The History of God and Other Religious Myths

Background

Tectonic forces began splitting east Africa apart 25 million years ago resulting in today's Great Rift Valley. The rainforest flourished in the east but the western side dried giving way to vast savannah grasslands. Chimpanzees in the west were eventually forced out of the trees to search for food on the ground beginning a 9 million year evolutionary trek ending in humanity. After 5 million years Australopithecus afarensis developed DNA mutations of the feet, toes, legs and pelvis enabling them to walk upright. About 1.5 million years ago Homo erectus, a prehuman ancestor with a larger brain, migrated out of Africa to the Asian continent before going extinct. Geneticist Spencer Wells estimates that Homo sapiens, fully modern-day humans, evolved 60,000 to 90,000 years ago. Two of our earliest intellectual creations were art and religion.

Early Sacred Art

Cave art suggests that early humans conceived of a spiritual realm. These first humans painted and engraved animals they feared (lions, rhinos, etc.) and revered (deer, bison, etc.) on the walls of Altamira in Spain 40,000 years ago and Chauvet in France 32,000 years ago. Looking up at the art produces the same sense of awe you feel from the majesty of a Gothic cathedral. Caverns with drawings lay deep inside the caves indicating they were not used for habitation but possibly to hold ceremonies with devout rituals to insure or celebrate the success of the hunt.
The 35,000 year-old ivory figurines of Venus of Hohle Fels (fertility icon) and Lion-Man of Hohlenstein Stadel (lion head on man's body) were found in caves in Germany. They are symbols of a rudimentary belief in a spirit world. Lion-Man effigies were found in both caves (above) indicating the existence of a cult. Other statuettes were buried with the dead. (Were devotional services held at the death of a loved one or tribal leader?)
In the Fertile Crescent valley of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in southern Turkey 11,600 years ago, nomad hunter-gatherers built circular one-room halls at Gobekli Tepe. Surreal depictions of animals and humans with elongated bodies were carved as bas reliefs on 16-ton, 18-foot-tall smooth limestone pillars that held up the roof. The secret society of elders may have used these sanctums for meetings to conduct sacred rites of passage.

Birth of Religion

Archaeologists estimate there were 15,000 people living in Western Europe at the end of the last Ice Age, 20,000 years ago. There were approximately 500 different groups each with about 30 extended family members. A single elder with experience, intelligence, and strength could coordinate and harmonize the efforts and activities of his small clan. As climate warmed, these hunter-gatherers migrated into farming settlements of 100s, then 1000's, then tens of thousands. One-man rule was no longer adequate to manage the complex relationships of a large community. According to National Geographic magazine (June 2011, page 41), religion arose in one of two ways:

Religion preceded Farming: "People came together for rituals creating the need to grow food for large groups gathering near sacred sites." The mere existence of Gobekli Tepe supports this view since there is no evidence of human settlements nearby.

Farming preceded Religion: "After people began settling in villages and farming, religion arose to promote social cooperation." Michael Shermer prefers this second scenario: "Leaders developed two new institutions to organize and control the affairs of the masses--government with an all-powerful military police and religion with all-powerful gods and goddesses."

First Approximations

Great intelligence and imagination evolved to set us humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. These traits enable us to ponder the answers to two philosophical questions: how the universe works and our place in it. Finding the answers would satisfy our intellectual curiosity, bolster our emotional self-confidence, and insure our basic physical necessities of food, clothing and shelter. For answers we observed Nature: the plants and animals that nourished us, the forces (lightning, volcanoes, and floods) that devastated us, and the benevolence (the sun and stars) that helped us. At this early time our only technology was simple math/geometry and the naked eye. Our measurements were pretty good--good enough to build temples and pyramids. But our conclusions were pretty bad: the Earth was flat (not round) and the Earth was stationary (The Sun circled Earth.). There were huge gaps in our knowledge so we played make-believe: we projected our own emotions and motives onto Nature creating human-like persona to explain/understand how Nature works. (This is called the anthropomorphic principle.) In hindsight we confused and thus blended Nature with the Super-Natural, turning a purely intellectual inquiry into a religious one.
People all around the globe were trying to figure out the answers to the two questions, but all failed miserably.

3000 BC Southern England: Circular wooden structures predate the megaliths erected 2200-2400 BC at Stonehenge--an astronomical observatory of the rising and setting sun. While precise measurements may have helped the ancients plan their farming to maximize harvests, G. T. Meaden suggests the site was a place to worship the sun.

1500 BC Iraq (ancient Babylon): Astrology was devised to determine the destiny of a person from the positions of the star constellations at the time of birth.

500 BC Germany/Scandinavia: The god Thor swung his war hammer to produce lightning and thunder to punish human misdeeds.

500 AD Southern Peru: The Nazca lines extend from the plain by the ocean miles into the mountains. Using precisely placed rocks, large outlines of animals mirroring the star constellations were drawn but could only be viewed and appreciated by someone (or some god) positioned hundreds of feet in the air above. Could the lines and animals contain spiritual significance?

1200 AD Hawaii: Hawaiians thought their goddess Pele made the Kilauea volcano erupt when she was angered by their actions.

1300 AD Central Mexico: The Aztecs believed the sun had died four times and now was on its fifth and possibly last life cycle. To ensure the sun remained alive, they sacrificed slaves by cutting out their beating hearts and offering them to their gods. They slaughtered thousands on a single day.

These first approximations of reality were made with a minimum of technology resulting in many bizarre and some brutal religious misinterpretations. The divine nature of these early concepts could not be disproved so the leaders of society could use them to support the authority of religious institutions. Starting 400 years ago science through technology provided the valid insight of reality we enjoy today even though some of these illusory religious concepts persist.

History of God and Other Religious Myths--Middle East

After Gobekli Tepe there is a gap of 9,000 years until the advent of writing provides a glimpse of religious doctrine in the Middle East--religious practices were passed down from generation to generation via word-of-mouth and repetition of rituals. When writing first appeared in Sumer (cuneiform, 3000 BC) and Egypt (hieroglyphs, 2300 BC), religious concepts were highly developed thus we cannot be certain of the time and place of the rise of religious ideas but we can draw some logical conclusions. The main point of this article is that there is an unbroken historical timeline showing that spirituality was first conceived by Ice-Age cavemen 35,000 years ago, then developed by nomad hunter-gatherers 10,000 years ago and (presented below) embellished by prehistoric pagans 5,000 years ago--three groups that have no credibility for establishing the reality of god or any spiritual belief.

