NationStates Jolt Archive

Ever wonder where the word "God" originates?

Have you heard of the Icelandic tale of Ragnarok, the Greek myth of the Titans?
The myths told that in the ancient past, the gods fought a bitter war with the Titans, and claimed the throne of the Heaven.

Is that true?

Tracing the history back to the ancient times by looking at the various names of "God", and His foe(s).

English
God - Devils / Demons

Christian, Judaism
Eloah / Jehovah - Satan

Islam
Allah - Iblis

Latin, Roman
Deus Pater - Diablo / Diaboli

Vedic
Dyaus Pita - ?

Egyptian
Amon Ra - ?

Zoro-astrians
Ahura Mazda - Devas

The names of God end with "a", "aa" sound.
The names of God's foes begin with "de-", "di-" sound.

And they are linked historically and geographically, from England to Central Europe, to Italy, to Asia Minor, to Sumeria, to Persia (now Iran).

Where is the origin of the word "God"?
The answer is the ancient civilization next to Persia.

Indian terminologies for God and Demon:
Devas - Asura

Curious, WHY were the names of gods and demons inverted?

Indians fought a war in the past. people worshipping Devas put Asura into Exile, and branded them as demons, replaced them and became gods.

The people worshipping Asura on the other hand escaped to Persia (now Iran) and established a new religion worshipping Ahura Mazda, and claimed Devas as the demons.

The Greek Myth, and the icelandic tale retold this legend.

The God(s) we worship now were demon(s) in the past.

That is why we fought wars over petty differences! The hateful nature of religion has been causing so much bloodshed.

Abandon religion now and live a peaceful Life.

This thread will soon be a movie starring Tom Hanks!

Don't
http://www.thestaigers.com/flamebait.jpg

Abandon religion? Done

but can I keep my spirituality? I like it and I don't force my personal beliefs on anyone. In fact I could care less what others think of my beliefs. See? I wont start any wars over my non-religious spirituality.

Abandon religion now and live a peaceful Life.

Well, already done for me long ago ;)

So how does abandoning religion led to a peaceful society? Do you mean like the Soviet Union?

Just because people are aethist or unreligous doesn't make them less violent. Violence is part of humanity, an extremely ugly part, but it isn't going to go away if religion does. People will find plenty of other things to fight over, race, ethnitcy, creed, class, or other stupid shit. Anyways religion does give some people a sense of direction and a purpose. Not all people need it, but some do.

Abandon religion now and live a peaceful Life. How about I keep my religion and continue to live a peaceful life?

Well, I would do that, except that there are too many heretics in this world and I take it upon myself to systematically exterminate them, because my religion has made me violent.

O NOBLE friends; seekers after God! Praise be to God! Today the light of Truth is shining upon the world in its abundance; the breezes of the heavenly garden are blowing throughout all regions; the call of the Kingdom is heard in all lands, and the breath of the Holy Spirit is felt in all hearts that are faithful. The Spirit of God is giving eternal life. In this wonderful age the East is enlightened, the West is fragrant, and everywhere the soul inhales the holy perfume. The sea of the unity of mankind is lifting up its waves with joy, for there is real communication between the hearts and minds of men. The banner of the Holy Spirit is uplifted, and men see it, and are assured with the knowledge that this is a new day.

This is a new cycle of human power. All the horizons of the world are luminous, and the world will become indeed as a garden and a paradise. It is the hour of unity of the sons of men and of the drawing together of all races and all classes. You are loosed from ancient superstitions which have kept men ignorant, destroying the foundation of true humanity.

The gift of God to this enlightened age is the knowledge of the oneness of mankind and of the fundamental oneness of religion. War shall cease *20* between nations, and by the will of God the Most Great Peace shall come; the world will be seen as a new world, and all men will live as brothers.

In the days of old an instinct for warfare was developed in the struggle with wild animals; this is no longer necessary; nay, rather, co-operation and mutual understanding are seen to produce the greatest welfare of mankind. Enmity is now the result of prejudice only.

In the Hidden Words Bahá'u'lláh says, "Justice is to be loved above all." Praise be to God, in this country the standard of justice has been raised; a great effort is being made to give all souls an equal and a true place. This is the desire of all noble natures; this is today the teaching for the East and for the West; therefore the East and the West will understand each other and reverence each other, and embrace like long-parted lovers who have found each other.

There is one God; mankind is one; the foundations of religion are one. Let us worship Him, and give praise for all His great Prophets and Messengers who have manifested His brightness and glory.

The blessing of the Eternal One be with you in all its richness, that each soul according to his measure may take freely of Him. Amen.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 19)

What the hell did you just say? I didn't catch a word of that.

What the hell did you just say? I didn't catch a word of that.

The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Daystar of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The One true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.

(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 14)

Help! I Dont Exist!

So how does abandoning religion led to a peaceful society?


With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )

Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders

Do I have to join a religion first and then abandon it,oh Master of Words and their Sounds and Hidden Meanings?

