Thread: The sameness of difference

In my studies of religion i have found a uncanny truth about them all,

Frist, they all stem from some Egyptian dogma as it concerns their incantations and spells of old. Names and places change but the storys gist remains the same.

Second, the stories of the one is the same story retold it seems by the others, from A to Z, even the story of creation in the egyptian text is the identical story of the jewish and christian faiths.

Thrid, its obvious that as a whole religion is a tool for those who need adjusting in some form or another. this adjustment does not give it validity the need does.

Originally Posted by curious1

Frist, they all stem from some Egyptian dogma as it concerns their incantations and spells of old. Names and places change but the storys gist remains the same.

How, then, do you explain the worship of Chac and Quetzacoatl by Mesoamericans? Or the beliefs and practices of the Maori of Polynesia? How do you explain, therefore, the Vedic myths of souther Asia? What of the worship of Anu, Enki, Enlil and Inanu by the Sumerians who were at least contemporary to the Egyptians? Indeed, from this latter culture, more links can be made to Judeo-Christian mythology than are possible from Egyptian mythology.

If by "all" you really meant Judeo-Christian religions, then the arguments oft made that Egyptian mythology is the origin doesn't hold. There were doubtless many influences by Egyptian mythology on early Jewish mythology, but there are at least as many, if not more, influences from other places in Mesopotamia.

Second, the stories of the one is the same story retold it seems by the others, from A to Z, even the story of creation in the egyptian text is the identical story of the jewish and christian faiths.

Which story of creation in Egyptian texts are you referring to? The most prevalent is that of how Ptah masturbated the world into existence. The Earth is a product of his seed. The early Jewish authors had Yahweh/Elohim keep their dicks in their pants.

Thrid, its obvious that as a whole religion is a tool for those who need adjusting in some form or another. this adjustment does not give it validity the need does.

I don't see where you've made this case. Just saying something you believe is "obvious" doesn't make it so; nor does it make it real. What sort of "adjustment" are you referring to? What is being "adjusted," precisely and by whom?

From my humble understanding of history, while the summerians etc may have been around before the egyptians, the latter has more historical examples of their beleif system, so my post was based on dates.

All the others you named may have very well been with a system of their own, but the major religion of this day share the same storys as the egyptian, that includes, jewish, Christian, Islamic and Buddism- oreintal dogma.

The key word in your post is "share."

There is much, if not more, shared with other Near Eastern texts as well as developed within the Canaan-Judeo cultures themselves.

The Noachian flood myth, for instance, is an almost word-for-word borrowing from the Utnapishtim story found in the Epic of Gilgamesh -a myth of Sumerian origin.

Given that, its reasonable to see the same story at work in mostly all the religions, so the question becomes, How then does these all situate themself on the same gist. The answer by any mind would then be "Sameness of Difference"

A nonsense term. Sorry.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

A nonsense term. Sorry.

And yet it fits perfectly, correlate the definition of religion and thereby apply them to all religions (Sameness). Now dive into the denominations of all the religions and you now have the Difference.

Originally Posted by curious1

Given that, its reasonable to see the same story at work in mostly all the religions,

I'm curious why you keep saying that even after it's been pointed out that you are clearly wrong and the broad generalization only applies to the Abrahamic faiths or those that preceeded them in close geogrpaphic proximity.

Perhaps you should study all the religions of note as they apply to stories.

Perhaps he has. Perhaps your own myopic study of religion is narrow and limited.

Your assertions don't hold up. Your made up term is nonsense. Sorry.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

The key word in your post is "share."

There is much, if not more, shared with other Near Eastern texts as well as developed within the Canaan-Judeo cultures themselves.

The Noachian flood myth, for instance, is an almost word-for-word borrowing from the Utnapishtim story found in the Epic of Gilgamesh -a myth of Sumerian origin.

A lot of mythologies share that story, as in fact many different kinds of mythological tales. What I find interesting is the reasoning behind the creation of those myths. Surely not for the sole purpose of creating and instigating fear into subjects and followers.

Your assertions don't hold up. Your made up term is nonsense. Sorry.

A lot are. Most terms and theories that were once held in high regard became nonsense. A lot of theories such as relativity and evolution were considered by the most scientific people in history at the time of their creation to be nonsense. So your point skin walker is?

I may also add that many ideas and theories are nonsense, and actually do stay nonsense, yet there are some that start out as nonsense and eventually make perfect sense, for a while at least. To quote:

"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

It would seem that some kind of mythological event, such as the deluge is based on some historical fact, and perhaps then used by religion to perpetuate some phenomena akin to God, for whatever reason they would have so chosen.

First, they all stem from some Egyptian dogma as it concerns their incantations and spells of old. Names and places change but the storys gist remains the same.

That is true, but not all religions can trace their ideologies back to Egypt, it has been a common thought that Egypt itself retained a lot of religion and mythology from Sumeria and Babylonia. As skinwalker has already informed, many mesoamerican, native american and aboriginal cultures derived their tales and mythologies from elsewhere, probably original in their own right.

Second, the stories of the one is the same story retold it seems by the others, from A to Z, even the story of creation in the egyptian text is the identical story of the jewish and christian faiths.

True, a lot of tales bare striking resemblance, the story of Jesus and the Egyptian God, Horus for instance are very alike.

Third, it's obvious that as a whole religion is a tool for those who need adjusting in some form or another...

Religion is seen by some to not be a tool, but a path to follow in which gives one security and safety, a feeling of being desired and worthy and that gives comfort in knowing that loved ones are in some afterlife somewhere for them to be met again one day. Just because some people may find it harder accepting the truth (truth being immensley subjective in this regard), does not give us the right to judge others and castigate them for being different. I don't agree with religion, yet believe people should have the freedom to believe what they so choose, freely.

...this adjustment does not give it validity the need does.

I do not understand what you are saying, are you saying:

...does not give it the validity, the need does. Or...
...does not give the validiy the need it does.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I'm curious why you keep saying that even after it's been pointed out that you are clearly wrong and the broad generalization only applies to the Abrahamic faiths or those that preceeded them in close geogrpaphic proximity.

Opinions are not right or wrong, they are merley thoughts and just that, opinions. As opposed to beliefs which are accepted by the individual. By all rights therefore, everyone involved in this discussion is subjective and no more valid than the other.

And actually Lynx, his comment:

Given that, its reasonable to see the same story at work in mostly all the religions,

Is actually plausible, and quite reasonable to assume that it is the truth, seeing as it is impossible for any scientific institution to logically and evidentially disprove the creation of these mythologies and their possible correlation to actual events.

This is why the debate between science and religion conistently and persistenly continues to exist, as science is currently unable to disprove mythological tales. Agreed, many are perhaps absolute gibberish and tales intended to frighten followers or perhaps even non-believers, equally as much as to promote hope, strength and 'truth' as broadly as possible. That does not neccisarly mean that they are false.

I for one hold the belief in many things that both science and religions would laugh at, however holding onto the scientific notion, that one can never truly be verifably corret until all elements are proven to exist or not exist. And seeing that such evidence in this case is improbable and highly unlikely to occur in coming years, I choose to believe what I believe merley because of that reason, that I choose to and have the freedom to do so.

Curious may be talking nonsense, and yet may well be talking truth, he seems to be stronly with the belief that he is correct, and therefore the reason he keeps saying what he believes, the same reason religion keeps saying what it believes and the same reason science keeps saying what it believes.

We are all the same, being proven is just used by some people to protect their beliefs in that they are right and that others are wrong, a psychological phenomena common to the human brain. Therefore making all our motives, rational and persistence for our beliefs, highly biased, reference science and 'prooving'religion. And as time goes on beliefs will change, scientific theories will be disproved or improved and life will continue. Regardless of our opinions

quote]Opinions are not right or wrong, they are merley thoughts and just that, opinions. As opposed to beliefs which are accepted by the individual. By all rights therefore, everyone involved in this discussion is subjective and no more valid than the other. [/quote]
All opinions are certainly not equal. Ones based on reason and objective facts and observations are more worthy and likely to be true than those that are not. To claim otherwise is to reject reason, and by extension, the entire scientific method.

This is why the debate between science and religion conistently and persistenly continues to exist, as science is currently unable to disprove mythological tales.

Also untrue. Most of Genesis as told in the bible (or its equivalent in the Koran) has been proven to be untrue for example as have other chapters. There was no global flood, not boat of proportions describe (because they are impossible to build), no distribution of two of each mammal from one point, no exodus of tens of thousands of lost Jews from Egypt etc. The myths are garbage completely unsupported by the evidence.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Also untrue. Most of Genesis as told in the bible (or its equivalent in the Koran) has been proven to be untrue for example as have other chapters. There was no global flood, not boat of proportions describe (because they are impossible to build), no distribution of two of each mammal from one point, no exodus of tens of thousands of lost Jews from Egypt etc. The myths are garbage completely unsupported by the evidence.

Invent a time machine, go back in time, take me with you. Then I'll believe you.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Curious may be talking nonsense, and yet may well be talking truth, he seems to be stronly with the belief that he is correct, and therefore the reason he keeps saying what he believes, the same reason religion keeps saying what it believes and the same reason science keeps saying what it believes.

weel, that is just silly. I expected better of you. You have certainly delivered better in the past.

Science does not keep saying what is is saying; science continuously adapts and amends what it is saying in the light of new evidence, or new interpretations of existing evidence. Science say what it says strongly because of the evidence, not because of belief.

Religious belief is founded on faith. Scientific belief is founded on evidence.
Religious belief is unchanging (unless there is a crisis of faith). Scientific belief is plastic

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

weel, that is just silly. I expected better of you. You have certainly delivered better in the past.

I'm not here for you or anyone else Ophiolite, and I don't like condescension. Nobody has the right to judge another.

Religious belief is founded on faith. Scientific belief is founded on evidence.

New discoveries in science and extravagent theories are based on faith; it's the only way science develops. Once that faith goes so far, physical evidence usually comes along, that's why I have such respect for great for entrepreneurs, and so little for those who perpetuate their discoveries for decades on end without any expansion on the original theories. How do you suppose Tesla or Einstein could have developed such extravagent bizzare theories without faith that they were right in their minds in the face of great adversity of the so called all-knowing scientific institutions at that time?

Originally Posted by I

Curious may be talking nonsense, and yet may well be talking truth, he seems to be strongly with the belief that he is correct, and therefore the reason he keeps saying what he believes, the same reason religion keeps saying what it believes and the same reason science keeps saying what it believes.

The universe is wierder than we can imagine, so how can one profess to share a quote, believe in uniformity and launch at anything that seems silly or doesn't make sense?

Why else would religion keep persistent beliefs if they did not believe what they believed in? Personally I think disagreeing with this is rhetoric, it's like saying a tortoise isn't a tortoise, except of course when he's on the gin and believes in his inner soul he's a turtle

As for sceince, anyone who understands the concepts of any scientific branch to the most degree I would say believes in it. Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Peter Higgs wouldn't continue in their fields if they didn't believe what they worked on would they now Ophiolite? Personally I don't see anything silly at all in my post, I think it makes perfect sense. I for one don't believe Einstein's theories are 100% accurate or are made with the right amount of detail as there are loop holes in both relativity and quantum theory. I do believe in it, and if I did not why would I continue to talk about it? If it was not for this force, nothing would get done and no new discoveries would be made. Faith drives greatly in science, poorly in religion.

Originally Posted by Quantime

I'm not here for you or anyone else Ophiolite, and I don't like condescension. Nobody has the right to judge another.

If you don't like condescension, don't say things that merit it.