In Secret Origins of the Bible (pages 6-39) Tim Callahan presents the Babylonian, Greek and Hebrew religious stories of the creation of the universe. His research shows that all three stories contain four basic concepts:

1. Supreme Being: a supernatural all-powerful god, gods and goddesses.
   
2. Eternal Water: seas, rivers, and rain did not have to be created but always existed.
   
3. Chaos: the natural order of the pre-universe was disorder.
   
4. Humans: god created humans out of earth, soil, or clay.
   
   

The similarity in the three creation myths is no coincidence. The three cultures resided within a 500 mile radius: they knew each other well through trade and war. Their creation stories are similar. Lacking hard evidence these cultures borrowed and copied the best of each other's ideas in an attempt to understand their own origin. Callahan estimates that the Babylonian myth was written 1600-2300 BC; that the Greek myth dates from 800-1000 BC: and that the Hebrew Genesis story was written 600-900 BC. Since the Babylonian story is the oldest we might conclude it is the source of the other two. But concurrent with the Babylonian writings there is a pagan superstition containing all four concepts that may be the original source for the other three--and that is the Egyptian creation myth. The ancient Egyptian empire is the oldest, richest, mightiest, most productive and longest-lived superpower in recorded history, lasting from 3100-332 BC. Starting in 2300 BC with pharaoh Unis, the Egyptians drew and chiseled the beliefs of their creation myth, the famous "pyramid texts," on the stone walls of their pharaohs' tombs, displaying the first truly religious scriptures before writing them down on papyrus in their Book of the Dead.

Egyptian Creation Myth

In the beginning Amun created himself above the eternal waters of Chaos. The Egyptians believed the Mediterranean Sea and Nile River always existed and did not have to be created. When Amun masturbated where his semen fell became land: thus originated the myth of the Supreme Being or all-powerful god. Amun created many other gods and goddesses, important among them was his sister Nut, goddess of the Sky. Nut bent over the land with her feet on the east side of the Nile and her hands on the west side. She raised her nude body high up with her elongated arms and legs, and formed the sky. Stars shone from her bare torso at night. The Egyptians believed that at sunset the sun vanished because Nut swallowed it. During the night it passed through her digestive tract and in the morning she excreted it at sunrise allowing the sun to traverse the sky again.

Egyptian Myth of Human Creation

There are two parts to the myth of human creation: how the pharaoh was created, and how ordinary people were created.

Creation of Pharaoh
Amun had sexual relations with many of his sisters and produced second and third generation deities. Important among these were two brothers, Set and Osiris, and their sister Isis. Set murdered Osiris, cut his body into pieces, and threw them away in the desert. Wherever a body part landed, an oasis was created. Isis gathered the pieces of Osiris and put his body back together. She turned herself into a bird, and flapping her wings she resuscitated him back to life but (in one version of the story) he could live for only one day on Earth; thus originated the Resurrection myth. The Egyptians drew and chiseled on the walls of their temples the story of how Osiris impregnated Isis, who gave birth to a son Horus who was part human and part divine; thus originated the myth of the Virgin Birth. The pyramids were tombs for the pharaohs. The Egyptians became excellent pyramid builders designing passages inside leading upwards and downwards. One small passage (4 inches by 4 inches) from the chamber holding the pharaoh's body led diagonally up and out of the pyramid so the pharaoh's soul could travel up to the sky and become a new star; thus originated the myth of Heaven. Osiris ruled the afterlife and sat in judgement of humans after they died. The Egyptians developed mummification since they believed that the soul ceased to exist if the body decayed leaving only the skeleton; thus originated the myth of the Soul and the Accountability of humans to god in the Afterlife (heaven and hell). Horus redeemed Osiris by killing Set and became pharaoh ruling over the Egyptian people. Generation after generation Horus-Pharaoh married one of his sisters and their first born son became pharaoh, part human and part divine. The Egyptians believed in the tri-part unit of three gods: God the Father, God the Son and Goddess the Sister-Wife-Mother; thus originated the myth of the Trinity. Certain numbers (such as three, seven, nine and twelve) were important to the Egyptians. The number twelve was especially important because they measured time by this number: 12 hours of day, 12 hours of night, and 12 months of the year (30 days in each month with 5 or 6 holidays to balance out the year).

Creation of Ordinary Humans
Ordinary humans were created when the god Ptah took clay from the ground and molded it into human form on a potter's wheel. Ptah used an ankh to breathe life into humans through their nostrils.

Borrowed Ideas

The ancient Egyptians formulated four basic religious concepts: supernatural Supreme Being, eternal waters, pre-universe of chaos, and human creation from earth. Having no better insight, ancient cultures arising after or concurrently with the Egyptians borrowed these ideas and made them central to their ethnic religion. But peripheral concepts were borrowed too.

The Greeks
The Greeks borrowed the Egyptian number twelve for their counsel of twelve gods on Mount Olympus and devised a story about the twelve labors of Heracles. Heracles was part human and part divine by a virgin birth, having the god Zeus as father and a human, Alcmena, as mother. The Greeks were the only culture to incorporate incest into their religion: Kronos and Rhea were brother and sister--and husband and wife--who had children, Zeus and Hera, who married and produced offspring.

The Hebrews
The Hebrews borrowed the Egyptian number twelve for their twelve Tribes of Israel. Cain murdering Abel is reminiscent of Set killing Osiris. They also copied several ideas from the Babylonians.

1. Creation Myth. There were six generations of Babylonian giants: the sun and moon were created during the fourth generation and humans were created during the sixth generation. In the Hebrew Genesis story, the sun and moon were created on the fourth day and humans were created on the sixth day.
   
2. The Hebrews copied two Babylonian stories to describe their prophet Moses:
   a. Sargon was born of humble birth. His mother put him in a basket and floated him down the river. The queen of Babylon rescued him and raised him in her household. Later he became king.
   b. The Babylonian king Hammurabi went up into the mountains and received the laws of his code from God.
   
3. The flood and ark stories come from ancient Babylonian mythology 1000 years before Noah.
   
   

The Christians
The Christians appropriated several Egyptian myths into their religion: the number twelve for the Apostles of Jesus; the Osiris resurrection myth for Jesus; the Egyptian trinity was modified into God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost; the duality of Horus-Pharaoh for Jesus being part human and part divine; and Isis' virgin birth (or a Greek version) for Mary.
The Christians also borrowed from the Hebrews, adopting their entire bible (Tanakh) as the Old Testament and claiming Jesus was a direct descendant in the lineage of the House of David.