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )

Wow, nice quote...

Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders


On the episode where Homer got smart, he wrote a paper proving God didn't exist. Which Ned promptly burned.

A little appropriate don't you think?

I'll abandon the bonds of religion & keep my faith!

The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 239)

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - ) Not really. Not all of the NKVD were evil. Not all of the Maoists were evil.

O NOBLE friends (et cetera)

I love the all-caps of the word Noble.

Anyway, what are you getting at?

To believe or not to believe that is really the question? if you do not believe, do you exist? & If you exist how can you not believe? Been There, Done That, Been Forgiven!

Not really. Not all of the NKVD were evil. Not all of the Nazis were evil.


Godwin! Godwin! HAHAHAHAHA! You lose!

edit: {Sorry, this is the first time I got to say Godwin first, and I got a little excited.}

Abandon religion now and live a peaceful Life.
Actually, my life is much more peaceful since I've become a Christian than it was before I became a Christian. If it's all the same to you (or even if it's not), I'll keep trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus.

Olara']Actually, my life is much more peaceful since I've become a Christian than it was before I became a Christian. If it's all the same to you (or even if it's not), I'll keep trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus.

Ah, grasshopper, you you have chosen to believe, therefore you also have been there, done that & been forgiven! as well as exist.

Abandon religion now and live a peaceful Life.

Been there, done that. Ended up doing drugs and alcohol and got very depressed until I found Jesus. He may not work for everybody, but he worked for me and I feel no more violent then I used to.

To believe or not to believe that is really the question? if you do not believe, do you exist? & If you exist how can you not believe? Been There, Done That, Been Forgiven!

I don't belive*. I exist.

*I think. What are you referring to?

I love the all-caps of the word Noble.

Anyway, what are you getting at?

It seems to me a segment of the population always blames religion and God for much of the "bad" things that happen in the world. Now, certainly religion and religious leader that have drifted away from the true and obvious meaning of the religions founder should be blamed for their irreligous attitudes. But why blame God. He did not ever say that this life was meant to be perfect and without difficulties. This life is best thought of as preparation for the next life. Religion is meant to be a source of unity amoungst people and when it drifts from that purpose it is no longer religion but superstition.

-snip-

I see. Thanks.

Some stuff to think about there children. Lets all take a second to think about his words...

i AM satan.

I don't belive*. I exist.

*I think. What are you referring to?

If you do not believe in anything, how can you logically define your existence, for in using logic, we see that even in the propigation of the "Big Bang"; which by the way was first theorized by a Catholic priest to explain creation, that the essence of a beginning starts with sumpting, & logically dat sumpting has to be sumptin beyond the comprehension of man & thus at the very least is a diety, if of course you choose to believe Einstien. Whereas i shall keep the Faith & by which shall be saved, for it is by your faith, not mine that you are saved, your walk with forever is between you & forever.

Some stuff to think about there children. Lets all take a second to think about his words...


We regret to inform you that due to the actions of Liskeinland, all arguments made by those nations that are "pro-religion" in this thread are automatically considered lost. Have a nice day.

If you do not believe in anything, how can you logically define your existence, for in using logic, we see that even in the propigation of the "Big Bang"; which by the way was first theorized by a Catholic priest to explain creation, that the essence of a beginning starts with sumpting, & logically dat sumpting has to be sumptin beyond the comprehension of man & thus at the very least is a diety, if of course you choose to believe Einstien. Whereas i shall keep the Faith & by which shall be saved, for it is by your faith, not mine that you are saved, your walk with forever is between you & forever.

Oh, I belive in some things. I belive in tables. I belive the sky wont collapse. Therefore I don't "not believe in anything" so I can define my existence.

And why must it be a diety who started everything? And why is this descision logical?

i AM satan.

In answer to those who may ask you what the stand is of your religion on the subject of demons, you can say without hesitation that the concept of Satan or the Devil as an actual being opposed to God is rejected by the Bahá'í teachings but that the term is understood by Bahá'ís to mean the promptings of self and desire and the dark side of human nature.

(13 February 1974, from the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer) [33]

(The Universal House of Justice, 1998 Dec 16, Traditional practices in Africa)

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )
Wow, and if I know anything about science, it is that Physics is the study of the history of morality and religion in human history. In fact, Physicists know everything and are never wrong, and that is how I know that religion is always evil.
I also know that man may never fly, travelling at a speed in excess of 30 miles an hour will be lethal to anyone who attempts it, the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, travel to the moon is blatantly impossible.

Inasmuch as the fundamental principle of the teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the oneness of the world of humanity, I will speak to you upon the intrinsic oneness of all phenomena. This is one of the abstruse subjects of divine philosophy.