I was not judging you - I was judging what you had said. Indeed, there was an implicit judgement of you and that judgement was that you were 'a good egg' who had temporarily gone awry. If you don't like being judged as a 'good egg' most of the time, just keep up nonsensical posts and that judgement will go away.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Religious belief is founded on faith. Scientific belief is founded on evidence.

How do you suppose Tesla or Einstein could have developed such extravagent bizzare theories without faith that they were right in their minds in the face of great adversity of the so called all-knowing scientific institutions at that time?

Screw Tesla. He is far to controversial a figure to have a meaningful discussion about on a science forum.

As far as Einstein goes the whole fabric of his theories were sitting there in full public view waiting for someone to join up the dots. Any genius could have done it. Einstein happened to be the one. Great adversity? He had the support of a significant part of the scientific community precisely because his proposals made sense and offered better explanations than heretofore. Certainly and quite rightly scepticism remained until sufficient corroborating evidence was gathered.

I notice you don't mention the many scientists whose faith led them to keep pursuing the wrong idea for a lifetime. That faith was just as strong, but it led no where. Faith is not what does it in science - observation, hypothesis, evidence - those are the requirements.

Originally Posted by Quantime

The universe is wierder than we can imagine, so how can one profess to share a quote, believe in uniformity and launch at anything that seems silly or doesn't make sense?

Because while the universe is indeed weird, one of the weirdest things is the ability of people to come up with speculations that fail to deal with reality, ignore the evidence and treat martyrdom through self perpetuated ignorance as a good thing. I shall always attack poorly conceived, badly presented, unsubstantiated nonsense as an affornt to science, to rational thought and to humanity at large. I make no apology for such a stance.

Here is a perfect example of my original post being morphed into something other then its intent.

I stated that religions (all) share the same story from historical text, i never said that the egpytians was the ONLY source.

I further stated that religion is a tool that folks find a need for, i never condemend it or condoned it.

Some think that religion is a consturct of the mind, invented by the mind to deal with some of man's lack of knowledge or understanding or problems.

Recently God himself has been called as a hypothesis, nothing more than a outerworldly computer programmer.

But my original fact remains, All stories in religions, stem from stories in history.

Originally Posted by curious1

But my original fact remains, All stories in religions, stem from stories in history.

If by "stories in history" you include those contrived and fabricated in the past--you're mostly correct. If you mean they all had some basis in fact--there's little evidence for that. The certainly all don't stem from the same origins--far from it.

I notice you don't mention the many scientists whose faith led them to keep pursuing the wrong idea for a lifetime. That faith was just as strong, but it led no where. Faith is not what does it in science - observation, hypothesis, evidence - those are the requirements.

Observation, hypothesis, evidence. Hmm.... so what created the mindset that one could eventually Observe, hypothesize and find evidence in time dilation for example? Because I don't know about you Ophiolite but I'd find it hard to spot time dilation everyday when you have never even heard of the concept let alone have the ability to create it from observing something you are unable to. Science is enhanced by observation, hypotheses and evidence, not driven. Remember that all human effort is driven by emotion and faith in oneself, in one's belief. If that wasn't so I would see a lack of emotional driven words in your posts Ophiolite, after all you're coming from a place logic right? In this respect to effort and discovery, faith is the keyword. Go and ask Stephen Hawking if he has done all his effort because he had faith in himself, faith that he was right. If you could, go and ask Darwin; imagine the adversity he faced against all sceince at the time. If he did not have faith in his theory, he never would have believed the evidence fit the picture, he never would have figured that the pieces did fit, and that there was a way to put them together after all. Any theory created is not without faith Ophiolite.

Tesla could observe, hypothesise and look for evidence until he wept blood, but without that faith that he was right, without the balls to stand in front of the scientific community and tell them all he believed, that his theories were right, he never would have acheived any of the feats he did. Without faith, life is lost for everyone. Faith, drives. Belief re-inforces.