The Muslims
By the time Islam arose 622 AD, the Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek religions had vanished with the military destruction of their empires. Christianity and Judaism were well-defined, intertwined and central to the powerful Roman/Byzantine Empire headquartered in Constantinople (Istanbul). While Muslims had Arab precedents, they adopted the core beliefs of Christianity and Judaism: one god, the soul, heaven and hell.
The Hojjatieh sect of Shia Islam borrowed the Egyptian number twelve for their apocalyptic Twelfth Imam. The Muslims appropriated the Jewish founder Abraham as their patriarch and recognized Jesus as a prophet but not the divine son of God. The Muslims borrowed the Jewish/Christian messenger angel Gabriel saying he whispered the words of the Koran into Muhammad's ear.

Summary

The ancient Hebrew religious thinkers and leaders accepted as fact the Egyptian myths of a Supreme Being and a human soul because they were intellectually the smartest common sense answers, and emotionally the most optimistic motivators of the time. Since the Hebrews established their religion 2000 years after the Egyptians, the Hebrews were more realistically grounded: they eliminated the pantheon of gods, the animals and the pornography, and developed the concept of one omnipotent, omniscient god. The Muslims followed their example believing in just one god while the Christians held on to the ancient Egyptian concept of the Trinity in modified form. The prehistoric pagans of 5,000-year-ago Egypt borrowed their basic idea of a spirit world from 10,000-year-ago hunter-gatherers who in turn inherited it from 35,000-year-ago cavemen, preparing ancient Hebrews, Christians and Muslims to mistakenly perceive many natural events as miraculous happenings. With so many borrowed ideas (from cavemen, hunter-gatherers, Babylonians, Egyptians), and so many misinterpretations, Genesis, the Gospels, and the Koran, cannot be considered the word of god. That is the history of the idea of god and other religious beliefs.

Conclusion

Today nobody would believe in the Egyptian religion because it contradicts what we understand about the world around us: gods don't swallow the sun and birds can't bring anything back to life. These blatant misinterpretations of Nature discredit the validity of the pagans' core Super-Natural beliefs: a Supreme Being, a human soul, and heaven and hell. If they could be so wrong about the obvious, how could they be right about the obscure? These four Egyptian supernatural beliefs are as frivolous as the Babylonian giants, and acquire substance in only one context: the weird, imaginary Egyptian religion. All of the Egyptians' fanciful beliefs are just fuzzy thinking; to believe in something that science cannot verify to exist runs the risk of believing in nothing at all. Over the last 400 years as science explained the mysteries of the universe, the mysticism of religion should have declined. As we figured out the mechanisms of Nature, faith in Super-Natural miracle should have declined. As human self-confidence grew through science and technology, reliance on prayer should have declined. As modern scientific insight made more and more sense out of the universe (with quantum mechanics, Einstein's relativity, the Big Bang, evolution, and our expanding universe), all ancient religious beliefs should have become obsolete because they are no longer needed to explain our universe, they are no longer needed to define us humans, they just no longer make sense. Yet curiously people today do believe in the four superstitions of religion: god, soul, heaven, and hell. Apparently their origin has been erased by time. Would modern day Jews, Christians and Muslims discontinue belief in these four superstitions if they realized their dubious origin: Ice-Age cavemen, wandering hunter-gatherers and pagans? Or is faith an unreasonable emotion?




http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/the-history-of-god-and-other-religious-myths-907.html

---

'Archaeologists estimate there were 15,000 people living in Western Europe at the end of the last Ice Age, 20,000 years ago. There were approximately 500 different groups each with about 30 extended family members. A single elder with experience, intelligence, and strength could coordinate and harmonize the efforts and activities of his small clan. As climate warmed, these hunter-gatherers migrated into farming settlements of 100s, then 1000's, then tens of thousands....:'

According to my matriline DNA my mother's ancestors came across to Britain from those groups, before the Ice Age finally melted and flooded what is now the English Channel.

As for the belief in a God, I believe it was because of ignorance of the real, physical, natural world. How and why it worked the way it did, with seasons good and bad, with natural disasters etc, They could only explain and understand it all by believing in a powerful, unseen being, god by name.

Hi Stardesk

Its real arrogrance on the part of humans to think they are some how special over other animals, where they claim to be special having a soul and a place in an afterlife.
You can understand for the time why people back then may well have not understood many things, but those who are religious today who follow the Dogmatic religions, there really is little excuse, if they are literal believers.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Hi Stardesk

Its real arrogrance on the part of humans to think they are some how special over other animals, where they claim to be special having a soul and a place in an afterlife.
You can understand for the time why people back then may well have not understood many things, but those who are religious today who follow the Dogmatic religions, there really is little excuse, if they are literal believers.

This is why it always aggravates me when people call atheists arrogant. We believe we're a happenstance species that evolved on a little chunk of rock that's nothing compared to the vastness of the universe, who live for the blink of an eye and then turn back into the building blocks of matter.

They believe that the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe and all that is good and wholesome within it cares an awful lot about what they think, do, say, and especially what they get up to with their reproductive organs.

But we're the arrogant ones.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Hi Stardesk

Its real arrogrance on the part of humans to think they are some how special over other animals, where they claim to be special having a soul and a place in an afterlife.
You can understand for the time why people back then may well have not understood many things, but those who are religious today who follow the Dogmatic religions, there really is little excuse, if they are literal believers.

This is why it always aggravates me when people call atheists arrogant. We believe we're a happenstance species that evolved on a little chunk of rock that's nothing compared to the vastness of the universe, who live for the blink of an eye and then turn back into the building blocks of matter.

They believe that the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe and all that is good and wholesome within it cares an awful lot about what they think, do, say, and especially what they get up to with their reproductive organs.

But we're the arrogant ones.

Yep, its about as absurd as it can get.
We do not claim to be spcial in anyway and that when we die that it is it.

Hi folks. I know I've mentioned them in the past but, I find Witnesses abominable. They come across as so self-righteous and perfect. Just like various other sects and faiths, all proclaiming to be one and only true path to heaven. Crap!

If there be a god then oh dear, he should go back to Uni' and learn his architectral skills all over again, considering how unstable our planet is and the millions of deaths from disasters. I have a long list of fatalities from disasters and one day I'll post them on here if that's acceptable.

That would be interesting to see Stardesk

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

This is why it always aggravates me when people call atheists arrogant. We believe we're a happenstance species that evolved on a little chunk of rock that's nothing compared to the vastness of the universe, who live for the blink of an eye and then turn back into the building blocks of matter.

They believe that the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe and all that is good and wholesome within it cares an awful lot about what they think, do, say, and especially what they get up to with their reproductive organs.

