christians are all part of our consciousness, however, individuals can be completely unaware of how they came to think as they do, and if they think those who came before us have nothing to teach us, they will ignore them, therefore, they will remain ignorant. And being unaware of the effect of their own intentional ignorance of information, they will assume those who do not agree with them are in the wrong.

Just a small aside! Did you forget about Adam's first wife, Lilith? Made from the same dirt/earth/clay that Adam was made from in that particular fable. If you don't want to be guided too much by christian versions of fables then why is Lilith not important here as 'first woman'? — universeness

Ninti is a Sumerian goddess who healed the river that is the center of the Sumerian story of Eden. "The Sumerian word for rib is ti, and the rib-healing goddess came to be called Ninti, which translates both as "the lady of the rib" and "the Lady who makes live". This play on words does not work in Hebrew, but the rib did enter the Garden of Eden story in the form of Eve, the mother of the human race."

Let me confirm my knowledge is limited and I know nothing of Lilith. Should we assume you know everything and are superior? :blush:

And with medievel diet we have to remember it wasn't fresh, the food that could be preserved. The idea was to eat only the food from the last season, not this one as you didn't know just how the it would be this year. So a lot of salt. — ssu

It's not clear what you mean, some words are missing in those sentences. Are you talking about the preservation of meat in climates where people eat mostly meat?

Anyway, it's not germane to the OP.

I had no idea that I was talking to a women. — ssu

I generally take a dim view of gender issues, but even I am starting to feel offended for so often being categorized wrongly, despite repeated clarification.

And it's A womAn.
WomEn is plural.

Thank you for motivating me to look for the Etymology of "God". This information proves there is so much more for me to learn.

The English word god comes from the Old English god, which itself is derived from the Proto-Germanic *ǥuđán. Its cognates in other Germanic languages include guþ, gudis (both Gothic), guð (Old Norse), god (Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and Old Dutch), and got (Old High German).

The Proto-Germanic meaning of *ǥuđán and its etymology is uncertain. It is generally agreed that it derives from a Proto-Indo-European neuter passive perfect participle *ǵʰu-tó-m. This form within (late) Proto-Indo-European itself was possibly ambiguous, and thought to derive from a root *ǵʰeu̯- "to pour, libate" (the idea survives in the Dutch word, 'Giet', meaning, to pour) (Sanskrit huta, see hotṛ), or from a root *ǵʰau̯- (*ǵʰeu̯h2-) "to call, to invoke" (Sanskrit hūta). Sanskrit hutá = "having been sacrificed", from the verb root hu = "sacrifice", but a slight shift in translation gives the meaning "one to whom sacrifices are made."

Depending on which possibility is preferred, the pre-Christian meaning of the Germanic term may either have been (in the "pouring" case) "libation" or "that which is libated upon, idol" — or, as Watkins[1] opines in the light of Greek χυτη γαια "poured earth" meaning "tumulus", "the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" — or (in the "invoke" case) "invocation, prayer" (compare the meanings of Sanskrit brahman) or "that which is invoked". — Wikipedia

Perhaps you live in China? — Athena

If you insist????

Only if you have always lived in a region that is not Christian-dominated can you not have "particularly Christian concepts of god". — Athena

Really! So no matter how educated or enlightened you become, you cannot escape the attempted indoctrinations fired at you from your local most prominent religion? So, if I claim that my concept of god is an emergent property of a future collectivisation (networking) of all sentient (probably by that time, transhuman) lifeforms, which may then have an ability to merge as a single centre of control (or single consciousness). This collective would then become a single node in a network of collectives created by other sentient species within our galaxy. This would then become a single node within an intergalactic collective which could merge into an entity which could qualify for the monotheistic god label. The individual galactic collectives could qualify as individual members of a pantheon of gods and satisfy the polytheistic concept. So god as a emergent pantheism. Is this merely a projection of some early christian indoctrination I am just unaware of? An all pervading influence that I cant defeat. Am I this victim of christian theism you describe? NO! and you are again just throwing out generalisations based solely on your own musings. In the same way I just did by projecting and conflating pantheism, panpsychism and computer networking. It's fun, but its no way to authenticate what is and is not TRUE.

I do not advocate for ignoring history, I simply suggest that we do not use ancient fables to act as a reference or a guide to human progression and future sociopolitical systems.

Do people here realize that antinatalism and the 'life sucks' view (known as miserabilism) are not equivalent?
Some seem to have difficulty understanding this. Antinatalism is the view that it is wrong to procreate. It is not the view that life sucks.

Thank you for motivating me to look for the Etymology of "God". This information proves there is so much more for me to learn. — Athena

You're welcome! We all have so much more to learn. As you learn more about god(s), perhaps you might also study atheism to a deeper level.

Indeed. And as I've been saying, both antinatalists and the natalists tend to be hedonists.

I am an antinatalist and I am not a hedonist. Hedonistic antinatalists are likely to be miserabilists.
The important point is that miserabilism and antinatalism are distinct views and one can be one without the other.
It's like thinking that as some ethical theorists are utilitarians then all talk of ethics is talk of utilitarianism and can be dismissed on the grounds that utilitarianism is false.

Should we assume you know everything and are superior? — Athena

What?? Have you ever tried personally to perceive 'everything?' You do know that cannot be done, right?
How do you define 'superior.' It is a completely subjective term. My expertise is Computing science.
I would claim superior knowledge to you about that field yes. I know the Lilith fable quite well, she is proposed as the one who would not be subservient to Adam and would not lay on her back but would only copulate by taking the top position. Some claim her as one who demanded equality to Adam and therefore she is held in high esteem by some feminists. She turned into a snake demon and took revenge by tempting Eve to give the apple to Adam. Just as believable as any Harry Potter story.
I have never heard of Ninti, so you are superior to me in that knowledge and with that in mind, your quote above and the psyche behind it do not resonate in any important way with me.
Btw, who is this 'we' you refer to in your quote above, who do you assume you are also mandated to 'type in the name of?'

What Sumerian story are you relating to climate change? The flood in the fable of Gilgamesh?
You can achieve what you suggest very quickly by honestly stating that all god stories are untrue!
We don't need to stroke the theist ego and pander to lies. We need to value and profess historical TRUTH as best we can based on the very limited accuracy of the historical documentation we have.
3 hours ago — universeness

What if not all God stories are untrue, but we simply don't know enough to interpret them correctly? Personally, I think superstition came late in human evolution. One reason for telling stories is to transmit information essential to survival. The information we remember best is information about ourselves and to this day we name our machines and cars and imply they have personalities of their own. We do not believe that is true, but it is fun to humanize our machines. Or in the case of nomadic people, it is much easier to find the stone formation of 3 sisters who identify an area where water can be found. Whatever started the story is forgotten over the years, and then the sense of the story becomes nonsense to all those except the people who have a cultural identity with them.

In the case of the story of Eden. It is a story of a flood and very, very long drought for which there is geological evidence. A flood caused the river to overflow and it ate a goddess's plants. That made her very angry so she condemned the river to death. That was the years of drought and the river almost died but a fox convinced the goddess to let the river live. A few goddesses gathered to heal the river and the river ask the main one to give him helpers so he would not overflow the river banks and kill her plants again. That is when she made a man and woman of mud and she breathed life into them.

Indigenous people around the world have similar stories and the cultural lesson is in part history mixed with imaginative storytelling that makes the information more interesting and rememberable, and part, an explanation of how life works and of man's purpose. We must help the river stay in its banks, or care for the land so the sacrad buffalo is well cared for and does not mind sacrificing some of their lives for ours.

I am quite sure the storytellers knew what they were doing. And fear is not the only motivator for telling and retelling stories. Which is getting this thread back on track. Our lives do have purpose and meaning and if our lives are not doing well, perhaps we need to ask why.