There is very little evidence for string theory, yet there is great faith among believers that many dimensions and specific vibrating strings are true. There was very little evidence for sub-sub atomic particles and very little if nothing observable yet it did not stop such scientists theorising on new particles such as quarks, mesons, muons etc that they had the faith would explain the strange phenomena they couldn't observe or find evidence for. Granted something was going off and you could see that, but you couldn't observe such exotic particles, not without creating a machine that would allow you to, thus having faith you would actually see something, when it could have been nothing at all. They had the faith that it was true, that they did exist and then because of that faith create a machine that could observe what they believed existed. Without that faith driving, the evidence, observation and hypotheses of what was to come would never have been, as there would have been nothing to observe or evidence to be found for; it's easy to bet on the horse you know is going to win Ophiolite.

Because while the universe is indeed weird, one of the weirdest things is the ability of people to come up with speculations that fail to deal with reality, ignore the evidence and treat martyrdom through self perpetuated ignorance as a good thing. I shall always attack poorly conceived, badly presented, unsubstantiated nonsense as an affornt to science, to rational thought and to humanity at large. I make no apology for such a stance.

I make no stance for anyone but myself, these are my opinions and there are billions of people who have opinions too. They're all worth a dime a dozen. All of them. Even assuming you are correct, is that all you are going to do? Attack and do nothing else? What have you done for mutual understanding, or benefit of others here Ophiolite? Nothing, you have been sat on the fence, in the middle ground happy to talk about science and profess all the logic you have spent an entire life creating so you can feel comfy in your place of condescension, so you can attack others, for that sole purpose. To attack, to not suggest, or explain how your way is better and more beneficial, or find a grey area. Just simply to attack. I won't judge you as you, nor will I assume anything about you. If you are willing to sit behind a computer and attack, insult and ridicule another person for the sake of ones own righteoussness and profession of self preservation, well just think what I and countless others would do. This thread was about what curious1 thouht, about his ideas and I stood to that, and offered my opinion, nothing more. I stood up for curious1, yes he may be a little ignorant; we all are. Yes, he does sound like he is talking nonsense a bit, yet it is our responsibility to look past that, to see inbetween the lines of what he is saying, of what we are all saying. To have the tolerance and open mind to understand another's point of view. Not to simply cast it aside instantly with the word 'silly' or 'nonsense'; that, is the true epitome of ignorance.

I see your dissatisfaction with other people's 'ignorance', I see your self-justified beliefs and conclusion how others can not see the 'truth' or 'logic' you see. That's life Ophiolite, deal with it and look not to judge others merley because they do not see things as you do. There are over 6.5 billion eyes on this planet and all of them see things differently. Who the hell has the right to judge what someone else should believe, or act, or decide what is right for them.

Screw Tesla. He is far to controversial a figure to have a meaningful discussion about on a science forum.

I think you should turn off your computer then and go live in a cave Ophiolite; he is primarily responsible for anything modern science can hope to ever have become, you are using something he has direct ancestry to to even have the ability to say that comment to me here, unless of course you live in a cave in candlelight. And with that ignorant comment Ophiolite I see no point to continue in intelligent discussion with you, as all I have seen is ad-hominem attacks, judgement to me, ignorance to one of history's most influential scientists and the self-righteousness that you hold the rightful place to castigate another human being and their beliefs.

Indeed, there was an implicit judgement of you and that judgement was that you were 'a good egg' who had temporarily gone awry. If you don't like being judged as a 'good egg' most of the time, just keep up nonsensical posts and that judgement will go away.

So conform to your beliefs and ideologies or suffer condescension, judgement, ridicule and anything else I care to throw at you for not being as I am. Don't know about you Ophiolite, but that doesn't go down in my book, nor any other self-respectful human being for that matter. To some people I am talking sense, to some gibberish, it's the same for all of us. I don't like people treating me disrespectfully and will not tolerate it; it's unacceptable.