But we're the arrogant ones.

Yep, its about as absurd as it can get.
We do not claim to be spcial in anyway and that when we die that it is it.

THIS


But the arrogance of te athiest is THEN
that he would claim there is some imaginary "common good" that we should all work for

that some-one 1000 miles away is just as important as my family

that we are, in some strange and mysterious way, ALL "one tribe"

and yet this goes contrary to ALL experience and past history

IF we ARE mere "animals that can think(abstractly)" then whats the point of being "intrinsically good" other than ...because we can?

you remove "god" from the equation...and replace him/her with an equally nebulous concept of the golden rule?

then your souless "corporations" etc think to inflict THEIR version of that on everyone else in the world ..." we are bombing you for your own good".....

Lord Foul wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Yep, its about as absurd as it can get.
We do not claim to be spcial in anyway and that when we die that it is it.

THIS


But the arrogance of te athiest is THEN
that he would claim there is some imaginary "common good" that we should all work for

that some-one 1000 miles away is just as important as my family

that we are, in some strange and mysterious way, ALL "one tribe"

and yet this goes contrary to ALL experience and past history

IF we ARE mere "animals that can think(abstractly)" then whats the point of being "intrinsically good" other than ...because we can?

you remove "god" from the equation...and replace him/her with an equally nebulous concept of the golden rule?

then your souless "corporations" etc think to inflict THEIR version of that on everyone else in the world ..." we are bombing you for your own good".....

   

I do not claim some imaginary common good either.
We just know that we ourselves want to be treated fair and equally, which does not require any imaginary common good. If I can want the same, then why should others not believe the same, as it does not take anything to want to be treated with fairness and equality.
You do not even require a rule, as why place it as a rule, when we already know how we want to be treated?
All you and others are doing is placing labels onto things, when its basic view how we would all want to be treated by others. It is religions that make rules, where at least an athiest does not have to impose a rule but try to reason, which is the difference, because they are not set bound boundaries.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:


THIS


But the arrogance of te athiest is THEN
that he would claim there is some imaginary "common good" that we should all work for

that some-one 1000 miles away is just as important as my family

that we are, in some strange and mysterious way, ALL "one tribe"

and yet this goes contrary to ALL experience and past history

IF we ARE mere "animals that can think(abstractly)" then whats the point of being "intrinsically good" other than ...because we can?

you remove "god" from the equation...and replace him/her with an equally nebulous concept of the golden rule?

then your souless "corporations" etc think to inflict THEIR version of that on everyone else in the world ..." we are bombing you for your own good".....

   

I do not claim some imaginary common good either.
We just know that we ourselves want to be treated fair and equally, which does not require any imaginary common good. If I can want the same, then  why should others not believe the same, as it does not take anything to want to be treated with fairness and equality.
You do not even require a rule, as why place it as a rule, when we already know how we want to be treated?
All you and others are doing is placing labels onto things, when its basic view how we would all want to be treated by others. It is religions that make rules, where at least an athiest does not have to impose a rule but try to reason, which is the difference, because they are not set bound boundaries.

the impossibility of this has I think been adequately demonstrated rcently in Cologne

you are , as I have said before, an idealist...all very nice and that...but it aint going to happen, at least not any time soon

Lord Foul wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


I do not claim some imaginary common good either.
We just know that we ourselves want to be treated fair and equally, which does not require any imaginary common good. If I can want the same, then  why should others not believe the same, as it does not take anything to want to be treated with fairness and equality.
You do not even require a rule, as why place it as a rule, when we already know how we want to be treated?
All you and others are doing is placing labels onto things, when its basic view how we would all want to be treated by others. It is religions that make rules, where at least an athiest does not have to impose a rule but try to reason, which is the difference, because they are not set bound boundaries.

the impossibility of this has I think been adequately demonstrated rcently in Cologne

you are , as I have said before, an idealist...all very nice and that...but it aint going to happen, at least not any time soon

Flawed reasoning, as you go off a place an act in time.
Nothing is impossible when it comes to humans evolving,
Actually its more realism as humanity has constantly and still does progress through time.
That would be impossible based on your pessimism, which as seen shows we do and can adapt.

hmmm...look around outside the bubble didge...

does that seem the kind of place that matches your ideals??

the real point is, that via religion or politics, or even, sporting events and as seen even "celebrations"

people it seems WANT to be fuckwits to one another...

Lord Foul wrote:hmmm...look around outside the bubble didge...

does that seem the kind of place that matches your ideals??

the real point is, that via religion or politics, or even, sporting events and as seen even "celebrations"

people it seems WANT to be fuckwits to one another...

Its emotions that rule people doing things wrong and that is where the problem lies within.
Peopl already do things that we define as good not requiring them to be having any positive emotion to act to help others, but it is always negative emotions that govern when people do things wrong.
So there is no bubble, just you do not see any light at the end of the tunnel, as again humans could not have evolved and progressed as they have if not for how we are able to look for a better future.
That future will come when we are less ruled by emotions, because in time, people will just know how we should treat each other and that will not require any rules.

we aint "vulcans" yet mr Spock

Lord Foul wrote:we aint "vulcans" yet mr Spock

I never said to be devoid of emotions but being able to control emotions, in that they do not rule your lives.
Like I say we are still evolving.

Night Victor

Lord Foul wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

This is why it always aggravates me when people call atheists arrogant. We believe we're a happenstance species that evolved on a little chunk of rock that's nothing compared to the vastness of the universe, who live for the blink of an eye and then turn back into the building blocks of matter.

They believe that the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe and all that is good and wholesome within it cares an awful lot about what they think, do, say, and especially what they get up to with their reproductive organs.

But we're the arrogant ones.

Yep, its about as absurd as it can get.
We do not claim to be spcial in anyway and that when we die that it is it.

THIS


But the arrogance of te athiest is THEN
that he would claim there is some imaginary "common good" that we should all work for

that some-one 1000 miles away is just as important as my family

that we are, in some strange and mysterious way, ALL "one tribe"

and yet this goes contrary to ALL experience and past history

IF we ARE mere "animals that can think(abstractly)" then whats the point of being "intrinsically good" other than ...because we can?

you remove "god" from the equation...and replace him/her with an equally nebulous concept of the golden rule?

then your souless "corporations" etc think to inflict THEIR version of that on everyone else in the world ..." we are bombing you for your own good".....

   

Seeing as even religious morality is constructed by the human mind, it follows that we can construct morality -- and obviously, we today can construct a better version of morality than something we inherited from people whose lives were little like our own.

