The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Religion & Spirituality

The Bible ~ spiritually inspired?

Whether you believe in a higher power or not, this forum is dedicated to the topic of religion and spirituality. We live in a diverse world with different morals and ideas when it comes to our beliefs, so come in and share your thoughts.

Postby humphreys » Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:30 am

Ignorance of atheism and science in one post, nice work shadowcass.

I'm interested in what you think atheism is, I think I have a good idea, and as an atheist myself, I'm confident you have it wrong. Here's a hint: atheism does not make the positive claim that there is no god. If you have to, look up the actual meaning of the word itself.

As for the nonsense about Dawkins, whatever that was, it doesn't hardly deserve a reply.

Finally, onto the old hashed out first cause gibberish, you're going to have to do better than that. Even if there had to be a first cause, which Hawking and others have argued convincingly is not the case, there is no reason we should assume that first cause be labelled anything resembling an intelligence or a god or being worthy of worship.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby shadowcass » Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:59 am

Very well. I quote from dictionary.com "Atheism–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. "

According to Webster's dictionary Atheism (except in the archaic sense of "Ungodliness" or "wickedness" means: "a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity."

That is what I think atheism is. If you mean something else perhaps you need to find a different word.

Finally, as for the "old hashed out first cause gibberish" nice of you to miss the point entirely.

I didn't actually conclude with that.

I said "you cannot arrive at a FIRST CAUSE without positing the existence of a Creator".

Now, I will willingly grant you the point that that "Creator" need not be something worthy of worship. It could even BE (for the sake of the argument) some sort of "blind force".

But then we would have to disregard the testimony of all the "experiencers" who have followed out these various religious disciplines (rather in the way some pride themselves on following a rigorous SCIENTIFIC discipline) who make the claim that they have connected with SOMEONE. "A someone worthy of worship." These experiencers also say that this event (call it "religious experience" or "Samadhi" or "revelation" or "Cosmic Consciousness" makes them feel "connected to all things".

Which, according to Bell's Theorem of non-locality, they actually ARE.

This is the Black Vault, after all, we treasure "experiencers" here, don't we? One might call these people "contactees" too---for they have been in contact with SOMEONE. At least, that's what they CLAIM.

Are we all set to dismiss the claims of "experiencers" and "contactees" because SOME scientists are putting forth some dogma that says it's all nonsense and lunacy?
User avatar
shadowcass
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:36 pm

Postby humphreys » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:21 am

I don't want a dictionary definition, although 2 is pretty accurate. Atheism - a=without theism=god belief. Atheism simply means "without god belief", and that simply means we do not have a belief in god, which is not the same as making the positive claim that there is no god. Agnostics are atheists too, I'm afraid, and so are babies and animals.

If we accept that there must be a first cause, which I do not, you rightly assume this cause could be a blind force. Well, by that standard, is electromagnetism god? That's no god by my definition.

As for religious experiences, these are no more proof of a god than dreams are proof of dream worlds. All these experiences prove is that someone felt they were in contact with a god or supreme being, without objective evidence that they were really in communication, my hypothesis that these people were experiencing natural brain states is just as valid, especially so now we can create mystical like experiences in a lab by stimulating the brain.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby shadowcass » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 am

"I don't want a dictionary definition" is that a fair statement after specifically asking me what I think the word means? The meaning of the word is IN the "dictionary definition" as far as interpersonal communication is concerned. If you don't LIKE the dictionary definition you either need to explain what you mean BY the word (the subjective meaning you assign to it based on your feelings and assumptions) or find a different word that will avoid confusion.

When I was in school (which is, admittedly, a LONG time ago). Atheism was the ACTIVE denial of the existence of God as exemplified by Madalyn Murray O'Hare---whom I remember WELL---and agnosticism was the LACK of belief in God which you NOW want to file under atheism. But then there are those who think you can use "infer" and "imply" interchangeably, so who am I to quibble with you?

The language is going to hell and soon no one will understand ANYONE anymore.


As for your other statements here. Look, just being able to counterfeit an experience in a laboratory using a drug does not invalidate the claims of those who have experienced the contact WITHOUT chemical stimulus. Not to mention the fact that one could hardly call it a "natural" brain state if it required the ingestion of an alien substance.

The really interesting thing about these experiences is that they can come "out of nowhere". You don't need to engage in any particular religious discipline or yogic practice or take any drug. Sometimes they just come "of themselves" and change that person's life forever.

