"The Creator" is the Crucial Issue in Religion

[Scott Mayers]

I used it as 'supporting' case to demonstrate speculation on religious origin-claims that CAN be more rationally be interpreted as secular writings and/or passed-on contemporary politics and education of the day when they were recorded that gets distorted from their origin in an evolutionary manner.

Perhaps you could expand upon what you mean by my supposed "abuse of etymology". This is a philosophy forum. CAn you express what this is and what it is not to help me understand what you mean?

Words are signifiers only and do not encapsulate meaning. When a homonym branches off the meaning is not preserved but separates along a different branch. You cannot learn deeper meanings by an assumed evolution since the emptiness of signification is not pressured by selection - it is the concept itself which undergoes the selective pressure - so that for two distinct words carrying the same meaning the persistence of each of the words is not directly related to the sound or the spelling but by the persistence of the word's concept's usage and usefulness.

In this way it matters not a jot what you call an idea, its about the persistence of the idea regardless of the word used to describe it.
This is empirically obvious since other languages have different words to express the same thing other languages also have.
And whilst different cultures may use the same word, its meaning for each of those cultures can be utterly different.
The signifier is arbitrary. The signified is everything.

I've mentioned some etymology that I use, whether correct or not to some standards of those writing dictionaries. Those are 'guides' only and, as I said, are devoloped with reflection of politics involved too.

As to my own self-studies regarding religious writings that use words, there is way too much coinciding relationships of words from the ancients records that have the same type of correspondence to logical meanings I notice.

For example, the "Nile" is a name for the river in Egypt and you can presume its label related uniquely to special cause for being named such. Note that the 'god of the water' is called, "Nil" and that the 'god of the sky' is 'Nut'.

When you learn from chemistry the classification of matter as solids, liquids, or [/i]gases (plus now, plasma), these means of describing things in a most general description originates even long before formal classification schemes were even recorded. To the ancients, the first classication scheme was to think of things as "fluids" versus "solids". Water and Air were both treated as types or NOTHINGs, because people then thought that only what was graspable literally could be understood.

Both terms, "Nil" and "Nut" are LITERALLY the source roots that we get, "nil", "not", "nothing", "note", "nut", etc. Was the labels given to these supposed gods then a mere exclusive concept? How coincidental is it that the river, "Nile" could come about distinctly from the 'god of water'?

Note that the "waters above and the waters below" in Genesis is an intentional imposition to hide the meaning of the chaos or fluidity of what solids can move through ("Chaos", by the way, is another word we get the word 'gas' later on).

"Adam" DOES link to a meaning related to 'solids' but is specific to Earthly solids (versus those up in the sky or 'heavens'). The word, "atom", gets eymologically credited to the Greeks with a kind of intentional disconnect to the Egyptian or Judaic roots so that others DON'T link the two.

The word, "heaven", is actually an alternative to "even(s)" and "Eve" and suggests in means whatever follows.

I also notice how the 'n' versu 'm' are used at the end of terms. The 'n' is used at the end to signify universal subject and 'm' for the reflective objects of those universals. So the word, "Aten" and "Eden" are the universal or absolutes or 'sources', while "Adam" and "atom" and "item, all with common ancestral links are receiving or objective relatives to the universals.

The perfect ideal 'solid' to the ancients was that SOLitary thing up in the sky that provides light (rays) and has a perfect spherical/circular containment (a thing ....."aten). Further coincident is to the "SOL" I emphasized and has to relate to where we get "solid" (for single thing-like) and "Solar" (for that ideally perfectly isolated thing in the sky) and likely the reason for the supposed first named King of Isreal as, "Solomon" (for solo-man, or first man).

The supposed other 'gods' of the sun are Ptah and Amen-ra. But note that the "Ptah" is the sound of a fire crackle and suggests it is a phonetic mimic of a spark that ignites a fire? "Amen-ra" would actually mean, "the source of light", where "Ra" is literally the light (as rays) themselves.

So you can rationally link these corresponding words of religious origins to secular ones and is my position about the origins of them. I CAN demonstrate a lot more but this thread is not mine to go further on it. My etymological choice is spoken here without concern for literal proof nor do I expect it to concord with the select etymology of other references. I think you get my point and will stop for your relection.

I am NOT 'abusing' etymology though. I respect other interpretations but don't default any faith in them as more authoritatively correct given they are people too who would have had to think the way I was when interpreting from collections of sources themselves. Politics and religious biases have to be also respected as most probable where roots are blurred or end in interpretations that appear to be most arbitrary. We are somewhat blinded today to assume people or characters written in the past (fictional or real) were arbitrarily assigned from BIRTH as we name our kids today. Rather, names were given AFTER one is born and related to some secularly understood term, like how we discovered North American names of their Indians were/are like this.

[Scott Mayers]

Damn, we really need a right to edit. Sorry for the unreadability of the above now!! I missed some closing slash mark for italics. What was the intent of leaving this capacity out for? [I'm guessing they wanted that $100/year fee to be qualified to be understood!!??]

[Sculptor1]

Words are signifiers only and do not encapsulate meaning. When a homonym branches off the meaning is not preserved but separates along a different branch. You cannot learn deeper meanings by an assumed evolution since the emptiness of signification is not pressured by selection - it is the concept itself which undergoes the selective pressure - so that for two distinct words carrying the same meaning the persistence of each of the words is not directly related to the sound or the spelling but by the persistence of the word's concept's usage and usefulness.

In this way it matters not a jot what you call an idea, its about the persistence of the idea regardless of the word used to describe it.
This is empirically obvious since other languages have different words to express the same thing other languages also have.
And whilst different cultures may use the same word, its meaning for each of those cultures can be utterly different.
The signifier is arbitrary. The signified is everything.

I've mentioned some etymology that I use, whether correct or not to some standards of those writing dictionaries. Those are 'guides' only and, as I said, are devoloped with reflection of politics involved too.

As to my own self-studies regarding religious writings that use words, there is way too much coinciding relationships of words from the ancients records that have the same type of correspondence to logical meanings I notice.

For example, the "Nile" is a name for the river in Egypt and you can presume its label related uniquely to special cause for being named such. Note that the 'god of the water' is called, "Nil" and that the 'god of the sky' is 'Nut'.

When you learn from chemistry the classification of matter as solids, liquids, or [/i]gases (plus now, plasma), these means of describing things in a most general description originates even long before formal classification schemes were even recorded. To the ancients, the first classication scheme was to think of things as "fluids" versus "solids". Water and Air were both treated as types or NOTHINGs, because people then thought that only what was graspable literally could be understood.

Both terms, "Nil" and "Nut" are LITERALLY the source roots that we get, "nil", "not", "nothing", "note", "nut", etc. Was the labels given to these supposed gods then a mere exclusive concept? How coincidental is it that the river, "Nile" could come about distinctly from the 'god of water'?

Note that the "waters above and the waters below" in Genesis is an intentional imposition to hide the meaning of the chaos or fluidity of what solids can move through ("Chaos", by the way, is another word we get the word 'gas' later on).

"Adam" DOES link to a meaning related to 'solids' but is specific to Earthly solids (versus those up in the sky or 'heavens'). The word, "atom", gets eymologically credited to the Greeks with a kind of intentional disconnect to the Egyptian or Judaic roots so that others DON'T link the two.

The word, "heaven", is actually an alternative to "even(s)" and "Eve" and suggests in means whatever follows.

I also notice how the 'n' versu 'm' are used at the end of terms. The 'n' is used at the end to signify universal subject and 'm' for the reflective objects of those universals. So the word, "Aten" and "Eden" are the universal or absolutes or 'sources', while "Adam" and "atom" and "item, all with common ancestral links are receiving or objective relatives to the universals.

The perfect ideal 'solid' to the ancients was that SOLitary thing up in the sky that provides light (rays) and has a perfect spherical/circular containment (a thing ....."aten). Further coincident is to the "SOL" I emphasized and has to relate to where we get "solid" (for single thing-like) and "Solar" (for that ideally perfectly isolated thing in the sky) and likely the reason for the supposed first named King of Isreal as, "Solomon" (for solo-man, or first man).

The supposed other 'gods' of the sun are Ptah and Amen-ra. But note that the "Ptah" is the sound of a fire crackle and suggests it is a phonetic mimic of a spark that ignites a fire? "Amen-ra" would actually mean, "the source of light", where "Ra" is literally the light (as rays) themselves.

So you can rationally link these corresponding words of religious origins to secular ones and is my position about the origins of them. I CAN demonstrate a lot more but this thread is not mine to go further on it. My etymological choice is spoken here without concern for literal proof nor do I expect it to concord with the select etymology of other references. I think you get my point and will stop for your relection.

I am NOT 'abusing' etymology though. I respect other interpretations but don't default any faith in them as more authoritatively correct given they are people too who would have had to think the way I was when interpreting from collections of sources themselves. Politics and religious biases have to be also respected as most probable where roots are blurred or end in interpretations that appear to be most arbitrary. We are somewhat blinded today to assume people or characters written in the past (fictional or real) were arbitrarily assigned from BIRTH as we name our kids today. Rather, names were given AFTER one is born and related to some secularly understood term, like how we discovered North American names of their Indians were/are like this.

Yes, this is exactly the abuse to which I was referring.

[Scott Mayers]

Yes, this is exactly the abuse to which I was referring.

Cool. Good to know where you stand.

I'm guessing that you're religious? I mean, what would be the threat I pose for pointing out how much more likely than not that religion is just the evolution of actual secular records being distorted into myths about literal Adams and Eves?

Or, maybe your political? For political reasons, what might happen if people realized that places like Palestine has no 'ownership' of special people should names like Solomon (== lone or single man), David (== divide or division), Yehova (== the egg; the source), Jesus (= I am), Eden (==the place of the rising sun; the eastern horizon), etc, be discovered as merely artificial contructs that had no intent to legitimize some specific race's 'ownership' to some land granted them over another? Right?

Or are you implying these as impossible?

[gad-fly]

This is not a thread about whether to believe in God's existence. Nor is it an argument that you should adhere or belong to some religious group. This is a thread to discuss the role of the Creator in religion in general.

By God, let us say he is the Creator, the first entity that we have ever known. If indeed, he is what brings us into being, for which we should be grateful. He is transcendent, defined as: Theol. (of God) having continuous existence outside the created world; free from the limitations inherent in matter. But why should we bother about him. He is great, so what, as long as he leaves us alone. We can worship him at our discretion, or we can carry on dong what can be more important.

This brings in a crucial point. He has influence and he would exercise that influence at his discretion. He is the shepherd. You shall not want. Make no mistake, though. He guides you through the valley of death at his discretion. You must be his lamb, to follow his order. You must be good, because Santa Claus is coming to town.

But it is more than that. What if you already have enough toys to play with? You better be good, because RETRIBUTION is also coming to town. Carrot is accompanied by stick, and it is a heavy stick. Fear the stick more than wishing for the carrot. This is what turns many into religion. and why its staying power will be sustained. Atheist: beware.

[Scott Mayers]

This is not a thread about whether to believe in God's existence. Nor is it an argument that you should adhere or belong to some religious group. This is a thread to discuss the role of the Creator in religion in general.

By God, let us say he is the Creator, the first entity that we have ever known. If indeed, he is what brings us into being, for which we should be grateful. He is transcendent, defined as: Theol. (of God) having continuous existence outside the created world; free from the limitations inherent in matter. But why should we bother about him. He is great, so what, as long as he leaves us alone. We can worship him at our discretion, or we can carry on dong what can be more important.

This brings in a crucial point. He has influence and he would exercise that influence at his discretion. He is the shepherd. You shall not want. Make no mistake, though. He guides you through the valley of death at his discretion. You must be his lamb, to follow his order. You must be good, because Santa Claus is coming to town.

But it is more than that. What if you already have enough toys to play with? You better be good, because RETRIBUTION is also coming to town. Carrot is accompanied by stick, and it is a heavy stick. Fear the stick more than wishing for the carrot. This is what turns many into religion. and why its staying power will be sustained. Atheist: beware.

But, as an athiest myself, I argue that should we be sincerely the worst risk, I ask you what would be more likely the case that such athiests already DO exist in power behind the guise of the leaders of religion? Wouldn't the most 'evil' characteristic of us athiests be to rule THROUGH religion? What risk would such athiests fear of consequences for BEING so 'evil' by doing so?

So "SHEEP, beware!" should be the more accurate mantra!

[Present awareness]

1. Who created God?
Answer: God always existed and created the universe

Or 2.The universe always existed.

The only difference between statement 1 and 2 is that middle man Is eliminated. Since the universe has always existed, the is no need to create a creator. This is based on the logical assumption the something may not come from nothing, so it was either created or was always here. Being always here, doesn’t mean always in the same form. Forms are constantly changing and always will, as nothing is permanent.

Humans seem to believe that the universe only exists as far as we may detect and estimate an age of about 13.7 billion years. The Big Bang was just a local event in an infinite universe. Naturally, a statement like that may no be proved, but philosophy I not about proof but rather a way of looking at things.

[chewybrian]

Humans seem to believe that the universe only exists as far as we may detect and estimate an age of about 13.7 billion years. The Big Bang was just a local event in an infinite universe. Naturally, a statement like that may no be proved, but philosophy I not about proof but rather a way of looking at things.

This description is one that is a lot easier to get your head around than most. It feels right, but I can't prove it and don't believe anyone can. Yet, it seems the people who study these things and should know have many weird versions of the nature of the universe, and no broad agreement about any of them.

[gad-fly]

But, as an athiest myself, I argue that should we be sincerely the worst risk, I ask you what would be more likely the case that such athiests already DO exist in power behind the guise of the leaders of religion? Wouldn't the most 'evil' characteristic of us athiests be to rule THROUGH religion? What risk would such athiests fear of consequences for BEING so 'evil' by doing so?

So "SHEEP, beware!" should be the more accurate mantra!

My "Atheist: Beware" is an afterthought in the context of Atheism not able to exhibit similar carrot and stick to potential support. I do not understand what risk you are talking about as far as atheist is concerned. Is it the risk of landing on the wrong side of Armageddon? If you are an atheist, you don't care about that, do you?

[gad-fly]

1. Who created God?
Answer: God always existed and created the universe

Or 2.The universe always existed.

Humans seem to believe that the universe only exists as far as we may detect and estimate an age of about 13.7 billion years. The Big Bang was just a local event in an infinite universe. Naturally, a statement like that may no be proved, but philosophy I not about proof but rather a way of looking at things.

As I have said, "This is not a thread about God/Creator's existence/necessity." Excuse me if I desist from joining the discussion here. Let us focus on the role played by (assumed) God Almighty with carrot and stick in his religious organization. Does that make him crucial?

[Sculptor1]

Yes, this is exactly the abuse to which I was referring.

Cool. Good to know where you stand.

I'm guessing that you're religious? I mean, what would be the threat I pose for pointing out how much more likely than not that religion is just the evolution of actual secular records being distorted into myths about literal Adams and Eves?

No. Quite the reverse, since such abuse can be manipulated to assert that there are god given meanings that transcend mere parole.

Or, maybe your political? For political reasons, what might happen if people realized that places like Palestine has no 'ownership' of special people should names like Solomon (== lone or single man), David (== divide or division), Yehova (== the egg; the source), Jesus (= I am), Eden (==the place of the rising sun; the eastern horizon), etc, be discovered as merely artificial contructs that had no intent to legitimize some specific race's 'ownership' to some land granted them over another? Right?

No. It's more a response to nonsense. Labels are just labels. What do you not understand by the arbitrariness of the signifier? obviously you not read what I said above.

Or are you implying these as impossible?

What exactly are "these"?

[Scott Mayers]

But, as an athiest myself, I argue that should we be sincerely the worst risk, I ask you what would be more likely the case that such athiests already DO exist in power behind the guise of the leaders of religion? Wouldn't the most 'evil' characteristic of us athiests be to rule THROUGH religion? What risk would such athiests fear of consequences for BEING so 'evil' by doing so?

So "SHEEP, beware!" should be the more accurate mantra!

My "Atheist: Beware" is an afterthought in the context of Atheism not able to exhibit similar carrot and stick to potential support. I do not understand what risk you are talking about as far as atheist is concerned. Is it the risk of landing on the wrong side of Armageddon? If you are an atheist, you don't care about that, do you?

I wan't sure if you were warning us of some concern. Many theists threaten the Atheist and my own response is my way of countering the concern. If the athiest is the 'evilest' of all, then what worst evil could there be than for them to ACT religious and become the leaders of the religious? I thought of this at some point debating with a religious person who thought that the nihilism inherent in my atheism should not permit me to be trustworthy. But for being open and honest about how evil such amoral athiesm could be, wouldn't I be wiser to NOT admit myself as such and instead demonstrate my evil ways by manipulating them in the GUISE of the most religiously devout.

[Scott Mayers]

Cool. Good to know where you stand.

I'm guessing that you're religious? I mean, what would be the threat I pose for pointing out how much more likely than not that religion is just the evolution of actual secular records being distorted into myths about literal Adams and Eves?

No. Quite the reverse, since such abuse can be manipulated to assert that there are god given meanings that transcend mere parole.

Or, maybe your political? For political reasons, what might happen if people realized that places like Palestine has no 'ownership' of special people should names like Solomon (== lone or single man), David (== divide or division), Yehova (== the egg; the source), Jesus (= I am), Eden (==the place of the rising sun; the eastern horizon), etc, be discovered as merely artificial contructs that had no intent to legitimize some specific race's 'ownership' to some land granted them over another? Right?

No. It's more a response to nonsense. Labels are just labels. What do you not understand by the arbitrariness of the signifier? obviously you not read what I said above.

Or are you implying these as impossible?

What exactly are "these"?

I'm watching Zachary Quinto's In Search of series on Atlantis. It made me think of another example of which I need no formal dictionary to translate the meaning of "Atlantis": "atoll" + "antes" [a ring shaped reef + before].

I'm not concerned about how others dismiss me. I already asserted that this is speculative. But it is rational to seek the patterns in language to get a hint of what was meant.

Another? For the Bible, you can be sure that all the names are titles. "Jacob" == "I cobble" (I fell or tripped); this is the same as the Greek "Achilles" and given they likely came from something real or allegorical, when the name of Jacob was changed to "Israel", we get "Is- ra -el" [I see Thee (as in significant one or translatable to some, as "God")]

Note that in recent archaelogy, that it is now a theory that King Tutmoses probably died by falling off a Chariot and got run over by another. His hip and leg were broken as discovered and the origin of the story could have related. It is not necessary to be precise when pointing out these relationships because my use of it is to demonstrate how 'secular' many of the writings of ancient times can be reinterpreted and suffice to explain how and why these stories were significant without presuming them as originating in absolute irrationality.

Judaism, I am confident, is just the last post of the final Egyptian Dynasty. It was likely the 'promised land' and Judaism itself an offshoot of Akhenaten (akin to Aten, literally) and Tutank-amen. You can see the words like "Moses" and "amen" in titles which come down through the Bible. "Amen"?? As a guess, "of the moon", "of an end"? (since the moon relates to the reflection of Aten and that 'n' at the end might give justice to "Amenra" as "the reflected light".

The first writings would have been significant for anyone to pass on. Only for the masses who lack the skills of reading and writing would likely pass on alternative interpretations that favored the irrational. Culture and times change and so do the original ways people speak and write. Thus the evolution of language in records need to be skeptical of permitting religious or political definitions and historical etymology from being imposed. We see this today with many political correctness intervening in our language all the time that bans old words when they become insulting to some group or other or to shame against their symbolism. And note the 'symbols' too have the same problem. Think the Swastika, for instance. That symbol I saw/read/heard somewhere is also one of an earlier East Indian symbol. The victors of wars and changing eras also tear down statues and edit material to HIDE the original meanings, ...something that I think is both sad and PROOF of how we cannot trust the record as being passing on correct interpretation of the ancient times.

The "ark" was likely a literal boat/sled that the Egyptians used to carry large blocks of stone for pyramids etc. When Akhenaten (Tut's dad) tried to force the multicultural society of Egypt into a particular mono-cultural one, already likely religionizing the prior lost symbols from the secular past. When he was finally stopped of all attempting to annihilate the written history of all others before, he was forced out to the desert for a generation (40 years) and attepted to reconstruct a city there. The ruins likely held many obelisks of which one, broken in two, held the basic CIVIL laws that may have been what the "Ten Commandments" were posted on. The 'ark' then would be more rationally suggestive of being needed to haul such a commemorative obelisk of the dying beliefs that eventually ended up in Jerusalem" [Je-ra- Sol-em? "I see the sun's end?].

See, such thinking actually can lead to better reconstruction of the past than to presume neither a literal interpretation NOR superficial and false writings that become formal 'Scriptures" of religions. And this is why I said that there is no need to be concerned unless you feel threatened by what it might entail for some political or religious reasons you may have.

[gad-fly]

My "Atheist: Beware" is an afterthought in the context of Atheism not able to exhibit similar carrot and stick to potential support. I do not understand what risk you are talking about as far as atheist is concerned. Is it the risk of landing on the wrong side of Armageddon? If you are an atheist, you don't care about that, do you?

I wan't sure if you were warning us of some concern. Many theists threaten the Atheist and my own response is my way of countering the concern. If the athiest is the 'evilest' of all, then what worst evil could there be than for them to ACT religious and become the leaders of the religious? I thought of this at some point debating with a religious person who thought that the nihilism inherent in my atheism should not permit me to be trustworthy. But for being open and honest about how evil such amoral athiesm could be, wouldn't I be wiser to NOT admit myself as such and instead demonstrate my evil ways by manipulating them in the GUISE of the most religiously devout.

Nope, it is not a warning, but merely an observation that Atheism carries 'no carrot and stick = no substantive motivation' when compared with religion. With due respect from me, let me ask: Who will attend your Sunday service, who will donate to your church, and who will unite under your beacon? I submit some food for thought, and that is all.

Why bother about what others think about you as an atheist? You are strong enough to face the world, even alone. Right is might. The world would be poorer without people like you.

[Scott Mayers]

I wan't sure if you were warning us of some concern. Many theists threaten the Atheist and my own response is my way of countering the concern. If the athiest is the 'evilest' of all, then what worst evil could there be than for them to ACT religious and become the leaders of the religious? I thought of this at some point debating with a religious person who thought that the nihilism inherent in my atheism should not permit me to be trustworthy. But for being open and honest about how evil such amoral athiesm could be, wouldn't I be wiser to NOT admit myself as such and instead demonstrate my evil ways by manipulating them in the GUISE of the most religiously devout.

Nope, it is not a warning, but merely an observation that Atheism carries 'no carrot and stick = no substantive motivation' when compared with religion. With due respect from me, let me ask: Who will attend your Sunday service, who will donate to your church, and who will unite under your beacon? I submit some food for thought, and that is all.

Why bother about what others think about you as an atheist? You are strong enough to face the world, even alone. Right is might. The world would be poorer without people like you.

I'm confident in my own atheism. You may be reading some 'accent' in the way I say something as I did you? I don't think 'right is might' though. At least, I trust that my own early childhood has fortunately locked me into a set of values (as arbitrary as they may be) to feel compassion and hope no different than one who might be religious. I am logically nihilist but relatively 'positive' in outlook. I understand religious people even if I don't share their views. That is why I had been arguing with that point above. You don't need religion to feel or have commonly shared morals. I think we get these by how people treat each other (in early life) when initial assignments of value are given to us by our environment.

Thank you for the last line!! That I take as a nice compliment. We need more of that in our discussions in forums. We get too competitive sometimes as we pay more attention to what we disagree with while ignoring what we agree to.