Being good simply because we can strikes me as quite beautiful.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:


THIS


But the arrogance of te athiest is THEN
that he would claim there is some imaginary "common good" that we should all work for

that some-one 1000 miles away is just as important as my family

that we are, in some strange and mysterious way, ALL "one tribe"

and yet this goes contrary to ALL experience and past history

IF we ARE mere "animals that can think(abstractly)" then whats the point of being "intrinsically good" other than ...because we can?

you remove "god" from the equation...and replace him/her with an equally nebulous concept of the golden rule?

then your souless "corporations" etc think to inflict THEIR version of that on everyone else in the world ..." we are bombing you for your own good".....

   

Seeing as even religious morality is constructed by the human mind, it follows that we can construct morality -- and obviously, we today can construct a better version of morality than something we inherited from people whose lives were little like our own.

Being good simply because we can strikes me as quite beautiful.

If, as you seem to assert, that morality is a human construct that is inherited, does that mean a child raised without any human guidance will not have any sense of morality?

stardesk wrote:Hi folks. I know I've mentioned them in the past but, I find Witnesses abominable. They come across as so self-righteous and perfect. Just like various other sects and faiths, all proclaiming to be one and only true path to heaven. Crap!

If there be a god then oh dear, he should go back to Uni' and learn his architectral skills all over again, considering how unstable our planet is and the millions of deaths from disasters. I have a long list of fatalities from disasters and one day I'll post them on here if that's acceptable.

You do realise that without these disasters of nature there would be no life?

That's not religion, that's science.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:


THIS


But the arrogance of te athiest is THEN
that he would claim there is some imaginary "common good" that we should all work for

that some-one 1000 miles away is just as important as my family

that we are, in some strange and mysterious way, ALL "one tribe"

and yet this goes contrary to ALL experience and past history

IF we ARE mere "animals that can think(abstractly)" then whats the point of being "intrinsically good" other than ...because we can?

you remove "god" from the equation...and replace him/her with an equally nebulous concept of the golden rule?

then your souless "corporations" etc think to inflict THEIR version of that on everyone else in the world ..." we are bombing you for your own good".....

   

Seeing as even religious morality is constructed by the human mind, it follows that we can construct morality -- and obviously, we today can construct a better version of morality than something we inherited from people whose lives were little like our own.

Being good simply because we can strikes me as quite beautiful.

If, as you seem to assert, that morality is a human construct that is inherited, does that mean a child raised without any human guidance will not have any sense of morality?

I'll have to ask you to be more specific -- do you mean a child who didn't grow up around other people at all? Or merely one who was left to his/her own devices, aka without the guidance of a responsible adult?

I don't think morality can exist within a vacuum. I think children left to their own devices but who still interact with others do develop some sense of morality. Every human interaction can be a lesson.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

If, as you seem to assert, that morality is a human construct that is inherited, does that mean a child raised without any human guidance will not have any sense of morality?

I'll have to ask you to be more specific -- do you mean a child who didn't grow up around other people at all? Or merely one who was left to his/her own devices, aka without the guidance of a responsible adult?

I don't think morality can exist within a vacuum. I think children left to their own devices but who still interact with others do develop some sense of morality. Every human interaction can be a lesson.

Fair point. Let's assume a group of children (male and female) are dropped on an island from birth and somehow raise themselves.

Will that society develop a sense of morallity or will they be immoral without parental/adult guidance?

You mention the human interaction will help develope a sense of morality. If this hasn't come from "human guidance", where does it come from?

Didn't work out that well in 'Lord of the Flies'  !!

Zack, science telld is how and why disasters happen and from that we can understand their role in life.

However, from the pov of a 'god', you have to rationalise why god would choose to create a world which required such destruction, so often, and with such massive lossof life every time. God could find other ways, but chose the path of frequent disasters???

Eilzel wrote:Zack, science telld is how and why disasters happen and from that we can understand their role in life.

However, from the pov of a 'god', you have to rationalise why god would choose to create a world which required such destruction, so often, and with such massive lossof life every time. God could find other ways, but chose the path of frequent disasters???

Becuase we live in a universe where you don't have creation without destruction.

You mentioned God. I'm trying to look at this from a scientific position. Aren't we all stardust, the reminants of a supernova? Isn't fertile ground found near volcanoes? This is what "science" tells us. Not religion.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

If, as you seem to assert, that morality is a human construct that is inherited, does that mean a child raised without any human guidance will not have any sense of morality?

I'll have to ask you to be more specific -- do you mean a child who didn't grow up around other people at all? Or merely one who was left to his/her own devices, aka without the guidance of a responsible adult?

I don't think morality can exist within a vacuum. I think children left to their own devices but who still interact with others do develop some sense of morality. Every human interaction can be a lesson.

Fair point. Let's assume a group of children (male and female) are dropped on an island from birth and somehow raise themselves.

Will that society develop a sense of morallity or will they be immoral without parental/adult guidance?

You mention the human interaction will help develope a sense of morality. If this hasn't come from "human guidance", where does it come from?

I think that the group will develop its own set of what, to that group, would be considered morals. In the absence of adult guidance, I would expect it to be a mixture of sensibilities we would consider advanced and superstitious, kind of like cargo cults.

It would probably stem from the basic sense of fairness that most animals seem to have -- that's been borne out by experiments such as the one with monkeys in which they were awarded different amounts for performing the same tasks (The monkeys awarded less sometimes took their earnings grudgingly, refused them, or even took them and threw them back at the experimenters) and by other apparently instinctive behaviors we've evolved, such as cooperation.

In fact, the cargo cults I mentioned are a perfect example of religious behavior arising from a reward system.

The term cargo cult describes any new religious movement that owes its initial impetus to the encounter between a tribal (often hunter-gatherer) society and Western civilization (broadly interpreted), though it is most frequently used in the context of New Guinea and Melanesia. In this context, "cargo" refers to Western manufactured goods, which seem (from the perspective of some hunter-gatherer people) to be constructed, ordered, and delivered via various magical processes. The adherents of cargo cults sometimes maintain that these articles have been created by divine spirits and are intended for the local indigenous people, but that Westerners have unfairly gained control of these objects. In other instances, such as on the island of Tanna in Vanuatu, cult members actively worship the Americans who first brought the cargo.[1] In both cases, many of the beliefs and practices particular to these cults focus on the ritualistic performance of "white behaviors," with the assumption that they will cause the gods or ancestors to at last recognize their own and send them cargo. In this way, a characteristic feature of cargo cults is the belief that spiritual agents will, at some future time, bless the believers with material prosperity (which, in turn, will usher in an era of peace and harmony)—a standpoint that gives them a profoundly millenarian flavor.[2]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Cargo_cult

People do things like this all the time -- a guy catches a large number of fish while wearing a particular hat, and ever after that's his "lucky hat."