Now this "experience"--this "contact" happens to people from all cultures and all walks of life. It pays no attention to any particular theology except in the sense that those who experience it experience it in the symbols they are used to.

Naturally those who haven't experienced it are likely to expend a lot of time and energy in trying to explain it away---the way scientists and skeptics deal with Alien Abductions and Cryptozoological Sightings and Paranormal Encounters. But here is a vast gulf between skepticism and a closed mind. If I may quote C. G. Jung here: "I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud."

Nor would I say that just because I haven't been abducted by little grey guys with big black eyes (at least, not as far as I know) would I say "it doesn't happen."

Now I'll tell you: I have experienced contact with a Being I can only call God---you say it was an hallucination...I say it wasn't...so where do we go from here?
User avatar
shadowcass
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:36 pm

Postby rath » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:27 am

Halfabo wrote:
rath wrote:Catch up.

I know about Ur ....... i posted it on the OLD Blackvault ........ Ur is the city that the Flood &
noah's ark is based on.


Actually, it's not but, that is for a different discussion.


OMG ..... Catch up.

Yes it is ......

Abraham was born in the city of UR & into enslavement.

Also RE; the FLOOD .....

Read the story of Gilgamesh.

( i posted and talked about on the old Blackvault as part of my post G.W Bush & his search for the Holy Grail ) & the U.S Invasion of Iraqi.

Royal Tombs of Ur

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4uuoHc6k9w

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GB17Ak01.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/ap ... nnews.arts

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/42stargate ... es_06.html


The Babylonian text "The Epic of Galgamesh" 1,8 and the Hebrew story are essentially identical with about 20 major points in common. Their texts are obviously linked in some way. Genesis was copied from an earlier Babylonian story,

The Chaldean Flood Tablets from the city of Ur in what is now Southern Iraq, describe how the Bablylonian God Ea had decided to eliminate humans and other land animals with a great flood which was to become "the end of all flesh". He selected Ut-Napishtim, to build an ark to save a few humans, and samples of other animals

Image
Nippur Tablet from near the City of Ur is the evidence supporting the flood story eminating from Sumeria 4000-3000 B.C.

halfabo wrote:As for Nebuchadnezzar, Moses lived at least 600 years before Nebuchadnezzar. The Jewish religion was well established before Nebuchadnezzar was ever born.

rath wrote:How do you work that out ????

Moses was said to be born around 1526.BC.

Hammurabi was the sixth king of Babylon from 1792 BC to 1750 BC middle chronology
(1728 BC – 1686 BC)

That's 500 years BEFORE Moses, & his story's.


???? You're not making any sense here. What does Hammurabi have to do with Moses living six hundred years before Nebuchadnezzar? Moses wrote down all that had been passed down to him from the time of Abraham. While Abraham lived at the time of Hammurabi, Abraham rejected the plurality of gods that Hammurabi believed in. Your arguments are not making any sense.


Think about that won't you ....

If Abraham lived at the time of Hammurabi,& he was born in the city of UR
( the city of the Flood ) & the flood happened, before Abraham was born there.

At a time when the Jewish people where enslaved by the ,Mesopotamia's Babylonian's, Syrians & Egyptians.

& Abraham later lived in Egypt under monotheism, At the same time Egypt was at war with
Babylon & Syria & Mesopotamia ............

& If the Hammurabi code was written 600 years before Mosses received the ten commandments.

& the Story of Gilgamesh precedes the story of Noah's ark & the Flood.

& Nebuchadnezzar II is named all throughout the bible.

Moses wrote down all that had been passed down to him from the time of Abraham.


& Abraham lived around 1500 B.C.

The Bible says Abraham lived to be 175 years of age:-

Gen 25:7 "Abraham lived a total of 175 years."


& in Galatians 3:15-17, where it is said
that the Law (the giving of the Law at Sinai by Moses) was 430 years after the promise to Abraham. The whole time therefore between God's promise to Abraham and the time when Israel received the Law was 430 years.

The Law was given in the same year that Israel left Egypt, a short time after they had crossed the Red Sea and were camping near Mt. Sinai (cp. Exodus 19). This now poses the question as to how Israel (the Hebrews) could have lived in Egypt for 400 or 430 years when the whole time between the promise to Abraham in Ur in Chaldea until the year of the exodus from Egypt was only a total of 430 years.