Fundamentally all existing things pass through the same degrees and phases of development, and any given phenomenon embodies all others. An ancient statement of the Arabian philosophers declares that all things are involved in all things. It is evident that each material organism is an aggregate expression of single and simple elements, and a given cellular element or atom has its coursings or journeyings through various and myriad stages of life. For example, we will say the cellular elements which have entered into the composition of a human organism were at one time a component part of the animal kingdom; at another time they entered into the composition of the vegetable, and prior to that they existed in the kingdom of the mineral. They have been subject to transference from one condition of life to another, passing through various forms and phases, exercising in each existence special functions. Their journeyings through material phenomena are continuous. Therefore, each phenomenon is the expression in degree of all other phenomena. The difference is one of successive transferences and the period of time involved in evolutionary process.

For example, it has taken a certain length of time for this cellular element in my hand to pass through the various periods of metabolism. At one period it was in the mineral kingdom subject to changes and transferences in the mineral state. Then it was transferred to the vegetable kingdom where it entered into different grades and stations. Afterward it reached the animal plane, appearing in forms of animal organisms until finally in its transferences and coursings it attained to the kingdom of man. Later on it will revert to its primordial elemental state in the mineral kingdom, being subject, as it were, to infinite journeyings from one degree of existence to another, passing through every stage of being and life. Whenever it appears in any distinct form or image, it has its opportunities, virtues and functions. As each component atom or element in the physical organisms of existence is subject to transference through endless forms and stages, possessing virtues peculiar to those forms and stations, it is evident that all phenomena of material being are fundamentally one. In the mineral kingdom this component atom or element possesses certain virtues of the mineral; in the kingdom of the vegetable it is imbued with vegetable qualities or virtues; in the plane of animal existence it is empowered with animal virtues -- the senses; and in the kingdom of man it manifests qualities peculiar to the human station.

As this is true of material phenomena, how much more evident and essential it is that oneness should characterize man in the realm of idealism, which finds its expression only in the human kingdom. Verily, the origin of all material life is one and its termination likewise one. In view of this fundamental unity and agreement of all phenomenal life, why should man in his kingdom of existence wage war or indulge in hostility and destructive strife against his fellowman? Man is the noblest of the creatures. In his physical organism he possesses the virtues of the mineral kingdom. Likewise, he embodies the augmentative virtue, or power of growth, which characterizes the kingdom of the vegetable. Furthermore, in his degree of physical existence he is qualified with functions and powers peculiar to the animal, beyond which lies the range of his distinctive human mental and spiritual endowment. Considering this wonderful unity of the kingdoms of existence and their embodiment in the highest and noblest creature, why should man be at variance and in conflict with man? Is it fitting and justifiable that he should be at war, when harmony and interdependence characterize the kingdoms of phenomenal life below him? The elements and lower organisms are synchronized in the great plan of life. Shall man, infinitely above them in degree, be antagonistic and a destroyer of that perfection? God forbid such a condition!

From the fellowship and commingling of the elemental atoms life results. In their harmony and blending there is ever newness of existence. It is radiance, completeness; it is consummation; it is life itself. Just now the physical energies and natural forces which come under our immediate observation are all at peace. The sun is at peace with the earth upon which it shines. The soft breathing winds are at peace with the trees. All the elements are in harmony and equilibrium. A slight disturbance and discord among them might bring another San Francisco earthquake and fire. A physical clash, a little quarreling among the elements as it were, and a violent cataclysm of nature results. This happens in the mineral kingdom. Consider, then, the effect of discord and conflict in the kingdom of man, so superior to the realm of inanimate existence. How great the attendant catastrophe, especially when we realize that man is endowed by God with mind and intellect. Verily, mind is the supreme gift of God. Verily, intellect is the effulgence of God. This is manifest and self-evident.

(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 349)

Godwin! Godwin! HAHAHAHAHA! You lose!

edit: {Sorry, this is the first time I got to say Godwin first, and I got a little excited.} NO that ain't Godwin! That ain't Godwin! Godwin is where you compare your opponents to Nazis! I take VERY SPECIAL care not to break Godwin's law! I made a disassociated reference to Nazis which was not a personal attack on the other side IN ANY WAY.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )That's a very valid statement, I haven't heard it before but totally agree with it.

Wow, and if I know anything about science, it is that Physics is the study of the history of morality and religion in human history. In fact, Physicists know everything and are never wrong, and that is how I know that religion is always evil.
I also know that man may never fly, travelling at a speed in excess of 30 miles an hour will be lethal to anyone who attempts it, the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, travel to the moon is blatantly impossible.


Your blatant attempt at sarcasm is illogical. It does nothing do disprove the logic of the quote. Just because a scientist says something doesn't make it wrong.

Your blatant attempt at sarcasm is illogical. It does nothing do disprove the logic of the quote. Just because a scientist says something doesn't make it wrong.

Doesn't automatically make it right, either. Particularly when they're tap-dancing out of their field.