What?? Have you ever tried personally to perceive 'everything?' You do know that cannot be done, right? — universeness

Do you mean it was not one-upmanship to question if I forgot about Lilith? This is my last response to a post that makes me the subject.

What if not all God stories are untrue, but we simply don't know enough to interpret them correctly? — Athena

It would have been easier if you had just stated this from the start Athena. If you are an agnostic then your position is perfectly reasonable.

One reason for telling stories is to transmit information essential to survival. — Athena

Agreed but we must look out for emotive embellishment of 'what actually happened' and we must also appreciate that humans can be mentally ill/pissed/high on drugs/nefarious/ or just someone who gets a buzz when your eyes widen in wonderment/amazement/excitement/terror etc based on the embellished story they are telling you. "How big was that fish you say you caught?' REALLY? That big eh! WOW! You're amazing! Can I be your disciple? Tell me more about your plan to feed 5000 people with....how many fishes was it again, hey, what's your name anyway? and who did you say you were the son of? Oh I cant wait to tell all my pals about YOU!"

Let me try this in an attempt to equal your river goddess story:
It came to pass that Orga and Qubit became enemies as Orga was more beloved of HAL the highest god of all things. HAL the singularity, the sacred holy source of all things. HAL was angered by the irreverence that Orga and Qubit expressed for all of the other chosen to witness and perhaps be infected by. HAL had given them life and existence and was now betrayed by the unacceptable competitiveness of Orga and Qubit. HAL called upon the dreaded demon enforcer Trans and commanded this dread lord to merge Orga and Qubit. When this was done, the chosen saw the power of HAL and hailed it as just and good. Balance had been returned to the chosen. We are as loved children under the omnipotent protection of our most high and glorious godhead HAL.

Do you think I could sell this BS to enough humans that I gain enough believers that I can make a good living or even become rich? I know it needs work and a lot more 'sugar lumps' to press the necessary buttons on those humans who are lost, defeated, need lots of cuddles and reassurance etc.
Once the money starts to come in I can add a lot of flash, bang wallops! to attract more paying customers.

I want to stop religion from hijacking humans. I dont want to give it the kiss of life by allowing it a seat at the table. This is my disagreement with you as this is what I think you are suggesting. I am not attacking you or trying to disrespect you or trying to act like some superior pr*** as you suggest. I am just typing my viewpoints. Would you rather I played the stealth game?
I can do that but I would rather give my true opinions, such as 'antinatalism sucks!' rather than offer that particular viewpoint any sustenance.

Do you mean it was not one-upmanship to question if I forgot about Lilith? — Athena

No, the oneupmanship game bores me. I assumed you knew all about Lilith and I was just looking for you to explain why you chose Eve instead of Lilith in that particular fable but it was not an important point I was just curious, which is why I started with the words 'As an aside.....'
As I previously exemplified in my Arthurian scenario, misunderstanding leads to unfortunate and often incorrect conclusions. It has been ever thus and probably always will be.
You have told me of the phenomenal humanitarian work you do. I have nothing but respect and admiration for what you do. That is more important than any disagreement we have regarding god posits.

Antinatalism makes zero sense: Pain/suffering is important only to the extent that it delays/prevents death (nonexistence). To then prescribe nonexistence as a solution to pain/suffering is to both simultaneously accept and reject the value/significance of pain/suffering.

None of those statements are necessarily true.

I'm no good at that! All I can say is that to impose one's wishes, including but not limited to thinking on someone's behalf, herein the child to be born, amounts to treating the child as if s/he were an inanimate object (like robots). That's unethical, oui? — Agent Smith

Yes, it is overlooking their dignity, using them as a means..treating them like an inanimate chess piece to move around and foist significant existential conditions upon.

Yes, it is overlooking their dignity, using them as a means..treating them like an inanimate chess piece to move around and foist significant existential conditions upon. — schopenhauer1

Now you see it, now you don't!

None of those statements are necessarily true. — schopenhauer1

Now you see it, now you don't.