& Ur is the city of Ur Kasdim mentioned in the Book of Genesis ( Biblical Hebrew אוּר) as the birthplace of Abram ([color=#FF40BF]Abraham; Arabic:Ibrahim).[/color]

Mesopotamia ...... the city of Ur ...... they spoke Akkadian & Aramaic, is the biblical languages.



halfabo wrote:As for Nebuchadnezzar, Moses lived at least 600 years before Nebuchadnezzar. The Jewish religion was well established before Nebuchadnezzar was ever born.


Oh .........

& the Hammurabi code was written 600 years before Mosses received the ten commandments.

& the Story of Gilgamesh precedes the story of Noah's ark & the Flood.

& Nebuchadnezzar II is named all throughout the bible.

Nebuchadnezzar II (Aramaic): (ܢܵܒܘܼ ܟܲܕܲܪܝܼ ܐܲܨܲܪ) About this sound Listen (help·info) (c 634 – 562 BC) was king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, who reigned c. 605 BC – 562 BC. According to the Bible, he conquered Judah and Jerusalem, and sent the Jews into exile. He is credited with the construction of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. He is featured in the Book of Daniel and is also mentioned in several other books of the Bible.




Thus meaning ...... all this happened BEFORE Moses & Abraham where even bore.

They ripped the story's off. & claimed them as their own..
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby shadowcass » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:42 am

To Rath: a) who cares if they did? The question was not about the historical veracity of the texts though I love the way people challenge these texts. Perhaps it was Gilgamesh who ripped off the story of Noah and not the other way around.

Could have been. Just because there is a copy of a surviving text for Gilgamesh that is older than any copy of Genesis we have found doesn't mean it is the original version of the tale. That assumption really isn't warrantable. It MAY be so...it may NOT. The fact is that we have no real idea WHEN Abraham or Noah or even Moses lived. We don't have birth or death certificates for any of these people. So we don't know when the Pentateuch may have been written or how long these stories may have existed as oral tradition before they were written down.

b) But even granting that all of this was "plagiarized" from other people that doesn't answer the question as to whether or not the book was "inspired."
The answer to that would be if people found a way to God through it.

There are a lot of accounts by people who claim they did.
User avatar
shadowcass
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:36 pm

Postby humphreys » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:56 am

shadowcass wrote:"I don't want a dictionary definition" is that a fair statement after specifically asking me what I think the word means? The meaning of the word is IN the "dictionary definition" as far as interpersonal communication is concerned. If you don't LIKE the dictionary definition you either need to explain what you mean BY the word (the subjective meaning you assign to it based on your feelings and assumptions) or find a different word that will avoid confusion.


No two dictionaries will give the exact same definition, and each will give multiple variations, as we have seen, although, as I said already, definition number 2 was pretty close.

I am not giving a subjective interpretation of the word "atheism", I am breaking it down and telling you what each part means. "A" means "without", and "theism" means "god belief", so the purest definition of the word is "without God belief".

What's so complicated about that?

That's all atheism is, in a nutshell. Some atheists will take it further than that, and declare confident belief bordering on proof of the non-existence of any God, and for that stance the term "strong atheist" is usually used.

The problem with the dictionaries is that these definitions are often not coming from atheists themselves, they are distorted and misinterpreted. If you want to know what atheism really is, you should ask an atheist, not a dictionary. Same with Christianity. I am sure many Christians will be unsatisfied with the simplistic dictionary definition of their belief system.

shadowcass wrote:When I was in school (which is, admittedly, a LONG time ago). Atheism was the ACTIVE denial of the existence of God as exemplified by Madalyn Murray O'Hare---whom I remember WELL---and agnosticism was the LACK of belief in God which you NOW want to file under atheism. But then there are those who think you can use "infer" and "imply" interchangeably, so who am I to quibble with you?


If you want to get technical, atheism is lack of God belief, and agnosticism is the belief that knowledge of God is impossible. Don't believe everything you hear in school.

shadowcass wrote:The language is going to hell and soon no one will understand ANYONE anymore.


That may be the case, but I believe it is you and others who have distorted the true meaning of the word.

shadowcass wrote:As for your other statements here. Look, just being able to counterfeit an experience in a laboratory using a drug does not invalidate the claims of those who have experienced the contact WITHOUT chemical stimulus. Not to mention the fact that one could hardly call it a "natural" brain state if it required the ingestion of an alien substance.