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Zack, science telld is how and why disasters happen and from that we can understand their role in life.

However, from the pov of a 'god', you have to rationalise why god would choose to create a world which required such destruction, so often, and with such massive lossof life every time. God could find other ways, but chose the path of frequent disasters???

Becuase we live in a universe where you don't have creation without destruction.

You mentioned God. I'm trying to look at this from a scientific position. Aren't we all stardust, the reminants of a supernova? Isn't fertile ground found near volcanoes? This is what "science" tells us. Not religion.

Are you sure you're not imposing a bias on the phenomena of "creation" and "destruction"? We say a star is created from interplanetary gas and dust, implying that it's somehow better as a star than it was as gas and dust. Why? Likewise, why is the debris from a star that's gone supernova "less" than it was as a star?

Zack, I agree with all that from a scientific position. But this topic is god, science allows us the understand creation and destruction. God poses a dilema however.

Unless you accept god worked within some restrainsts which pre-date his/her existance. The rules you state from science, 'you can't have creation without destruction'.

All well and good, but did god set those rules? In which case why create a universe which requires such destruction?

Or, did those rules already exist and god had to work around them? In which case god is not all powerful AND in fact surplus to requirements.

Morning all. Now the discussion is becoming very interesting. First of all I’d like to comment on morals, as mentioned above. One of my favourite tv programmes is ‘Monkey Life,’ a regular prog’ at a Primate rescue centre in Dorset. It is interesting to see how they interact and strike up relationships, apart from the mating ones. Some females will look after another female’s young, males strike up a friendship, It is a very basic understanding that by helping and co-operating with each other there will be a benefit. And that, my friends, is the basic foundation of what we term morality. Our ancient ancestors would have realised that by co-operating and helping each other they are being treated in like manner, or to use a modern expression, ‘a pay-off.’ We don’t need a god to be kind and fair to other people. By helping my neighbours they have helped me. We reap what we sow.



As I said above, god, if there be one, needs to go back to school. Our known universe is fraught with danger, disasters, catastrophe. Nothing is permanently stable. Our sun is halfway through its life cycle, one day it will be gone and our solar system with it. The Lyra galaxy is slowly heading towards our own so again, one day our galaxy will be gone. But, out of the debri new suns and planets will be born, new life will be spawned, and so it will go on, death and destruction, new life…ad-infinitum.

Over time I've gleaned from historical and sources catastrophes and disasters and the resulting death tolls. Later today I'll post some here which will demonstrate what I and some of you others have said: That god, if there be one, didn't do a very good job of creating.

stardesk wrote:Morning all. Now the discussion is becoming very interesting. First of all I’d like to comment on morals, as mentioned above. One of my favourite tv programmes is ‘Monkey Life,’ a regular prog’ at a Primate rescue centre in Dorset. It is interesting to see how they interact and strike up relationships, apart from the mating ones. Some females will look after another female’s young, males strike up a friendship, It is a very basic understanding that by helping and co-operating with each other there will be a benefit. And that, my friends, is the basic foundation of what we term morality. Our ancient ancestors would have realised that by co-operating and helping each other they are being treated in like manner, or to use a modern expression, ‘a pay-off.’ We don’t need a god to be kind and fair to other people. By helping my neighbours they have helped me. We reap what we sow.



As I said above, god, if there be one, needs to go back to school. Our known universe is fraught with danger, disasters, catastrophe. Nothing is permanently stable. Our sun is halfway through its life cycle, one day it will be gone and our solar system with it. The Lyra galaxy is slowly heading towards our own so again, one day our galaxy will be gone. But, out of the debri new suns and planets will be born, new life will be spawned, and so it will go on, death and destruction, new life…ad-infinitum.



Have a nice day.

Monkey Life - should be studied to see how we should be interacting!

I quite agree Sassy. Ok so they can be aggressive towards each other, but then so are many humans.
Going off for a little while, got some work to do, catch you later.

i'd do any thing for a Banana!

nicko wrote:i'd do any thing for a Banana!

Plenty here lol, good for keeping potassium levels up!

Ben:

Rules and guidelines that allow each of us to survive in a group is different to morality. This is more Big Brother analysis.

I'm strictly taking about a sense of right and wrong. How do we know killing, harming, stealing from someone is wrong. A sense of fairness is more to do with surving in a pack, like the Big Brother house. But without Big Brother, will that house uphold a sense of morality or will the stronger group of housemates set the rules of fairness.

I agree the animal kingdom has a sense of morality.

But where does that sense of right and wrong come from? I agree a sense of fairness and even justice plays a part here. But where does that come from? As I said above, it could be our inbuilt sense to survive. In which case, morality is not taught. It is natural.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Becuase we live in a universe where you don't have creation without destruction.

You mentioned God. I'm trying to look at this from a scientific position. Aren't we all stardust, the reminants of a supernova? Isn't fertile ground found near volcanoes? This is what "science" tells us. Not religion.

Are you sure you're not imposing a bias on the phenomena of "creation" and "destruction"? We say a star is created from interplanetary gas and dust, implying that it's somehow better as a star than it was as gas and dust. Why? Likewise, why is the debris from a star that's gone supernova "less" than it was as a star?

Actually you demonstrate my point that construction and destruction are one and the same.

By construction I mean coming together and desctruction means taking apart. That's it.

The gas and dust came from a destructive event which were then used in a constructive even to make a star (using gravity) and then using gravity again, the star collapses in a super nova to create more stuff.

It's all part of the same process.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Ben:

Rules and guidelines that allow each of us to survive in a group is different to morality. This is more Big Brother analysis.

I'm strictly taking about a sense of right and wrong. How do we know killing, harming, stealing from someone is wrong. A sense of fairness is more to do with surving in a pack, like the Big Brother house. But without Big Brother, will that house uphold a sense of morality or will the stronger group of housemates set the rules of fairness.

I agree the animal kingdom has a sense of morality.

But where does that sense of right and wrong come from? I agree a sense of fairness and even justice plays a part here. But where does that come from? As I said above, it could be our inbuilt sense to survive. In which case, morality is not taught. It is natural.