After all my time on this forum Ophiolite I keep seeing the same, I see you holding to criticise everything with so little regard and thought that you might be wrong, shrugging off any seriousness you then hold with a simple joke or slight humour to mask the true meaning behind your words. Holding to archaeic beliefs that because a certain majority holds the same belief, that it is logical and makes perfect sense to your mind that you dare not deter from it, and slander anyone who threatens that comfortable place you have. I honesty cannot believe you're ignorance and rudeness; it is unbelievable. Granted I may be totally ignorant here (although I don't believe I am) and not see that, yet would be open to seeing my ignorance openly if presented in the right, humane way. Personally I don't believe I am being ignorant, I see myself standing up for the freedom to say what I wish, to think what I wish and to openly show you that I will not tolerate insults and ad-hominem attacks; they are clearly not the formula for intelligent discussion. Age does not grant the right to be inconsiderate and ignorant of another human being; nothing does. I am starting to see why such members with great personality such as Megabrain and Minxy left. They were great characters, eccentric and with flavour.

-----------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Curious1

But my original fact remains, All stories in religions, stem from stories in history.

I think that's off a little, there may have been a lot of stories of history in religion that may have been chinese whispered yet some may have just been fabrications. There are plenty of examples in our history of such tales that never were, I mean were all bullshitters to some degree right?

Recently God himself has been called as a hypothesis, nothing more than a outerworldly computer programmer.

He is a hypothesis, yet belief in him is faith. He may be a computer progammer as this could be a computer simulated dream world such as 'The Matrix'. That's actually a great analogy you came up with there curious. I think he needs to stop playing CoD and get back to work.

Some think that religion is a consturct of the mind, invented by the mind to deal with some of man's lack of knowledge or understanding or problems.

Fully with you on that one, people will contrive and create something extravagent to explain something they cannot understand. The whole 'earth is flat' premise for one was something extravagent yet given their observation how could they think otherwise?

-----------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

If by "stories in history" you include those contrived and fabricated in the past--you're mostly correct. If you mean they all had some basis in fact--there's little evidence for that. The certainly all don't stem from the same origins--far from it.

The stories that were in the holy texts of the world were perhaps truth to them when they wrote them. There is a suggestion for the great flood for instance, there is a theory that a lot of ice melted at that time, or that there was a great change in sea level; it certainly would explain the disappearance of 'Atlanits'. Another thing is that such strange fantiful tales are perhaps based on truth, yet chinese-whispered and the plots changed a little bit for context and censoring of what was right or wrong at the time in which certain places adopted such religions.

Mohammed's establishing of Islam is fully documented in history, his adventures are found in many texts, yet of course many places have changed the plotlines for their own purposes, such as is the case common with religion and history.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Nobody has the right to judge another.

Sure they do. Particularly when the other is getting off-topic. Please stay on-topic!.

Faith is not a religious word, just because religious people use it a lot doesn't make it a religious word, same with belief.
I have faith that my car will start tomorrow because it has started every time since I bought it. A monkey has faith that he won't hurt himself when he jumps across to another tree. A person believes a ball will fall down if you throw it up.

Everyone has faith, everyone believes in things. However belief and faith in things like gods, angles, unicorns, devils, werewolves etc is a completely different sort of faith, it is faith in something that you have never seen, has no evidence for and is not even a reasonable proposition. i.e. blind faith.

Many people attribute faith as a virtue, after all being confident in something can be helpful, but don't mix it up with blind faith.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

If by "stories in history" you include those contrived and fabricated in the past--you're mostly correct. If you mean they all had some basis in fact--there's little evidence for that. The certainly all don't stem from the same origins--far from it.

The stories that were in the holy texts of the world were perhaps truth to them when they wrote them. There is a suggestion for the great flood for instance, there is a theory that a lot of ice melted at that time, or that there was a great change in sea level; it certainly would explain the disappearance of 'Atlanits'. Another thing is that such strange fantiful tales are perhaps based on truth, yet chinese-whispered and the plots changed a little bit for context and censoring of what was right or wrong at the time in which certain places adopted such religions.