What happens in the lab is perfectly capable of happening in the real world. These are not alien substances. Lots of natural circumstances can bring about mystical like experiences, for instance, the ingestion of natural plants, magnetic fields, exposure to high altitude, oxygen deprivation, centrifugal force, and so on, and so on.

The point is not that these experiences disprove mystical experiences as being supernatural, they simply make it perfectly reasonable to assume they are not.

shadowcass wrote:The really interesting thing about these experiences is that they can come "out of nowhere".


So can hallucinations, and seizures, and strokes.

I have not heard of many cases where they literally "came out of nowhere" though, usually the story goes something like "I was in a really beautiful natural place and then", or "I was contemplating the Bible and wondering about whether God really existed and then", or "I was in great danger and then", or "I was in a deep state of meditation, and then", etc, etc.

shadowcass wrote:You don't need to engage in any particular religious discipline or yogic practice or take any drug. Sometimes they just come "of themselves" and change that person's life forever.


Sometimes atheists have them during meditation, and they continue to be atheists, what's your point?

shadowcass wrote:Now this "experience"--this "contact" happens to people from all cultures and all walks of life. It pays no attention to any particular theology except in the sense that those who experience it experience it in the symbols they are used to.


I don't find this impressive, or surprising. We are all closely related, biologically, and our brains work in the same way.

shadowcass wrote:Naturally those who haven't experienced it are likely to expend a lot of time and energy in trying to explain it away---the way scientists and skeptics deal with Alien Abductions and Cryptozoological Sightings and Paranormal Encounters.


Most of the time the explanation is fairly simple, actually. There is no proof that any of the above is supernatural in any way.

Ever wonder why the neighbours don't get photographs of an alien abduction in progress? Here's a hint, it happens solely in the mind of the experiencer. You know what we call events that happen solely in the mind of the experiencer and have no impact on the outside world? Imaginary - ie, not real.

shadowcass wrote:But here is a vast gulf between skepticism and a closed mind. If I may quote C. G. Jung here: "I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud."


I haven't mentioned the word "fraud" once. There is no need, in the majority of cases.

shadowcass wrote:Now I'll tell you: I have experienced contact with a Being I can only call God---you say it was an hallucination...I say it wasn't...so where do we go from here?


We don't go anywhere. You carry on believing, and I continue to await convincing evidence.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby shadowcass » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:17 pm

Yes, but that's the point, my friend. You await convincing evidence.

And wait.

And wait.

You're so hung up on your POV you won't open yourself up to the possibilities that are all around you.

But okay. You go on telling yourself "there's nothing in all that" and you live your "real life" such as it is.

I wish you happiness.

I'll be over here surfing the Cosmos with the Shining Ones....
User avatar
shadowcass
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:36 pm

Postby rath » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:29 pm

shadowcass wrote:To Rath: a) who cares if they did? The question was not about the historical veracity of the texts though I love the way people challenge these texts. Perhaps it was Gilgamesh who ripped off the story of Noah and not the other way around.

Could have been. Just because there is a copy of a surviving text for Gilgamesh that is older than any copy of Genesis we have found doesn't mean it is the original version of the tale. That assumption really isn't warrantable. It MAY be so...it may NOT. The fact is that we have no real idea WHEN Abraham or Noah or even Moses lived. We don't have birth or death certificates for any of these people. So we don't know when the Pentateuch may have been written or how long these stories may have existed as oral tradition before they were written down.

b) But even granting that all of this was "plagiarized" from other people that doesn't answer the question as to whether or not the book was "inspired."
The answer to that would be if people found a way to God through it.

There are a lot of accounts by people who claim they did.



Sure ....... im not saying your wrong, .....

In fact, ... this topic, is a continuation of

http://www.theblackvault.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4292

Hence the name.

Re: The Bible ~ spiritually inspired?
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby shadowcass » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:33 pm

Oh, and Humphreys? Other people HAVE witnessed abductions as well as the sudden return of people who have been abducted. But naturally you wouldn't know that since I'm willing to bet you haven't spent any time really looking into it.

And it wouldn't have taken much effort on your part, either.

Watching Bud Hopkins' lecture here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 887419105# would have filled you in on the "physical evidence" and "witnesses" which you claim don't exist.

Who are you really? Joe Nickell? :lol:

(The witness thing comes up during the question and answer session).

I'm linking you to this because I wouldn't ask you to read the books by Mr. Hopkins or by Dr, John Mack (who was Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and who would have disagreed with your interpretation of the phenomena).
User avatar
shadowcass
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion & Spirituality

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests