GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
Would you care to share this evidence?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Big Gods Came After the Rise of Civilization, Not Before"
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Sorry but disagree with your statement that the goddess was ever small. On the contrary she was as big as any other god including the god of Abraham. The change in size has nothing to do about the goddess but everything about the way humans described her in time at least in the European setting. As the society becomes increasing male dominated and increasingly isolated from the rest of the natural world the worship feminine decreases.
The goddess Cailleach of Ireland represented one of the most powerful beings intimately connected with the non-human natural world. Her importance was lost when she was reduced in description to the old hag. Females and world outside of the tribe were closely connected especially to aspects of the earth while male gods were more connected with the tribe. I am learning about Norse beliefs and I think there was a clear loss of the influence of the female as finally described in the poetic edda. This shift in both Celtic and Norse views of the feminine were as a result of the influx of Christianity which clearly has a problem with the divine feminine.
Same thing happened to the fairy folk of Ireland. They were large and more powerful than humans originally then slowly shrunk in descriptive size until made into insect like creatures of Victorian England.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
I am not sure how men are really more objective then women and why compassion is not equal to objectiveness in having moral laws? I just think this concept comes form a male dominated society creating the image that males are more objective. Christianity takes this one more step and has god come to earth as a Man not a woman. How much clearer could the message be - god making the statement that god is male and that's that. Otherwise god would have appeared equally male and female. Not sure how but probably not a problem for god. Can you imagine if god came as a women instead. Would anyone have followed god in that male dominated society?
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I think you are making a lot of really good points.
I am similarly skeptical about the "men are objective, women are compassionate" thing. At best it is an incredible oversimplification of reality.
The person who gives of God being depicted as a male is Dennis Prager. He concedes that God transcends gender. But he gives some interesting and somewhat uncomfortable arguments why it is necessary that we see God in terms of a Father rather than a Mother. Honestly even if you end up disagreeing with him, I would encourage you to watch his very short video on the matter. He does make some very good points. And then at least you've listened fairly to the other side.
Why God Is a He
The radio host? Since when is he a theologian or philosopher?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Actually it's the other way around.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I guess they haven't met Medusa.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The easiest piece of evidence for that is common sense.
Thousands of mutually exclusive religions. At best, only one of them is correct.
Meaning that all others must be incorrect.
Therefor, all those were invented by humans. Not necessarily with ill-intent, mind you. It could very well be that the "inventors" really really believed it. But since it doesn't reflect actual real things, it follows that it comes from their own imagination - even if they were sincere.
Having said that, we have actual examples of religions being born.
For example: Prince Philip Movement - Wikipedia
And that's just one example.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So, do you think we should entertain ALL things that "can't be discounted as a possibility"?
Because that would come down to an infinite amount of things, only limited by one's imagination....
Furthermore, how have you determined that it is even a possibility in the first place?
Are ALL things possible, simply because you can imagine them?
For example, there is a "possibility" that an undetectable dragon follows your around and can eat you at any time, unless you wrap yourself in tinfoil. So are you going to wrap yourself in tinfoil just to be sure? After all, you can't "discount the possibility", right?
What this comes down to ultimately, is a disguised attempt at shifting the burden of proof.
Unless I can actually show you that it actuall IS a "possibility", you have no reason whatsoever to entertain the idea of the undetectable dragon.
The same goes for gods.
Not when it comes to claims of existence. Unless, as I also said, it is self-contradicting.
But as long as it is internally consistent, it can't be shown.
You can't show that unicorns don't exist. You can't show that centaurs don't exist. You can't show that aliens that abduct people don't exist. You can't show that bigfoot doesn't exist. Heck, you can't even show that santa claus doesn't exist.
Yet, I'll wager that you don't believe any of them exist and that you don't lose a second of sleep pondering "the possibility" of any of them.
Again, it all comes down to the burden of proof being on positive claims.
It's upto the ones claiming that bigfoot DOES exist, to show he exists.
It's upto the ones claiming that unicorns DO exist, to show they exist.
It's upto the ones claiming that centarus DO exist, to show they exist.
It's upto the ones claiming that Santa DOES exist, to show he exists.
It's upto the ones claiming that centarus DO exist, to show they exist.
It's upto the ones claiming that Santa DOES exist, to show he exists.
Likewise, it's upto the ones claiming that god DOES exist, to show he/she/it exists.
Failing to do so, means that there is no reason to believe it.
And not being able to "discount the possibility" does not in any way mean that one needs to entertain the "possibility" either.
Then what are you arguing about?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Nope.
Inflation theory, and all the evidence in support of that theory, is the evidence of a multi-verse.
If inflation theory is accurate and a multi-verse prediction naturally flows from that theory, then the multi-verse exists.
Obviously, there is no absolute certainty there for the simple reason that scientific theories don't ever provide absolute certainty.
But all that is besides the point I was making.
That point was rather simple: the multi-verse and gods aren't equal claims because one is a scientific prediction of an actual scientific theory, based on evidence. While the other is indistinguishable from sheer imagination. And in many cases, even demonstrably the result of mere imagination.
You did not. But it seems to me that you did clearly equate claims of a multi-verse with claims of deities in post #27:
These questions are not on equal footing at all. One flows from science (based on evidence), the other does not.
As a scientist, you should also know that things aren't "possibilities" just because someone wants to posit it as such.
You actually need to provide rational reasons for something to be a possibility in the first place. Then you can go on and ponder the plausibility of it.
"god", as it stands, is just as "possible" as undetectable interdimensional unicorns.
Which is the case for every unfalsifiable thing. Like undetectable unicorns.
I also don't claim that gods don't exist for the same reason. Yet for all practical intents and purposes, I assume they don't exist. Because entities without any measureable manifestation, without any measureable detection, without any measureable effect ... are effectively on the same footing as, and indistinguishable from, things that don't exist and / or sheer imagination.
They don't matter. They are meaningless.
So, do you claim or assume that interdimensional undetectable unicorns don't exist?
How about: you have no sane or rational reason to believe deities exist?
There is as much reason to believe deities exist as there is reason to believe that undetectable unicorns are playing poker on Mars.
To not blindly accept someone's claimed experience is, in practice, the same as discounting them having had that experience. Or to be more exact: to discount their interpretation / explanation of said experience.
I for one don't doubt people's experience. I think that humans for the most part, are sincere when it comes to that. Take a look at alien abductees. They would even pass lie detection tests. They truelly believe it.
I don't doubt for one second that they had an experience that lead them to that belief.
I just discount their explanation / interpretation thereof. It seems far more likely that they were dreaming, hallucinating, tripping, what-have-you.
In the words Prof Dawkins: "we SHOULD have an open mind. Just not SO open that our brains are falling out...."
Having an "open mind" by no means means that we should accept whatever or entertain the "possibility" of whatever. Having an "open mind" means that we should be willing to change our minds when evidence demands it. THAT is what having an "open mind" is about.
A "closed mind", is when you refuse to change your mind when presented with evidence that shows you wrong.
I have an open mind. I'll be happy to accept the idea of deities when evidence demands it.
The thing is though, all the evidence we DO have, only points to humans inventing deities, and none points to deities actually existing. That is all this comes down to and all I'm saying.
And the idea that "we shouldn't discount it because we can't discount it", is really just a shifting of the burden of proof. Every single unfalsifiable idea can't be discounted by definition of being "unfalsifiable". There's no reason to entertain any of them, when no evidence at all points in their direction. Let alone believe them.......
I don't waste my time with entertaining unfalsifiable nonsense that is indistinguishable from magic and imagination.
And I'll bet money that during your carreer, you didn't either.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I read the first couple of lines and decided even trying to respond to you is worthless as you simply twist what I've been saying to fit your own paradigm.
You simply are not working from any scientific paradigm since we do not assume that which has no evidence one way or the other. This should not be difficult for you to understand, but for some reason it obviously is.
Like the most ardent fundamentalistic theist, you treat your own believes as if they're scientific axioms, and that simply is more having a "blind faith" that we don't use in science.
Feel free to post back, but that would be just for your own edification because I'm no longer going to waste my time with someone who designs his own "science".
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Since like forever. His companion books to Genesis and Exodus are well liked. I've gotten them as Christmas presents for some of my Christian friends, since he writes for Jews, Chrisitans, and skeptics.
Did you have the chance to watch the short cip?
I had a chance to meet him once, and bought a book which he signed. On another occasion he came to the Chabad I attended, but I was absent that Shabbat -- darn!
Yes, I watched it. I can't say I've heard that argument before so it is new to me. But it doesn't seem to add up. The simplist reason that God is depicted as male in the Bible seems to be that the culture the Bible originated in was patriarchal. Society would've had male lawgivers regardless of however the deity was depicted. There was no need to depict the deity as male in order to encourage boys to be kinder men in those societies because they would've already had male role models in their own families. They didn't have this epidemic of fatherless homes that we do now. So he seems to be focusing too much on a modern issue.
Also, removing the feminine image of the Divine has resulted in a general cultural demotion of women's stature. Many cultures had venerated spiritual roles for women and they were revered spiritual leaders. We see folk religions such as Vodoun where the priestess traditionally has a higher stature as a community's spiritual leader than the male priest. Of course, they couldn't have that without their feminine deities and other sacred figures. In Abrahamic religions, women traditionally do not hold much social power. They cannot be rabbis, priests, pastors or imams in the traditional view. With the spread of Christianity and Islam, traditional social structures of indigenous cultures were damaged and destroyed. In many cases, women took a tumble in status, with wise women and herbal healers coming to be maligned as "witches" in many cases when they would have previously been sought out for their sage expertise beforehand. Christianity is easily the most misogynistic of them all, going so far as to put the principle blame on Eve for the fall of man (she is also seen as being formed from the man, Adam, in Genesis, which of course is a total reversal of the reality of nature). Women's life cycles and power are not revered or respected in patriarchal monotheistic religions. Usually the opposite, where they are seen as dirty, weak and/or temptresses to controlled. In the Christian Bible, it says women are saved through childbirth. Not much respect for a women's gifts outside of being a stay at home brood mare there.
I don't have a problem with a male view of any deity. To each their own. But I do find a vision of the Divine that is devoid of a balancing feminine aspect to be incomplete at best and dangerous at worst. Personally, I find a feminine image of the Supreme Being or Ultimate Reality to be more fitting, due to my observations of nature. Hence I prefer to contemplate the unity of the Cosmos and its cycles in the image of the Indian goddess, Kali (as well as in terms of the World Tree of the Germanic peoples).
Last edited:
@IndigoChild5559
I wanted to add that I am a man and grew up without a father, being raised by my mother. I despise my father, actually. I was not a wild or violent kid. I preferred to stay home, read and listen to music. I do not respond well to "do as I say" authority figures. So that law-giver male vision of God doesn't click well with me. I recognize the need for order in society, but I'm more interested in upholding and sustaining that through pursuits of the intellect, not commandments. When I worshipped the Greek pantheon, I had a problem with Zeus at first until I learned to see him as a wise father figure primarily concerned with justice and not restrictions. I never liked the stern images of God the Father as a Christian, either. There's a good reason why Mary is often more beloved than even Jesus and the Father among Christians around the world. When in need, it's more of a primal instinct for most of us to cry out to our mothers, not our fathers.
I wanted to add that I am a man and grew up without a father, being raised by my mother. I despise my father, actually. I was not a wild or violent kid. I preferred to stay home, read and listen to music. I do not respond well to "do as I say" authority figures. So that law-giver male vision of God doesn't click well with me. I recognize the need for order in society, but I'm more interested in upholding and sustaining that through pursuits of the intellect, not commandments. When I worshipped the Greek pantheon, I had a problem with Zeus at first until I learned to see him as a wise father figure primarily concerned with justice and not restrictions. I never liked the stern images of God the Father as a Christian, either. There's a good reason why Mary is often more beloved than even Jesus and the Father among Christians around the world. When in need, it's more of a primal instinct for most of us to cry out to our mothers, not our fathers.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
I watched this video and cannot agree with anything he says. The socioeconomic environment that many single mothers end living in has more influence than whether or not a family is headed by a male of female. His premise begins with the assumption that child rearing is controlled by men which is incorrect. The concept that women cannot provide moral structure is without evidence and only opinion to justify the male dominated society of the Abrahamic religions. The Iroquois (Haudenosaunee} with their matriarchal society created the premise of a democratic society were the elder women had influence over the choice of the male leader. I respect your faith in your religion respect your knowledge but this justification presented is without evolutionary, neuroscientific, comparative anthropologic evidence and sounds like it is in itself an immoral justification. And what is wrong with it if it is above the he and she. Understand that It was not a part of the vocabulary.
So what makes the difference between a matriarchal society and a male dominated society? I would argue that environment plays a critical role. A society in an environmentally rich woodland where growing crops from the earth provides the greatest nutrition favors a greater female dominance whereas as herding society where protection of the herd is the most important favors a male dominance. Later a social hierarchy where the income for a family comes form the male supports a male dominate society and where societies are supported by females the reverse develops. Interestingly the creation story of the Haudenosaunee involves a woman known as sky woman bring plants to the earth where the Abrahamic tradition has a male created first with the woman dependent on a rib from the male to be created (not to mention the ridiculous message that it was the woman who picked the fruit creating sin - interesting the apple was to pre-Christian beliefs as sacred fruit but that is another story)
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Ironic.
Neither do we consider it a "possibility".
Which in practice comes down to assuming it doesn't play a role.
We can't discount gravitational pixies. There is no evidence for such pixies.
We don't consider it a possibility either. In practice, we assume that such pixies play no role in gravity.
This is how science works.
Why would a scientist entertain ideas that have no evidence and even CAN'T have evidence?
Humor me: what beliefs that I apparantly hold are you talking about?
What do I supposedly "have blind faith" in?