Mohammed's establishing of Islam is fully documented in history, his adventures are found in many texts, yet of course many places have changed the plotlines for their own purposes, such as is the case common with religion and history.

I'm not arguing that some of the myths don't have a sliver of basis in some facts, for example an ancient city dweller survives a huge valley flood and his known world is destroyed become a rather silly story about the globe being flooded, or Mount Ranier out my window being called Mount Tahoma, by the natives which means "fire mountain," because perhaps some ancester figured out that cone shaped mountains spurt fire sometimes.

I'm refuting your continual use of "all" when you make those claims.

--
As for faith your quite right Tglad that there are several different kinds. But it's most useful in many discussions to use the meaning that denotes no evidence is required--that same used and connected to many religious arguments.

again, the factuality of the stories was not suggested be me, i merely state their similarity all in all where it concerns their gist,

And faith to me is like the word ghost, yes you can find a definition for it in Websters, but the definition defines the unseen or in the case of faith the unknow.

Faith in religion is different then faith in a car starting in the morning, just as belief in God is more then belief in Ford.

For the record i believe in the Creator but i attach no religion to this, nor do i call him by any name since they all will be lacking, the cosomological order is my science, and yet my ear is fine tuned to any facts supporting another proven view.

Okay, where is the science in this thread?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Okay, where is the science in this thread?

It is General Discussion Harold. That tends to be light on science, probably by design. This is the water cooler sub-forum, is it not.

Quanttime (and apologies to Skin for briefly going off topic, but Quant's attack deserves some response). You ask "What have you done for mutual understanding, or benefit of others here Ophiolite?"

I reply, I have:
Made an effort to say welcome to each new member.
Provided answers to questions asked by those genuinely seeking knowledge.
Cited many interesting and relevant papers to better inform forum members.
Presented detailed arguments for or against particular positions.
Injected occassional humour to lighten the mood.
Identified poorly thought out arguments, logical fallacies and errors of fact.

Do you also want me to come round and vacuum clean your frigging carpets?

Now, curious1, back on topic: you aren't just moving the goal posts, you have shifted them out of the stadium and converted them to pockets on a pool table. Your early statements were clear and absolute about the source of religion. You are now back peddling so fast I can hear the sonic boom from here.

I was in a hurry when I did it, but I moved this thread from Scientific Study of Religion to General Discussion since it was distinctly light on the science.

Originally Posted by curious1

again, the factuality of the stories was not suggested be me, i merely state their similarity all in all where it concerns their gist,

All you cited are from the same part of the world. Do a worldly comparison....

To the esteemed moderator and cheif grand poo poo of this particular post site,


What kind of science are you looking for in a topic thats more suited for thought and belief systems then string theory and atomic structure?

The grand po poo part was humour, sometimes its needed. But the question truly seeks a answer.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by curious1

again, the factuality of the stories was not suggested be me, i merely state their similarity all in all where it concerns their gist,

All you cited are from the same part of the world. Do a worldly comparison....

I did and from my account "we" from a standpoint of civilization, all come from the same part of the world so my post is historical and world wide and the stories run from zoroster to seven day adventist.

Originally Posted by curious1

I did and from my account "we" from a standpoint of civilization, all come from the same part of the world

what?

Man originated from africa outwards, so historically the most ancients forms of recorded history/stories would also derive from that bracket in history (time)

Originally Posted by curious1

Man originated from africa outwards, so historically the most ancients forms of recorded history/stories would also derive from that bracket in history (time)

So now show us comparisons of Chinese faiths with religions from when they left Africa some 70,000 years or so ago. Or Polynesians? Or Native Americans? etc.

Originally Posted by curious1

To the esteemed moderator and cheif grand poo poo of this particular post site,


What kind of science are you looking for in a topic thats more suited for thought and belief systems then string theory and atomic structure?

The grand po poo part was humour, sometimes its needed. But the question truly seeks a answer.

It is a subject that can be treated in a scholarly manner. You look for evidence in the historical record. You use anthropological evidence, like artifacts in burial sites. There are lots of holes in the record, and it's difficult work. But at least you have something worth discussing, not the speculative garbage you are coming up with.

Here is the problem curious 1: your claims are demonstrably false and have been so demonstrated. You fail to acknowledge that these demonstrations have occured. Had you done so there is a fragment of an argument that cuold be made, it is probably rather trite and simplistic, but it would be better than nothing. You appear to prefer nothing.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by curious1

Man originated from africa outwards, so historically the most ancients forms of recorded history/stories would also derive from that bracket in history (time)

So now show us comparisons of Chinese faiths with religions from when they left Africa some 70,000 years or so ago. Or Polynesians? Or Native Americans? etc.

Read eccleseises in the bible (not sure i spelled it right) in its gist its the same spill you get from Tao.

[
But at least you have something worth discussing, not the speculative garbage you are coming up with.[/quote]

Garbage, and specuative, one question then do we concurr that religion is man made.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Here is the problem curious 1: your claims are demonstrably false and have been so demonstrated. You fail to acknowledge that these demonstrations have occured. Had you done so there is a fragment of an argument that cuold be made, it is probably rather trite and simplistic, but it would be better than nothing. You appear to prefer nothing.

Oppie, your comments has long since ceased to matter, but thanks anyway.

Originally Posted by Skinwalker

When the other is getting off-topic. Please stay on-topic!.

Originally Posted by Quantime

Originally Posted by Curious1

But my original fact remains, All stories in religions, stem from stories in history.

I think that's off a little, there may have been a lot of stories of history in religion that may have been chinese whispered yet some may have just been fabrications. There are plenty of examples in our history of such tales that never were, I mean were all bullshitters to some degree right?

Recently God himself has been called as a hypothesis, nothing more than a outerworldly computer programmer.

He is a hypothesis, yet belief in him is faith. He may be a computer progammer as this could be a computer simulated dream world such as 'The Matrix'. That's actually a great analogy you came up with there curious. I think he needs to stop playing CoD and get back to work.

Some think that religion is a consturct of the mind, invented by the mind to deal with some of man's lack of knowledge or understanding or problems.

Fully with you on that one, people will contrive and create something extravagent to explain something they cannot understand. The whole 'earth is flat' premise for one was something extravagent yet given their observation how could they think otherwise?

-----------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

If by "stories in history" you include those contrived and fabricated in the past--you're mostly correct. If you mean they all had some basis in fact--there's little evidence for that. The certainly all don't stem from the same origins--far from it.

The stories that were in the holy texts of the world were perhaps truth to them when they wrote them. There is a suggestion for the great flood for instance, there is a theory that a lot of ice melted at that time, or that there was a great change in sea level; it certainly would explain the disappearance of 'Atlanits'. Another thing is that such strange fantiful tales are perhaps based on truth, yet chinese-whispered and the plots changed a little bit for context and censoring of what was right or wrong at the time in which certain places adopted such religions.

Mohammed's establishing of Islam is fully documented in history, his adventures are found in many texts, yet of course many places have changed the plotlines for their own purposes, such as is the case common with religion and history.

Originally Posted by Skinwalker

When the other is getting off-topic. Please stay on-topic!.

What was all the above? The rest was self-respect.

Originally Posted by curious1

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Here is the problem curious 1: your claims are demonstrably false and have been so demonstrated. You fail to acknowledge that these demonstrations have occured. Had you done so there is a fragment of an argument that cuold be made, it is probably rather trite and simplistic, but it would be better than nothing. You appear to prefer nothing.

Oppie, your comments has long since ceased to matter, but thanks anyway.

And so you fail to address the fact that each of your claims has been systematically dismantled in this thread. Is it self indulgent gall, or brain damage that allows you to blind yourself to that? You may dismiss my remarks in any way you please, it will not alter the demonstrable errors in your thinking, errors that are apparent to all but yourself.