Your blatant attempt at sarcasm is illogical. It does nothing do disprove the logic of the quote. Just because a scientist says something doesn't make it wrong.
No, Captain, I believe that you are being illogical. *Arcs eyebrow*
I wasn't being sarcastic at all, I simply said that I believe everything that scientists ever say, because obviously if someone has become a Phycist then they know all that there is to know in the universe, even if such knowledge is completely out of their field of expertise.

NO that ain't Godwin! That ain't Godwin! Godwin is where you compare your opponents to Nazis! I take VERY SPECIAL care not to break Godwin's law! I made a reference to Nazis which was not a personal attack on the other side IN ANY WAY.


You don't have to call someone a Nazi to be cited for a breech of Godwin's Law. You merely have to compare some subject to Hitler/Nazi Germany. Or bring it up as evidence in a thread not directly related to WWII, or Nazi Germany. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

You don't have to call someone a Nazi to be cited for a breech of Godwin's Law. You merely have to compare some subject to Hitler/Nazi Germany. Or bring it up as evidence in a thread not directly related to WWII, or Nazi Germany. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law I did not compare anything to the Nazis, nor did I bring it up as evidence. I said that not all NKVD members were evil, nor were all Nazis. This does not qualify either as a comparison nor as any kind of evidence.

If I hadn't been rushed I'd have changed it, I believe I'll do that now. The worst I did was pushed the boundaries.

Doesn't automatically make it right, either. Particularly when they're tap-dancing out of their field.

So, you're saying that the quote isn't true?


Note to self: From now on, do not cite accurately. Religious-types will ignore all reason and abuse your proper quotation habits. In fact, change all quotes to have been from some bishop or pope.

So, you're saying that the quote isn't true?

Oh, it's as true as any opinion ever is, I suppose.


Note to self: From now on, do not cite accurately. Religious-types will ignore all reason and abuse your proper quotation habits. In fact, change all quotes to have been from some bishop or pope.

To quote Brian Griffin: I'll be on the veranda since you're already on the cross.

So, you're saying that the quote isn't true?
Technically, all that is required for a quote to be true is for it to be correctly attributed.
"The Moon is made of Cheese" - H N Fiddlebottoms VIII (NS Poster) is a correct quote. Is the statement within the quote correct? No, but the quote is correct.
[/splitting hairs]

Note to self: From now on, do not cite accurately. Religious-types will ignore all reason and abuse your proper quotation habits. In fact, change all quotes to have been from some bishop or pope.
I'd be more inclined to believe a Pope about the History of Morality and Religion then I would a Physicist. It is a matter of speciality my friend.
When I want to know about the relative speed of two objects based on their respective weights and trajectories, I will ask a Physicist.
When I want to know about a particular god, I'll ask a priest of that religion.
When I want to know about what relation Religion and Morality have had to each other in the history of man kind I'll ask a Historian who specializes in Religion.

But look at all the good things religion has given us! A standard, truthful set of God's morality that everybody can agree upon. Unless you're Mormon. Or Catholic. Or Protestant. Or Buddhist.

More importantly, however, this world would not be what it is today without the sexy nun fetish.

*snip*
Christian, Judaism
Eloah / Jehovah - Satan
*snip*
You might want to do a bit more research next time. Satan, (properly hasatan, Hebrew for "the adversary") is not the enemy of YHWH in Judaism. The Hebrew name for YHWH's enemy (which didn't even exist in their mythos until they came into contact with Zoroastrianism) is Satanael, which means "Adversary of God". In short, a confusion of two similar words resulted in the unfair pegging of Sammael as the enemy of YHWH. Sure, we was a real bastard, but he wasn't YHWH's foe.

Technically, all that is required for a quote to be true is for it to be correctly attributed.
"The Moon is made of Cheese" - H N Fiddlebottoms VIII (NS Poster) is a correct quote. Is the statement within the quote correct? No, but the quote is correct."
[/splitting hairs]OF COURSE THE STATEMENT IS INCORRECT, IT'S A FOOLISH ONE WHICH IS PLAINLY CLEAR


"I'd be more inclined to believe a Pope about the History of Morality and Religion then I would a Physicist. It is a matter of speciality my friend."
I WOULDN'T, ESPECIALLY WITH THE HISTORY OF POPES AND THEIR IMMORAL, AGGRESSIVE, HYPOCRITICAL IDEAS....I'D WANT AN INDEPENDENT MINDED PERSON TO BE UNCONSTRAINED BY IDEOLOGY
"When I want to know about the relative speed of two objects based on their respective weights and trajectories, I will ask a Physicist." YOU KNOW WHAT, I AGREE WITH YOU THERE
"When I want to know about a particular god, I'll ask a priest of that religion."
AND THEN WHEN YOU ARE TIRED OF THE DECEIT AND HYPOCRACY, THEN MAYBE YOU COULD MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP
"When I want to know about what relation Religion and Morality have had to each other in the history of man kind I'll ask a Historian who specializes in Religion." OR THEN AGAIN MAYBE YOU COULD ASK THE POPE, THE PHYSICIST, THE PRIEST AND ANY NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS YOU LIKE....THEN MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDSorry for the caps, I wasn't shouting, just distinguishing my comments from yours

You might want to do a bit more research next time. Satan, (properly hasatan, Hebrew for "the adversary") is not the enemy of YHWH in Judaism. The Hebrew name for YHWH's enemy (which didn't even exist in their mythos until they came into contact with Zoroastrianism) is Satanael, which means "Adversary of God". In short, a confusion of two similar words resulted in the unfair pegging of Sammael as the enemy of YHWH. Sure, we was a real bastard, but he wasn't YHWH's foe. Satan is often mixed up with Lucifer, to the extent that the two have become synonymous.

Ever wonder where the word "God" originates?

Have you heard of the Icelandic tale of Ragnarok, the Greek myth of the Titans?
The myths told that in the ancient past, the gods fought a bitter war with the Titans, and claimed the throne of the Heaven.

Is that true?

Tracing the history back to the ancient times by looking at the various names of "God", and His foe(s).

English
God - Devils / Demons

Christian, Judaism
Eloah / Jehovah - Satan

Islam
Allah - Iblis

Latin, Roman
Deus Pater - Diablo / Diaboli

Vedic
Dyaus Pita - ?

Egyptian
Amon Ra - ?

Zoro-astrians
Ahura Mazda - Devas

The names of God end with "a", "aa" sound.
The names of God's foes begin with "de-", "di-" sound.

And they are linked historically and geographically, from England to Central Europe, to Italy, to Asia Minor, to Sumeria, to Persia (now Iran).

Where is the origin of the word "God"?
The answer is the ancient civilization next to Persia.

Indian terminologies for God and Demon:
Devas - Asura

Curious, WHY were the names of gods and demons inverted?

Indians fought a war in the past. people worshipping Devas put Asura into Exile, and branded them as demons, replaced them and became gods.

The people worshipping Asura on the other hand escaped to Persia (now Iran) and established a new religion worshipping Ahura Mazda, and claimed Devas as the demons.

The Greek Myth, and the icelandic tale retold this legend.

The God(s) we worship now were demon(s) in the past.

That is why we fought wars over petty differences! The hateful nature of religion has been causing so much bloodshed.

Abandon religion now and live a peaceful Life.

Wow, this could have been a wonder etymological discourse on the "origin" of the English word "God"... But it turned into pathetic tripe of someone attempting disconnected coorelations between seperated familial groups.

In reality little is known of the English word "God", it's a word confined, with no exact coorelative to any other language (though may be closely linked with the Persian "Khoda".... In any case, it is interchangable with the Latin "Deos", and the Greek "Theos" (or theios)... English borrowed the term from Indo-European continental root languages (through Middle English, around the 13th and 14th centuries AD)...

AND THEN WHEN YOU ARE TIRED OF THE DECEIT AND HYPOCRACY, THEN MAYBE YOU COULD MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP
How am I to know what Brahman (and directly Brahman) wants me to know anymore than an experience Yogi? Why would I be more knowledgable about the symbolism in the Qu'ran than an Imam? What in my background would give me the ability to understand the rites involved in sainthood better than a Priest?
When it comes to issues of dogma and, I think I will use sources that are learned on that particular sect.
A clever man/woman would have noticed that I said "a particular god", not "the god" or "the real god."
OR THEN AGAIN MAYBE YOU COULD ASK THE POPE, THE PHYSICIST, THE PRIEST AND ANY NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS YOU LIKE....THEN MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND
Maybe if history were subjective I could do that, but it isn't. History, law, Catholic Dogma, the historical ramifications of Catholic Dogma on modern law, all of these are objective. They just are, and view point doesn't matter. So, when I want an objective statement on the affects that religion has had on morality I will go to some who specializes and spends their entire life looking in history and seeing what effects religion has had on people in it.

How am I to know what Brahman (and directly Brahman) wants me to know anymore than an experience Yogi? Why would I be more knowledgable about the symbolism in the Qu'ran than an Imam? What in my background would give me the ability to understand the rites involved in sainthood better than a Priest?
When it comes to issues of dogma and, I think I will use sources that are learned on that particular sect.
A clever man/woman would have noticed that I said "a particular god", not "the god" or "the real god."

Maybe if history were subjective I could do that, but it isn't. History, law, Catholic Dogma, the historical ramifications of Catholic Dogma on modern law, all of these are objective. They just are, and view point doesn't matter. So, when I want an objective statement on the affects that religion has had on morality I will go to some who specializes and spends their entire life looking in history and seeing what effects religion has had on people in it.You state objectivity with regard to catholic dogma on modern law, that is another argument, one which I also dispute your claim. However, it has nothing to do with your statement that you would seek the one who specialises in a particular religious spirituality/morality as the arbiter of truth, I also dispute that. What you will get is an entirely subjective account from that person. I would be more inclined to learn from someone who had a more objective viewpoint. That's not to say the subjective account has no merit, but any "truth" coming from a subjective account has to be at least held in some circumspection.

I say keep some religion. So when people tell you to go to hell if you aren't catholic, then you can say your a catholic. Or maybe when they're giving out free food, but only jewish people can attend. You don't have to be part of the religion. Just know stuf about it so you can make people think that you are part of that religion to recieve its benifits.

You state objectivity with regard to catholic dogma on modern law, that is another argument, one which I also dispute your claim.
As far as what Catholic Dogma is, yes, the question is objective. The question of "what a frog is" is objective. All definitions are objective.
However, it has nothing to do with your statement that you would seek the one who specialises in a particular religious spirituality/morality as the arbiter of truth, I also dispute that.
Not on the truth, but on what his particular religion says the truth is. Who is more able to tell me about the Catholic Jesus, Suzy McAtheist or Father McPraysalot? Who can tell me about symbolism in the Torah, David McBuddhist or Rabi Jewguy?
What you will get is an entirely subjective account from that person.
But if I wanted a specific view (what does Buddha say I should do about X) then shouldn't I go to someone who specializes? Lets put it another way:
Your daughter (of course you have a daughter, now shutup and play along) is sick. Will you take them to a Pediatrician or an Nuclear Physicist?
Your car is broken down, who is more able to fix it: An airplane pilot or a Car mechanic?
I would be more inclined to learn from someone who had a more objective viewpoint. That's not to say the subjective account has no merit, but any "truth" coming from a subjective account has to be at least held in some circumspection.
Yes, but you are confusing being "objective" with being "uninformed." A physicist is not a respectable source in a debate about history because (unlike, say, a Historian) he has not delved deep into the past in search of what actions were motivated by religion and what actions by profit and what by hatred. Further, a physicist hasn't sought his soul and the religious writings of man (as a religious scholar would) in order to see what impact religion has on human morality.

This is why I believe that Christianity is the single greatest threat faced by the Modern World.

This is (in summary) all the nice, wonderful things this religion (in reality the worlds largest DEATH CULT) has given us.

The Crusades
The Spanish Inquisition
The Salem Witch Hunts
Anti-Semitism (which evolved into the Holocaust and Neo-Nazism)
Green Light for Slavery
Organized Child Molestation (Catholic Church and it's coverups)
Homophobia
Pat Robertson (and his ilk, the Neo-Conservative Christian Right)
The War on Science (Galileo)
The War on Science (Evolution)
The War on Womens Rights (Abortion, Equal Rights Admendment, etc.)
The Catholic Churches Crusade agianst Condoms and Birthcontrol (which has helped to spread AIDS in Africa)

Isn't this a lovely religion to force down your childs throat? Aren't you proud of this backward agrigarian death cult that seeks to turn back the clock to the Victorian Era where women are obedient brainless androids, slaves are doing the work, gays are so deep in the closet their finding christmas presents, and Science is the thing practised by Heathens and Witches?

What a crock of s*&^!

This is why I believe that Christianity is the single greatest threat faced by the Modern World.

This is (in summary) all the nice, wonderful things this religion (in reality the worlds largest DEATH CULT) has given us.

The Crusades
The Spanish Inquisition
The Salem Witch Hunts
Anti-Semitism (which evolved into the Holocaust and Neo-Nazism)
Green Light for Slavery
Organized Child Molestation (Catholic Church and it's coverups)
Homophobia
Pat Robertson (and his ilk, the Neo-Conservative Christian Right)
The War on Science (Galileo)
The War on Science (Evolution)
The War on Womens Rights (Abortion, Equal Rights Admendment, etc.)
The Catholic Churches Crusade agianst Condoms and Birthcontrol (which has helped to spread AIDS in Africa)

Isn't this a lovely religion to force down your childs throat? Aren't you proud of this backward agrigarian death cult that seeks to turn back the clock to the Victorian Era where women are obedient brainless androids, slaves are doing the work, gays are so deep in the closet their finding christmas presents, and Science is the thing practised by Heathens and Witches?

What a crock of s*&^!

And here I was thinking that an all out nuclear war was the greatest threat the world faced seeing how if launched it's payload would kill the entire world over a few times...but hey thats just my thinking.

As far as what Catholic Dogma is, yes, the question is objective. The question of "what a frog is" is objective. All definitions are objective.

Not on the truth, but on what his particular religion says the truth is. Who is more able to tell me about the Catholic Jesus, Suzy McAtheist or Father McPraysalot? Who can tell me about symbolism in the Torah, David McBuddhist or Rabi Jewguy?
[Just to remind you what you were saying in your original argument]...."I'd be more inclined to believe a Pope about the History of Morality and Religion then I would a Physicist. It is a matter of speciality my friend.".....it seems you are now changing the direction of your argument

But if I wanted a specific view (what does Buddha say I should do about X) then shouldn't I go to someone who specializes? Lets put it another way:
Your daughter (of course you have a daughter, now shutup and play along) is sick. Will you take them to a Pediatrician or an Nuclear Physicist?
Your car is broken down, who is more able to fix it: An airplane pilot or a Car mechanic? no arguments there but what you don't want to accept is that the airplane pilot or mechanic can have just as much an "objective" view of the truth of something as your buddha (enlightened person...not a theologian)

Yes, but you are confusing being "objective" with being "uninformed." A physicist is not a respectable source in a debate about history because (unlike, say, a Historian) he has not delved deep into the past in search of what actions were motivated by religion and what actions by profit and what by hatred. Further, a physicist hasn't sought his soul and the religious writings of man (as a religious scholar would) in order to see what impact religion has on human morality.Really? by whose "informed" knowledge can you make that breathtaking assumption? It is in the remit of anyone to have informed opinions, knowledge, understanding etc. WEe are not measured by our titles of excellence or authority, rather by what we understand and on what we can succesfully communicate to others. Maybe a theologian can achieve this (I grudgingly grant you) but so can anyone, as we say in Glasgow, Jesus Christ was just a chippy (carpenter)

Really? by whose "informed" knowledge can you make that breathtaking assumption?
It is not an assumption. Why bother having specialists when you trust a non-specialist jsut as much? Why bother dividing labour if everyone is going to do the same thing?
Anyway, we aren't arguing about an informed opinion, some guy just decided that he had come up with a really good zing the next time he got a chance to rant against divinity.
It is in the remit of anyone to have informed opinions, knowledge, understanding etc. WEe are not measured by our titles of excellence or authority, rather by what we understand and on what we can succesfully communicate to others.
And a physicist gains his title from his ability to understand Physics. A historian gains his title from his ability to understand History.
And, yes, you can measure someone by the titles that they have earned, a physicist hasn't earned a history degree, as such when he makes a random quip about religion, I'm not going to believe him as absolute. Just another opinion, no more valid then what Rosie O'Donnel thinks.
Now, if famous Religious Historian Tom KnowsCrap tells me that Religion is the only thing that can make good men do bad things, then I might be inclined to believe him. Even then, though, I'm going to want some proof.
Maybe a theologian can achieve this (I grudgingly grant you) but so can anyone, as we say in Glasgow, Jesus Christ was just a chippy (carpenter)
Yes, and that is why if I want a table made, I will go to Church and pray, and when I want someone to explain the nature of the Universe, I will visit Philosophers.
If you believe that Jesus was grand, then you would also believe that he was God, and therefore would be omniscient. If you can prove that the physicist who started this argument is omniscient, I will believe what he says.

:)
My theme is not against "God" but against "Religion"
And there is a collective effect of multitude.

One Christian/Muslim can have virtues, morality, righteousness.
But one billion of Christians/Muslims behave wierdly and may start to have Jihads/Crusades.

GET WHAT I MEAN?

It is not an assumption. Why bother having specialists when you trust a non-specialist jsut as much? Why bother dividing labour if everyone is going to do the same thing?
Anyway, we aren't arguing about an informed opinion, some guy just decided that he had come up with a really good zing the next time he got a chance to rant against divinity.
[Actually, I was arguing against your response to the physicist who dared to state a truism a few pages back...go back, read, learn and inwardly digest"]

And a physicist gains his title from his ability to understand Physics. A historian gains his title from his ability to understand History.
And, yes, you can measure someone by the titles that they have earned, a physicist hasn't earned a history degree, as such when he makes a random quip about religion, I'm not going to believe him as absolute. Just another opinion, no more valid then what Rosie O'Donnel thinks.
[You can indeed measure someone by their laurels of achievement but that may have no relevence to the usefulness of the knowledge they actually possess. As for me, I shall be stimulated by the depth of awareness and actual knowledge someone possesses, for instance, I don't know or care what titles you possess, it's what you are arguing that makes it's impact on me.]

Now, if famous Religious Historian Tom KnowsCrap tells me that Religion is the only thing that can make good men do bad things, then I might be inclined to believe him. Even then, though, I'm going to want some proof.
[I wouldn't, haven't you came across politicians?]

Yes, and that is why if I want a table made, I will go to Church and pray, and when I want someone to explain the nature of the Universe, I will visit Philosophers.
[As I said before, Jesus was trained as a carpenter, yet even you would agree with me that he is the foremost authority on Christianity!]

If you believe that Jesus was grand, then you would also believe that he was God, and therefore would be omniscient. If you can prove that the physicist who started this argument is omniscient, I will believe what he says.
[I don't believe jesus was grand or omniscient, no more than I believe the physicist is likewise. What I believe is in the precisence of his statement]
To summarise, it's what someone says that counts, not the platform on which they are standing.

You don't have to call someone a Nazi to be cited for a breech of Godwin's Law. You merely have to compare some subject to Hitler/Nazi Germany. Or bring it up as evidence in a thread not directly related to WWII, or Nazi Germany. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

No comparison.... In the end, you are brining up the Sexton perversion of Godwin's law..... mere mention does not count in the framework of the comparitive requirement of Godwin's Law.....

To summarise, it's what someone says that counts, not the platform on which they are standing.
To summarise further, if someone says something that you agree with, then they are automatically right. Even if they are wrong.

:)
My theme is not against "God" but against "Religion"
And there is a collective effect of multitude.

One Christian/Muslim can have virtues, morality, righteousness.
But one billion of Christians/Muslims behave wierdly and may start to have Jihads/Crusades.

GET WHAT I MEAN? You see it all the time with countries… First World War for instance. You'll just have to learn to live with it.

So how does abandoning religion led to a peaceful society? Do you mean like the Soviet Union?

Just because people are aethist or unreligous doesn't make them less violent. Violence is part of humanity, an extremely ugly part, but it isn't going to go away if religion does. People will find plenty of other things to fight over, race, ethnitcy, creed, class, or other stupid shit. Anyways religion does give some people a sense of direction and a purpose. Not all people need it, but some do.

Soviet Union WAS A RELIGIOUS society!
Not all may agree with me. But the soviets worshipped Lebnin and Stalin as if they were deities. They viewed their sayings as undisputable doctrine.

Without religion, how could one live a life?

Ethics, Virtues, Morality can be independent of faith.
In real life, there are many examples, models to inspire one to live a good life.
There is no need to choose a religion.

Einstein, Ghandi, Schindler.

To summarise further, if someone says something that you agree with, then they are automatically right. Even if they are wrong.No, if someone says something that causes you to alter your ideas, thats good, providing you have gained an increase in awareness as a result. Some things don't just come down to wether they are right or wrong but by how you can successfully alter another's opinion, i.e. is altruism just plain self seeking, agrandisment or a genuine desire to be of service to others?

Ever wonder where the word "God" originates?

Have you heard of the Icelandic tale of Ragnarok, the Greek myth of the Titans?
The myths told that in the ancient past, the gods fought a bitter war with the Titans, and claimed the throne of the Heaven.

Is that true?

Tracing the history back to the ancient times by looking at the various names of "God", and His foe(s).

English
God - Devils / Demons

Christian, Judaism
Eloah / Jehovah - Satan

Islam
Allah - Iblis

Latin, Roman
Deus Pater - Diablo / Diaboli

Vedic
Dyaus Pita - ?

Egyptian
Amon Ra - ?

Zoro-astrians
Ahura Mazda - Devas

The names of God end with "a", "aa" sound.
The names of God's foes begin with "de-", "di-" sound.

And they are linked historically and geographically, from England to Central Europe, to Italy, to Asia Minor, to Sumeria, to Persia (now Iran).

Where is the origin of the word "God"?
The answer is the ancient civilization next to Persia.

Indian terminologies for God and Demon:
Devas - Asura

Curious, WHY were the names of gods and demons inverted?

Indians fought a war in the past. people worshipping Devas put Asura into Exile, and branded them as demons, replaced them and became gods.

The people worshipping Asura on the other hand escaped to Persia (now Iran) and established a new religion worshipping Ahura Mazda, and claimed Devas as the demons.

The Greek Myth, and the icelandic tale retold this legend.

The God(s) we worship now were demon(s) in the past.

That is why we fought wars over petty differences! The hateful nature of religion has been causing so much bloodshed.

Abandon religion now and live a peaceful Life.

Your theory is flawed since you fail to take into account the actual pronouncement of these words in their native languages not to mention spelling! Surprise, surprise most of history is NOT written originally in English and translations are flawed at best! If we did not fight over religion then it would just be something else -- That is the nature of the beast that is Humanity!

Your theory is flawed since you fail to take into account the actual pronouncement of these words in their native languages not to mention spelling! Surprise, surprise most of history is NOT written originally in English and translations are flawed at best! If we did not fight over religion then it would just be something else -- That is the nature of the beast that is Humanity!

Ah! That is not a problem.

The original word of Old Persian language 'Ahura Mazda' pronounces exactly as we pronounce 'Ahura Mazda'. Or rather the English words are chosen to match the sound.

Religion is able to amplify the beastial nature of human a number of times.

Ah! That is not a problem.

The original word of Old Persian language 'Ahura Mazda' pronounces exactly as we pronounce 'Ahura Mazda'. Or rather the English words are chosen to match the sound.

Religion is able to amplify the beastial nature of human a number of times. Your entire argument appears to be hinging on the well known phenomenom of languages evolving from other languages.

And if you dig up the Crusades, I will dig up the Terror and the NKVD.

Not only that.

Violent behaviours are repeatedly recounted in Holy Books of most religions (except Buddhism). And they were performed mostly in populous manner.

This justifies the "collective effect of multitude".
which is to say, if one reads the Holy Book, he/she is not likely to turn violent.
But if a large group of people devote themselves to the Holy Book, the whole group is likely to turn violent.