HUmanities near extinction would have played the biggest part in cooperation, plus parenting instinct also would play a part in right and wrong. Many animal species care for their offspring and from this communities increase in size and care. It is negative emotions that led to acts done wrong, where you do not need a positive emption to do something we cast as right. So morality is taught and it has been inbuilt through generations over time in many animals

Eilzel wrote:Zack, I agree with all that from a scientific position. But this topic is god, science allows us the understand creation and destruction. God poses a dilema however.

Unless you accept god worked within some restrainsts which pre-date his/her existance. The rules you state from science, 'you can't have creation without destruction'.

All well and good, but did god set those rules? In which case why create a universe which requires such destruction?

Or, did those rules already exist and god had to work around them? In which case god is not all powerful AND in fact surplus to requirements.

As I've said above, construction and destruction are part of the same process.

Both religion (mainstream) and science says these rules were set when the universe was smaller than an atom.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Zack, I agree with all that from a scientific position. But this topic is god, science allows us the understand creation and destruction. God poses a dilema however.

Unless you accept god worked within some restrainsts which pre-date his/her existance. The rules you state from science, 'you can't have creation without destruction'.

All well and good, but did god set those rules? In which case why create a universe which requires such destruction?

Or, did those rules already exist and god had to work around them? In which case god is not all powerful AND in fact surplus to requirements.

As I've said above, construction and destruction are part of the same process.

Both religion (mainstream) and science says these rules were set when the universe was smaller than an atom.

Where does religion say that?
Are you again interpreting religion to fit science?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Ben:

Rules and guidelines that allow each of us to survive in a group is different to morality. This is more Big Brother analysis.

I'm strictly taking about a sense of right and wrong. How do we know killing, harming, stealing from someone is wrong. A sense of fairness is more to do with surving in a pack, like the Big Brother house. But without Big Brother, will that house uphold a sense of morality or will the stronger group of housemates set the rules of fairness.

I agree the animal kingdom has a sense of morality.

But where does that sense of right and wrong come from? I agree a sense of fairness and even justice plays a part here. But where does that come from? As I said above, it could be our inbuilt sense to survive. In which case, morality is not taught. It is natural.

HUmanities near extinction would have played the biggest part in cooperation, plus parenting instinct also would play a part in right and wrong. Many animal species care for their offspring and from this communities increase in size and care. It is negative emotions that led to acts done wrong, where you do not need a positive emption to do something we cast as right. So morality is taught and it has been inbuilt through generations over time in many animals

We are taking parenting out of this hypothetical model.

For sure emotions play a part. But emotions are not taught, especially the more primal ones.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:




HUmanities near extinction would have played the biggest part in cooperation, plus parenting instinct also would play a part in right and wrong. Many animal species care for their offspring and from this communities increase in size and care. It is negative emotions that led to acts done wrong, where you do not need a positive emption to do something we cast as right. So morality is taught and it has been inbuilt through generations over time in many animals

We are taking parenting out of this hypothetical model.

For sure emotions play a part. But emotions are not taught, especially the more primal ones.

But emotions develope from morals and morals our taught.
For example the Aztecs firmly believed in humnan sacrifice to appease their mythical gods. To them it was perfectly normal to cut out the heart of their victims alive.
Most animal species look and care for their young, it is a matter of survival. Groups can form from this into then a bigger society where a sense of unfairness how some are treated compared to others, which would again play off the emotions. Its as animals form to become a larger group no doubt more beliefs would have been created over right and wrong, with also religious beliefs invented to back or validate a moral view.

Religion is a big field, Zack. Some religions might suggest it but regardless: a god that decides to create a universe where destruction MUST happen all the time must be flawed- or evil, since that destruction will often involve immense loss of life.

Eilzel wrote:Religion is a big field, Zack. Some religions might suggest it but regardless: a god that decides to create a universe where destruction MUST happen all the time must be flawed- or evil, since that destruction will often involve immense loss of life.

Like construction and destruction, life and death are intimately linked also.

It's how the universe works.

Sure, you may miss the death of a loved one. But we all die. Someone else is born.

From a philosophical point of view, can you learn about yourself or your life without obstacles? Of course you cannot.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Religion is a big field, Zack. Some religions might suggest it but regardless: a god that decides to create a universe where destruction MUST happen all the time must be flawed- or evil, since that destruction will often involve immense loss of life.

Like construction and destruction, life and death are intimately linked also.

It's how the universe works.

Sure, you may miss the death of a loved one. But we all die. Someone else is born.

From a philosophical point of view, can you learn about yourself or your life without obstacles? Of course you cannot.

But the above is not infinate, as destruction will come again to everything, so at some point all will die and nothing else will be born or is possible anything could ever be born from that destruction.
So life is not really linked to death in the aspect you claim. Life can even exist in the future for eternal reasons through machines, with the minds.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

We are taking parenting out of this hypothetical model.

For sure emotions play a part. But emotions are not taught, especially the more primal ones.

But emotions develope from morals and morals our taught.
For example the Aztecs firmly believed in humnan sacrifice to appease their mythical gods. To them it was perfectly normal to cut out the heart of their victims alive.
Most animal species look and care for their young, it is a matter of survival. Groups can form from this into then a bigger society where a sense of unfairness how some are treated compared to others, which would again play off the emotions. Its as animals form to become a larger group no doubt more beliefs would have been created over right and wrong, with also religious beliefs invented to back or validate a moral view.

Babies feel emotion from birth. They are just primitive and as the brain developes so does the sophistication of their emotions.

The morals of their society may develop what emotions they feel but the ability to emote is set from birth. That's the subtle but crucial difference.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


But emotions develope from morals and morals our taught.
For example the Aztecs firmly believed in humnan sacrifice to appease their mythical gods. To them it was perfectly normal to cut out the heart of their victims alive.
Most animal species look and care for their young, it is a matter of survival. Groups can form from this into then a bigger society where a sense of unfairness how some are treated compared to others, which would again play off the emotions. Its as animals form to become a larger group no doubt more beliefs would have been created over right and wrong, with also religious beliefs invented to back or validate a moral view.

Babies feel emotion from birth. They are just primitive and as the brain developes so does the sophistication of their emotions.

The morals of their society may develop what emotions they feel but the ability to emote is set from birth. That's the subtle but crucial difference.

Morals are subjective and also can effect emotions more so based on how a belief system is held within a society.
So many creatures feel emotions, but it is beliefs that play for better or worse in many cases an over poweing effect on emotions. I dioubt you really need me to give you any examples of this

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Like construction and destruction, life and death are intimately linked also.

It's how the universe works.

Sure, you may miss the death of a loved one. But we all die. Someone else is born.

From a philosophical point of view, can you learn about yourself or your life without obstacles? Of course you cannot.

But the above is not infinate, as destruction will come again to everything, so at some point all will die and nothing else will be born or is possible anything could ever be born from that destruction.
So life is not really linked to death in the aspect you claim. Life can even exist in the future for eternal reasons through machines, with the minds.

That depends on how you believe the universe will ultimately end. Big Crunch, big freeze, etc. I think the current theory is we live in a flat, net zero energy universe.

As for the universe as it is now, conservation of mass and energy still apply.



As for your machines, someone will have to "create" them out of matter that came from an exploding star.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


But the above is not infinate, as destruction will come again to everything, so at some point all will die and nothing else will be born or is possible anything could ever be born from that destruction.
So life is not really linked to death in the aspect you claim. Life can even exist in the future for eternal reasons through machines, with the minds.

That depends on how you believe the universe will ultimately end. Big Crunch, big freeze, etc. I think the current theory is we live in a flat, net zero energy universe.

As for the universe as it is now, conservation of mass and energy still apply.



As for your machines, someone will have to "create" them out of matter that came from an exp

It does not matter how I think it will end, the chances of then life being created again from that destruction are slim and very slim indeed. So to the point on life and death, that death will be finate for our species unless it can adapt and evolve through space exploration and through machines that encompass human minds. I think deveolpe is a far better way of producing machines that we can be adaptable to.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Ben:

Rules and guidelines that allow each of us to survive in a group is different to morality. This is more Big Brother analysis.

I'm strictly taking about a sense of right and wrong. How do we know killing, harming, stealing from someone is wrong. A sense of fairness is more to do with surving in a pack, like the Big Brother house. But without Big Brother, will that house uphold a sense of morality or will the stronger group of housemates set the rules of fairness.

I agree the animal kingdom has a sense of morality.

But where does that sense of right and wrong come from? I agree a sense of fairness and even justice plays a part here. But where does that come from? As I said above, it could be our inbuilt sense to survive. In which case, morality is not taught. It is natural.

I disagree, I think what we call "morality" comes from several different sources and is more complicated. If societal norms didn't play as important a role as instinct, you wouldn't expect to see so many morals in different societies related to sexuality, propriety of attire, diet, vulgarity, manners and the like.

A MOST INCOMPETANT GOD.

I said earlier I'd post some catastrophes in keeping with the first comment of this particular topic. The following are only about a third of my listings, coming up to modern times. If you want me to carry on with them let me know.

Natural disasters and the resulting fatalities. (mya = Millions of years ago.)
Genesis 1. V. 31: ‘And God saw everything he had made, and, behold, it was very good…’

PERMIAN PERIOD: 250 mya: Volcanoes in Siberia killed 90%, mass extinction.
CRETACEOUS PERIOD 65 mya meteorite in USA kills 75% of life.
DEVONIAN PERIOD: 70% of life killed.
METEOR STRIKE Siberia: 39 mya Many life-forms extinguished such as birds and animals.
BIG FREEZE 10,000 BC Siberia: Woolley Mammoths extinguished.
FAMINE/DROUGHT 3,500 BC Egypt: Many thousands perish.
EARTHQUAKE 464 BC Greece: 20,000 killed.
EARTHQUAKE 373 BC Greece: Many thousands killed.
AVALANCHE 218 BC Italian Alps: 18,000 killed.
EARTHQUAKE 217 BC Alexandria, Egypt: 75,000 killed.
VOLCANO 79 AD Vesuvius, Italy: 16,000 killed.
EPIDEMIC 166 AD throughout Middle East & Europe: 1/3 rd of the population.PLAGUE 164-180 AD Throughout Syria & Europe: 7 Million.
EARTHQUAKE & TSUNAMI 365 AD Egypt/Alexandria 50,000 killed.
EARTHQUAKE 526 AD Antioch region Syria/Turkey: 250,000 killed.
EARTHQUAKE 856 AD Iran 200,000 & Greece 45,000 = 245,000 killed.
EARTHQUAKE 893 AD Iran 150,000 killed.
EARTHQUAKE 1038 AD Shanxi Province, China, 23,000 killed.
EARTHQUAKE 1040 AD Iran 50,000 killed.
DROUGHT/FAMINE 1064-72 Egypt 4,000 Died.
DROUGHT 1069 AD England, 50,000 Died.
EARTHQUAKE 1138 AD Syria, 230,000 killed.
DROUGHT/FAMINE 1199-1202 Egypt, 100,000 died.
FLOOD 1099 AD East Coast UK. Many thousands.
EARTHQUAKE & VOLCANO 1169 AD Mt. Etna & Sicily, 15,000.
EARTHQUAKE 1202 AD Lebanon, 100,000 Killed.
FLOOD 1219 AD Jutland/Denmark, many thousands.
EARTHQUAKE 1268 AD Asia Minor (now Turkey) 60,000.
EARTHQUAKE 1290 AD Bohai, China, 100,000 killed.
BIG FREEZE 1315-17 AD across Ireland & Europe, many thousands died.
FLOOD/FAMINE 1332-33 Peking, China, 6 million.
HAIL STORM 1359 AD France, 1,000 killed.
FLOOD 1362 AD Germany, 30,000 killed.
FLOOD 1421 AD Holland, 100,000 killed.
EARTHQUAKE 1456 AD Naples, Italy, 35,000 killed.

ooppps, clumsy fingers, sorry.

Fascinating stuff Star.

Zack, you still haven't addressed the fact that gods should not be limited by natural laws. God (if we accept one as real) MADE things this way. He could have done things any other way, with less destruction but still with balance- but god CHOSE this way, the way of chaos amd violence.

Morning Eilzel, well said my friend.

Sitting having my breakfast my mind wandered into a fantasy scenario. Imagine it if you will:
God is clattering and banging away in his workshop when there’s a knock at the door.
‘What do you want?’ He shouts, annoyed at being disturbed. The door opens and an Alien pops his head round the door.
‘Hello chief, we were wondering if you’ve got a cosy little planet we can live on.’
‘Yes,’ says he, pointing out the window at a little blue planet. ‘There’s one I’ve just made, now bugger off, I’m busy.’
A little while later the door opens gingerly and the Alien stood there looking a bit crestfallen. ‘We’re not living there! You must be joking, you didn’t do a very good job, did you. Some of the mountains are spewing out burning, boiling lava, the ground shakes and splits under our feet, the seas keep spilling over the land, there are bugs galore endangering our health, the wind keeps blowing down trees, and a host of other bad points. No way mate, bye bye, we’re off round the Galaxy to find somewhere more hospitable.

And who can blame them?