"Who created your Creator?"

[Andrew]

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.

It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.

This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
question which you keep asking repeatedly.

THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
existent.

Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
Creator who purposefully and actively created......
~ or ~
that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
*explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
than this.... ----> . <----

In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
position requires far more faith than the creationists.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

So who created this Creator?

Post by Andrew
There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
question which you keep asking repeatedly.
THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
existent.

So who created this Creator?

Post by Andrew
Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
Creator who purposefully and actively created......
~ or ~
that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
*explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
than this.... ----> . <----
In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
position requires far more faith than the creationists.

Restating that your Creator created the
universe doesn't answer the question.

[lucaspa]

Post by Mitchell Holman
Restating that your Creator created the
universe doesn't answer the question.

And restating your question doesn't make it relevant. If Andrew's "Creator" created the universe, that means it exists and created the universe. How the Creator came into existence is irrelevant to those.

This what, Mitchell, is called a Red Herring.

The ONLY time the question "So who created the Creator?" has meaning is IF someone has claimed that EVERYTHING needs a creator. Then logically, the "Creator" needs a creator.

But Andrew in particular, and any argument that deity is First Cause, is NOT making the claim. They are allowing an uncreated Creator to create everything else.

[Aerion E.]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.

Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

[Aerion E.]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory


"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
with saying God had no beginning?

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.

False. Several times over.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena, you fisrt have to justify
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Why is this so hard to understand?

Post by Aerion E.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
with saying God had no beginning?

WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?

Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
being so stupid.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.

Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
don't have.

Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
outside your religion.

Grow up.

[Aerion E.]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.

False. Several times over.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why is this so hard to understand?

Post by Aerion E.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
with saying God had no beginning?

WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?

The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
recorded in New Testament.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
being so stupid.

I don't need to prove God to anyone. Either you believe in God or you
don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
God. So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.

Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
don't have.

Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
outside your religion.

Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an
atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
your atheism.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Grow up.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.

False. Several times over.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.

There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

It wasn't even a theory.

But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.

Because science doesn't work that way.

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

Is this really so hard to understand?

On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact, in the real
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why is this so hard to understand?

Post by Aerion E.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
with saying God had no beginning?

WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?

The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
recorded in New Testament.

OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.

Provide the same kind of real world evidence for it as there is for
the universe.

Instead of stupidly treating it as if it were just as real.

You might imagine it is, but until you demonstrate otherwise, it
remains merely a religious belief with no basis in fact.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
being so stupid.

I don't need to prove God to anyone.

THEN KEEP IT INSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.

Instead of asking a ridiculous question outside it, that presumes it
is as real outside it as the universe is.

Never heard of "put up or shut up"?

Post by Aerion E.
Either you believe in God or you
don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
God.

So why did you ask such a ridiculous question outside your religion,
which presumed it was as real as the universe.

Do that, and you either have to prove it or stop being so stupid.

Post by Aerion E.
So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.

THEN KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, imbecile.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.

Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
don't have.

Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.

Was it some other lying theist who wrote " If there was evidence, you
could never accept it, so it doesn't matter whether there is evidence
for God or not. It could make no difference to you"?

It matters because you presumed it in a question that only a moron
would ask atheists.

Are you honestly so stupid you can't grasp that the question asked of
Andrew was simply the logical response to his fallacious remarks?

It's a question I asked when I was eight, the first time I even heard
the "God created everything" nonsense after my class teacher realised
I hadn't been raised to be theist and asked the usual stupid "who
created all this then?" question and couldn't understand my puzzled
"why did it need somebody to do it?".

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
outside your religion.

Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an
atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
your atheism.

What "view"?

All it means to be an atheist, it not being theist.

It's no different than not believing in Father Christmas, not
collecting stamps, or any of the other things you don't spend any time
and effort not doing.

And it still takes a frikking moron to ask an atheist, a scientist or
any non-Christian such a stupid question as "So, why is there a
problem with saying God had no beginning?".

BECAUSE YOU ASK IT OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.

Which word was too hard to understand?

Alt.talk.creationism was added to the newsgroups by one of the more
stupid, dishonest creationists who regularly posts unsolicited
nonsense and outright lies to alt.atheism,

He regularly uses the dishonest first cause argument which starts off
with "everything has a cause" and then finishes up with "and this
cause is God".

But if everything requires a cause then so does his god.

A more honest rephrasing of the argument would instead start with
"everything except the god I'm supposed to be proving needs a cause".

But this would show just how worthless the argument was.

And if you are so stupid you thing "what created God" AS A RESPONSE TO
THIS ARGUMENT is a stupid question, that says plenty about you - and
none of it is particularly flattering.

But then so does asking questions outside your religion that presume
it is as real as the universe.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Grow up.

[Aerion E.]

<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why is this so hard to understand?

Post by Aerion E.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
with saying God had no beginning?

WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?

The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
recorded in New Testament.

OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.
Provide the same kind of real world evidence for it as there is for
the universe.
Instead of stupidly treating it as if it were just as real.

I'm sure God is not real to you. And I'm not surprised.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
You might imagine it is, but until you demonstrate otherwise, it
remains merely a religious belief with no basis in fact.

Why is it not obvious to you that I accept that religious beliefs
are not based upon fact? They are beliefs. I don't know that my
late mother loved me, but I believe she did. I don't know that
God is real, but I have the same belief that he is.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
being so stupid.

I don't need to prove God to anyone.

THEN KEEP IT INSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.
Instead of asking a ridiculous question outside it, that presumes it
is as real outside it as the universe is.

I presume no such thing. You are asserting thoughts to me that are alien
to me.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Never heard of "put up or shut up"?

I responded to the question "who created the creator".
address a post to you first.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
Either you believe in God or you
don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
God.

So why did you ask such a ridiculous question outside your religion,
which presumed it was as real as the universe.

I responded to a question about the creator of the creator. This was _not_
in response to you. You jumped in and responded to me. You didn't
have to do this.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Do that, and you either have to prove it or stop being so stupid.

Want to talk about stupid. When will you understand that religion and
belief in God is _not_ based upon science. It's faith.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.

THEN KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, imbecile.

Ok Mr. Lee you can just bow out. You had no business jumping in if you
are not prepared to accept what you are told by me about my own personal
beliefs. You have no right impugne me with this strawman you've
assigned to me.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.

Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
don't have.

Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.

Was it some other lying theist who wrote " If there was evidence, you
could never accept it, so it doesn't matter whether there is evidence
for God or not. It could make no difference to you"?

It was a general statement which was addressed to _you_. And I've seen
no reason to think the statement was wrong.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It matters because you presumed it in a question that only a moron
would ask atheists.

The only person making presumptions is you about my belief, of which
your presumptions are totally wrong. You can't comprehend the idea
that beliefs are _not_ fact based. And this is you strawman argument.
IOW you are condemning me on false assumptions of your own.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Are you honestly so stupid you can't grasp that the question asked of
Andrew was simply the logical response to his fallacious remarks?
It's a question I asked when I was eight, the first time I even heard
the "God created everything" nonsense after my class teacher realised
I hadn't been raised to be theist and asked the usual stupid "who
created all this then?" question and couldn't understand my puzzled
"why did it need somebody to do it?".

That's all right for you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
outside your religion.

Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an
atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
your atheism.

What "view"?

Atheism!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
All it means to be an atheist, it not being theist.
It's no different than not believing in Father Christmas, not
collecting stamps, or any of the other things you don't spend any time
and effort not doing.
And it still takes a frikking moron to ask an atheist, a scientist or
any non-Christian such a stupid question as "So, why is there a
problem with saying God had no beginning?".
BECAUSE YOU ASK IT OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.

It was in response to a question asked by an anti-religious person.
There was no need to address it to a religious person
.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which word was too hard to understand?

Apparently it is for you. If an atheist ask a question, why shouldn't
the answer be addressed to the atheist asking the question?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Alt.talk.creationism was added to the newsgroups by one of the more
stupid, dishonest creationists who regularly posts unsolicited
nonsense and outright lies to alt.atheism,
He regularly uses the dishonest first cause argument which starts off
with "everything has a cause" and then finishes up with "and this
cause is God".
But if everything requires a cause then so does his god.
A more honest rephrasing of the argument would instead start with
"everything except the god I'm supposed to be proving needs a cause".

Don't know who this refers to, but I doubt he thinks of God as a _thing_.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this would show just how worthless the argument was.
And if you are so stupid you thing "what created God" AS A RESPONSE TO
THIS ARGUMENT is a stupid question, that says plenty about you - and
none of it is particularly flattering.

Does this make any sense to you. It's so scrambled as to be meaningless.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But then so does asking questions outside your religion that presume
it is as real as the universe.

You cannot presume anything for me. So, get off your strawman.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Grow up.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
bang, and having painted himself into a corner came up with all
sorts of rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise
it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time a cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about
one particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the
world's population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where
you bring it up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as
a _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

Then why are you posting here?

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Never heard of "put up or shut up"?

I responded to the question "who created the creator".
address a post to you first.

You responded by reasserting your claim that your
god created the universe. So tell us who created your
god.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
bang, and having painted himself into a corner came up with all
sorts of rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise
it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time a cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about
one particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the
world's population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where
you bring it up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as
a _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

Then why are you posting here?

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Never heard of "put up or shut up"?

I responded to the question "who created the creator".
address a post to you first.

You responded by reasserting your claim that your
god created the universe. So tell us who created your
god.

You don't understand - it's immune from logic, because he says so.

If those like Andrew who use the first cause arguments, had any
intelligence or honesty they would rephrase their premise before
making it.

So they wouldn't have to change "everything requires a cause" to
"everything except what I'm trying to prove, requires a cause" part
way through the argument.

Butt his would make the argument worthless immediately and the rubes
wouldn't fall for it.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no creator"

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.

Let alone because it didn't require a creator.

Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought

For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

Because science isn't about beliefs.

He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding. But once the
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been the
biggest mistake of his life.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".

Look up the word "hypothetical".

And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religiopn.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".

But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.

Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.

How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.

And what "my belief"?

Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why is this so hard to understand?

Post by Aerion E.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
with saying God had no beginning?

WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?

The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
recorded in New Testament.

OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.
Provide the same kind of real world evidence for it as there is for
the universe.
Instead of stupidly treating it as if it were just as real.

I'm sure God is not real to you. And I'm not surprised.

Translation... You can't, but needed to say anything, however stupid.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
You might imagine it is, but until you demonstrate otherwise, it
remains merely a religious belief with no basis in fact.

Why is it not obvious to you that I accept that religious beliefs
are not based upon fact? They are beliefs. I don't know that my
late mother loved me, but I believe she did. I don't know that
God is real, but I have the same belief that he is.

Was it some other Liar For God who asked this ridiculous question that
presumed it was real?

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
being so stupid.

I don't need to prove God to anyone.

THEN KEEP IT INSIDE YOUR RELIGION, imbecile.
Instead of asking a ridiculous question outside it, that presumes it
is as real outside it as the universe is.

I presume no such thing. You are asserting thoughts to me that are alien
to me.

Was it some other Liar For God who asked this ridiculous question that
presumed it was real?

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Never heard of "put up or shut up"?

I responded to the question "who created the creator".
address a post to you first.

WHICH WAS SIMPLY A LOGICAL PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO ANDREW
EVERY TIME HE HAS RUDELY AND STUPIDLY POSTED HIS UNSOLICITED FIRST
CAUSE NONSENSE IN AN ATHEIST NEWS GROUP.

THIS IS OUTSIDE HIS RELIGION - SO IT IS SUBJECT TO THE METHODS OF THE
REAL WORLD.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
Either you believe in God or you
don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
God.

So why did you ask such a ridiculous question outside your religion,
which presumed it was as real as the universe.

I responded to a question about the creator of the creator. This was _not_
in response to you. You jumped in and responded to me. You didn't
have to do this.

With mindless nonsense that presumed it was as real as the universe -
and it is utterly irrelevant that you believe it is.

You made that claim outside your religion so you have to back it up
outside it.

Otherwise you should have kept it inside your religion.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Do that, and you either have to prove it or stop being so stupid.

Want to talk about stupid. When will you understand that religion and
belief in God is _not_ based upon science. It's faith.

THEN KEEP IT WHERE IT BELONGS INSTEAD OF TALKING OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION
AS IF EVERYBODY ELSE SHARED YOUR FAITH.

Which word is too hard to understand?

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.

THEN KEEP IT TO YOURSELF, imbecile.

Ok Mr. Lee you can just bow out. You had no business jumping in if you
are not prepared to accept what you are told by me about my own personal
beliefs. You have no right impugne me with this strawman you've
assigned to me.

Was it some other Liar For God who asked this ridiculous question that
presumed it was real?

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.

Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
don't have.

Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.

Was it some other lying theist who wrote " If there was evidence, you
could never accept it, so it doesn't matter whether there is evidence
for God or not. It could make no difference to you"?

It was a general statement which was addressed to _you_. And I've seen
no reason to think the statement was wrong.

Because the world doesn't revolve around the hypothetical object of
your religious belief, imbecile.

And you are incapable of understanding the point of view of people who
don't share that religious belief, so you invent things about them
which presume it.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It matters because you presumed it in a question that only a moron
would ask atheists.

The only person making presumptions is you about my belief, of which
your presumptions are totally wrong. You can't comprehend the idea
that beliefs are _not_ fact based. And this is you strawman argument.
IOW you are condemning me on false assumptions of your own.

Was it some other Liar For Gosd who asked this riduculous question
that presumed it was real?

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Are you honestly so stupid you can't grasp that the question asked of
Andrew was simply the logical response to his fallacious remarks?
It's a question I asked when I was eight, the first time I even heard
the "God created everything" nonsense after my class teacher realised
I hadn't been raised to be theist and asked the usual stupid "who
created all this then?" question and couldn't understand my puzzled
"why did it need somebody to do it?".

That's all right for you.

Nothing about "right for me". I live in the real woprld, not one of
religious belief whose followers can't think outside of it.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
outside your religion.

Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an
atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
your atheism.

What "view"?

Atheism!

That's not a view, imbecile - it's the simple absence of the theist's
belief.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
All it means to be an atheist, it not being theist.
It's no different than not believing in Father Christmas, not
collecting stamps, or any of the other things you don't spend any time
and effort not doing.

Well?

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it still takes a frikking moron to ask an atheist, a scientist or
any non-Christian such a stupid question as "So, why is there a
problem with saying God had no beginning?".
BECAUSE YOU ASK IT OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.

It was in response to a question asked by an anti-religious person.
There was no need to address it to a religious person

No, liar. Mitch simply applied Andrew;s own reasoning to his
unsolicited nonsense.

And if you morons kept your beliefs inside your religion, there would
not be the reaction you liars rationalise as "ant-religion".

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which word was too hard to understand?

Apparently it is for you. If an atheist ask a question, why shouldn't
the answer be addressed to the atheist asking the question?

Mitch was treating it as the "X" in an abstract logic equation - it
could have been anything, but it just happened to be this hypothetical
creator Andrew can't keep his trap shut about where it is neither
wanted nor needed.

OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Alt.talk.creationism was added to the newsgroups by one of the more
stupid, dishonest creationists who regularly posts unsolicited
nonsense and outright lies to alt.atheism,
He regularly uses the dishonest first cause argument which starts off
with "everything has a cause" and then finishes up with "and this
cause is God".
But if everything requires a cause then so does his god.
A more honest rephrasing of the argument would instead start with
"everything except the god I'm supposed to be proving needs a cause".

Don't know who this refers to, but I doubt he thinks of God as a _thing_.

That's his problem.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this would show just how worthless the argument was.

Does this make any sense to you. It's so scrambled as to be meaningless.

"Thing" is a common typo for "think", imbecile, and the spelling
checker doesn't pick it up.

I'll say it again...

And if you are so stupid you thinK "what created God" AS A RESPONSE TO
THIS ARGUMENT is a stupid question, that says plenty about you - and
none of it is particularly flattering.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But then so does asking questions outside your religion that presume
it is as real as the universe.

You cannot presume anything for me. So, get off your strawman.

I don't - I observe it.

Or was it some other Liar For God who asked this ridiculous question
that presumed it was real?

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"

[Aerion E.]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no creator"

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

<
I gave reference.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because science isn't about beliefs.

This was about Einstein, the man.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.

Because he was committed to a static universe.
But once the

Post by Christopher A. Lee
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been the
biggest mistake of his life.

This is true.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".
But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

[walksalone]

snip. think of the electrons, BTW, SBT Chris.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
bang, and having painted himself into a corner came up with all
sorts of rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise
it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time a cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question
about one particular god that only about a quarter to a third of
the world's population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant
where you bring it up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs
a creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
as a _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

They do, they just don't say it out loud. Preacher m1ght kick them out of
the choir, or something like that. You see, a concept can be conceived as
a thing, or a persona, or just about any title you want to give it. After
all, it's just a word. Like god.
Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect descriptor. &
to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group you are posting to.
One of two news groups I sub to.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome
to it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.

Truth as defined by whom? You? If you are a theist of any stripe, are you
an atheist? Or don't you like that truth. BTW, all humans are atheists
for a simple reason. You can't believe in gods you've never heard of.

Post by Aerion E.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush. You
see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not upset me.
Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed with here. But
told her she should have included the preacher that started the shit. & I
even agree with those that call me a bastard. Legally, & by archaic
definition, I am. Of course, they don't like it when I ask them what their
excuse is.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

You, or it? Presuming a typo there.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods.
In this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is
for the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the
two were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your gods. Of
which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them parallel the
gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the last god of the
Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate the Hebrew version. In
the case of the missing messiah, had he existed, he would have been a
failed messiah.


snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established
fact. It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the
universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

I can, & you are trying a red herring, among other logical errors. there
is no logical corollary as most atheists would use the terms. However,
logic does not have to be true, just logical. Nice dodge when no one
notices.

snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
is known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven

Chris is not postulating a deity, in this case one of humanity's gods that
it was so weak that it had to bribe a follower. The Howler. The original
god, el, was the predominate senior god of the region from aprx. -600 to -
400 BCE. & then, the people took a shine to ba'al. & then, once the
priesthood had the backing of Korash, & returned from Babylon, they had
yahweh rammed up their ass's. After they settled back down,. there were no
more revealed gods until the missing jesus ben joseph. Who would qualify
as a failed messiah had he existed.

Post by Aerion E.
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the

I take it you are not familiar with evidence & the rules of logic. Don't
worry, you are not alone.
You see, when you squall gawd, god, GOD, or any other synonym, & claim it
is real, you have made a positive claim. It is then up to you to support
that claim with evidence if you want to be taken seriously by those that
have studied the myth, or have a real education. BTW, there are xians that
have real educations. Those I've met were always indoctrinated as children
under the age of eight. When they were most vulnerable.

Post by Aerion E.
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided. Then the evidence needs
examined. Your claim indicated that you believe in Na'pi. Who is the
creator, just not a god.
It also indicates you believe in that world renown creator, Bumba. After
all, you have yet to show neither one exists. Side note, should a god
exist, there is no reason to assume that other gods don't exist.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith,

Which means it should be kept in your pants in mixed or polite company.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
not evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've
pointed out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Special pleading anyone? Not every one accepts your standard of reasoning
or evidence. Most I know here have higher & more rigid standards.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a

Appeal to numbers as well as unfounded authority. You seem to believe that
just because a majority think that the Lower Slobovia Jock Straps are the
worlds best girl's Crazy Eight playing team, everyone else believes that to
be true. I don't.

Post by Aerion E.
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,

Nope, though there are anti-atheists in this world. You see, it matters
not to me what magic tooth fairy that you call yours. That is, until you
try to make it mandatory on every one, included in public law, or imposed
on others in any way, shape or form. IO spent twenty years defending the
US Constitution. That means for twenty years I also defended your right to
believe in any magic fairy you want, not have to. I could care less.
AAMOF< I've a small library where religious types have a chance of
obtaining writings that support their view. Hell, I've even got the
Encyclopedia of Apologetics, & I've read it.

Post by Aerion E.
are the minority, as such you are the outside.

That's a bit arrogant. Xianity, including Catholics, are the majority.
Excluding Catholics, last I read, are number three. Now considering they
follow revealed gods, I can stand to be in the group that thinks. Even if
it is a minority.

Post by Aerion E.
<snip more of the same>

Thanks for demonstrating, xians, as a group are long on wind. & have a
negative supply of facts based on evidence.

walksalone who sadly accepts, not everyone can walk their life's journey
with the help of loved ones & acquaintances.



If, in any culture, children are taught, 'We are all equally
unworthy in the sight of God'
If, in any culture, children are taught, 'You are born in sin
and are sinful by nature'
If children are given a message that amounts to 'Don't think,
don't question, *believe*'
If children are given a message that amounts to 'Who are you to
place your mind above that of the priest, the minister, the rabbi?'
If children are told, 'If you have value it is not because of anything
you have done or could ever do, it is only because God loves you'
If children are told, 'Submission to what you cannot understand
is the beginning of morality'
If children are instructed, 'Do not be willful, self-assertiveness
is the sin of pride'
If children are instructed, 'Never think that you belong to yourself'
If children are informed, 'In any clash between your judgement and that
of your religious authorities, it is your authorities you must believe',
If children are informed, 'Self-sacrifice is the foremost
virtue and the noblest duty'
then *consider what will be the likely consequences for the
practice of living consciously, or the practice of self-assertiveness,
or any of the other pillars of healthy self-esteem*.
[Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem ,
Bantam Books, (New York, 1994), p. 295-296]

[b***@m.nu]

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:48:54 +0000 (UTC), walksalone

Post by walksalone
snip. think of the electrons, BTW, SBT Chris.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
bang, and having painted himself into a corner came up with all
sorts of rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise
it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time a cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question
about one particular god that only about a quarter to a third of
the world's population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant
where you bring it up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs
a creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
as a _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

They do, they just don't say it out loud. Preacher m1ght kick them out of
the choir, or something like that. You see, a concept can be conceived as
a thing, or a persona, or just about any title you want to give it. After

well there are 2 ways to look at it, personally I tend to think of a
god as the second, thier god is either a thing or thier god is a
nothing. Whoever Aerion E is I can most assuredly say that they are
not too smart, I guess that explains thier belief in the nothing god

Post by walksalone
all, it's just a word. Like god.
Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect descriptor. &
to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group you are posting to.
One of two news groups I sub to.

I wonder if they ever considered the why the word everything is
inclusive of all. A god is a thing an idea is a thing and the idea of
a god is still a thing

Post by walksalone
Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

That last part is not a belief. You know that the sun will not rise
unless a black hole or otherwise dark star crosses our orbit and pulls
the earth out of the ecliptical of the sunh

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.

Truth as defined by whom? You? If you are a theist of any stripe, are you
an atheist? Or don't you like that truth. BTW, all humans are atheists
for a simple reason. You can't believe in gods you've never heard of.

Post by Aerion E.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush. You
see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not upset me.
Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed with here. But
told her she should have included the preacher that started the shit. & I
even agree with those that call me a bastard. Legally, & by archaic
definition, I am. Of course, they don't like it when I ask them what their
excuse is.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

You, or it? Presuming a typo there.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods.
In this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is
for the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the
two were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your gods. Of
which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them parallel the
gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the last god of the
Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate the Hebrew version. In
the case of the missing messiah, had he existed, he would have been a
failed messiah.
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established
fact. It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the
universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

I can, & you are trying a red herring, among other logical errors. there
is no logical corollary as most atheists would use the terms. However,
logic does not have to be true, just logical. Nice dodge when no one
notices.
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
is known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven

Chris is not postulating a deity, in this case one of humanity's gods that
it was so weak that it had to bribe a follower. The Howler. The original
god, el, was the predominate senior god of the region from aprx. -600 to -
400 BCE. & then, the people took a shine to ba'al. & then, once the
priesthood had the backing of Korash, & returned from Babylon, they had
yahweh rammed up their ass's. After they settled back down,. there were no
more revealed gods until the missing jesus ben joseph. Who would qualify
as a failed messiah had he existed.

Post by Aerion E.
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the

I take it you are not familiar with evidence & the rules of logic. Don't
worry, you are not alone.
You see, when you squall gawd, god, GOD, or any other synonym, & claim it
is real, you have made a positive claim. It is then up to you to support
that claim with evidence if you want to be taken seriously by those that
have studied the myth, or have a real education. BTW, there are xians that
have real educations. Those I've met were always indoctrinated as children
under the age of eight. When they were most vulnerable.

Post by Aerion E.
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided. Then the evidence needs
examined. Your claim indicated that you believe in Na'pi. Who is the
creator, just not a god.
It also indicates you believe in that world renown creator, Bumba. After
all, you have yet to show neither one exists. Side note, should a god
exist, there is no reason to assume that other gods don't exist.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith,

Which means it should be kept in your pants in mixed or polite company.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
not evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've
pointed out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Special pleading anyone? Not every one accepts your standard of reasoning
or evidence. Most I know here have higher & more rigid standards.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a

Appeal to numbers as well as unfounded authority. You seem to believe that
just because a majority think that the Lower Slobovia Jock Straps are the
worlds best girl's Crazy Eight playing team, everyone else believes that to
be true. I don't.

Post by Aerion E.
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,

Nope, though there are anti-atheists in this world. You see, it matters
not to me what magic tooth fairy that you call yours. That is, until you
try to make it mandatory on every one, included in public law, or imposed
on others in any way, shape or form. IO spent twenty years defending the
US Constitution. That means for twenty years I also defended your right to
believe in any magic fairy you want, not have to. I could care less.
AAMOF< I've a small library where religious types have a chance of
obtaining writings that support their view. Hell, I've even got the
Encyclopedia of Apologetics, & I've read it.

Post by Aerion E.
are the minority, as such you are the outside.

That's a bit arrogant. Xianity, including Catholics, are the majority.
Excluding Catholics, last I read, are number three. Now considering they
follow revealed gods, I can stand to be in the group that thinks. Even if
it is a minority.

Post by Aerion E.
<snip more of the same>

Thanks for demonstrating, xians, as a group are long on wind. & have a
negative supply of facts based on evidence.
walksalone who sadly accepts, not everyone can walk their life's journey
with the help of loved ones & acquaintances.
If, in any culture, children are taught, 'We are all equally
unworthy in the sight of God'
If, in any culture, children are taught, 'You are born in sin
and are sinful by nature'
If children are given a message that amounts to 'Don't think,
don't question, *believe*'
If children are given a message that amounts to 'Who are you to
place your mind above that of the priest, the minister, the rabbi?'
If children are told, 'If you have value it is not because of anything
you have done or could ever do, it is only because God loves you'
If children are told, 'Submission to what you cannot understand
is the beginning of morality'
If children are instructed, 'Do not be willful, self-assertiveness
is the sin of pride'
If children are instructed, 'Never think that you belong to yourself'
If children are informed, 'In any clash between your judgement and that
of your religious authorities, it is your authorities you must believe',
If children are informed, 'Self-sacrifice is the foremost
virtue and the noblest duty'
then *consider what will be the likely consequences for the
practice of living consciously, or the practice of self-assertiveness,
or any of the other pillars of healthy self-esteem*.
[Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem ,
Bantam Books, (New York, 1994), p. 295-296]

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:48:54 +0000 (UTC), walksalone

Post by walksalone
snip. think of the electrons, BTW, SBT Chris.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
bang, and having painted himself into a corner came up with all
sorts of rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise
it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time a cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question
about one particular god that only about a quarter to a third of
the world's population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant
where you bring it up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs
a creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
as a _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

They do, they just don't say it out loud. Preacher m1ght kick them out of
the choir, or something like that. You see, a concept can be conceived as
a thing, or a persona, or just about any title you want to give it. After

well there are 2 ways to look at it, personally I tend to think of a
god as the second, thier god is either a thing or thier god is a
nothing. Whoever Aerion E is I can most assuredly say that they are
not too smart, I guess that explains thier belief in the nothing god

Post by walksalone
all, it's just a word. Like god.
Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect descriptor. &
to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group you are posting to.
One of two news groups I sub to.

I wonder if they ever considered the why the word everything is
inclusive of all. A god is a thing an idea is a thing and the idea of
a god is still a thing

They are incapable of applying abstract logic to it, because in their
minds it is exempt from critical thought.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

Stupid theists need it to be one, even though it isn't.

Post by b***@m.nu
That last part is not a belief. You know that the sun will not rise
unless a black hole or otherwise dark star crosses our orbit and pulls
the earth out of the ecliptical of the sunh

The last part is a belief, but it illustrates why the word should not
be used around theists - it carries too wide a spectrum of meanings,
and theists reduce them all to the same thing.

That the sun will ride in the East, is a reasoned expectation based on
a lifetime's experience.

It is clearly not a baseless religious belief.

But theists use dumbed down language with overly broad meanings that
obstruct communication.

On the other hand, atheism is _not_ a belief, because not believing
something is no more a belief than not speaking Swahili is a language,
not collecting stamps is a hobby or not playing baseball is a sport.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.

What fucking "truth"?

It's a lie twice over, but the liar threw a hissy the last time he was
called a liar for lying.

For starters, I do not "close my eyes to the truth".

And it is a lie to call what are merely religious beliefs "the truth".

That is the kind of personal lie from the hypocrite who throws a hissy
when treated as a liar for it.

"Truth" is one of the many words that has been dishonestly redefined
by Christians, to mean "what my religion tells me to believe".

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
Truth as defined by whom? You? If you are a theist of any stripe, are you
an atheist? Or don't you like that truth. BTW, all humans are atheists
for a simple reason. You can't believe in gods you've never heard of.

It's one of the many words Christianity has redefined to exert an
almost Orwellian newspeak and doublethink mind control on its
followers.

It no longer carries the original meaning of something's
correspondance with reality, but means "what my religion tells me to
believe".

But it still carries the emotional or subconscious impact of the
original meaning.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

When he resorts to this kind of personal lie, he has no right to throw
a hissy when he's treated as a liar for it.

But what do you expect from a theist who is so stupid he asks a
question of an atheist, that if the universe can have been around for
ever, why can't his god?

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush. You
see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not upset me.
Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed with here. But
told her she should have included the preacher that started the shit. & I
even agree with those that call me a bastard. Legally, & by archaic
definition, I am. Of course, they don't like it when I ask them what their
excuse is.

It's their brainwashing - it blocks out reality to prevent them
questioning their religion, but a consequence of this is that they
cannot relate to others. Hence his ridiculous question that if the
universe could have been around for ever, why couldn't God?

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

You, or it? Presuming a typo there.

He's lying. He asked a question which assumed it was as real as the
universe.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods.
In this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is
for the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the
two were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Stupid bullshit.

The moron's hypothetical god doesn't apply outside his religion, let
alone asking a ridiculous question that presumes it is as real as the
universe.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your gods. Of
which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them parallel the
gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the last god of the
Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate the Hebrew version. In
the case of the missing messiah, had he existed, he would have been a
failed messiah.
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established
fact. It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

I can, & you are trying a red herring, among other logical errors. there
is no logical corollary as most atheists would use the terms. However,
logic does not have to be true, just logical. Nice dodge when no one
notices.

Mitch's question was the logical response to Andrew's "everything has
a cause" and his non-sequitur "conclusion" that his hypothetical god
was the cause.

This moves the goalposts a,d invalidates the original premise.

Which becomes blindingly obvious is you alter it from "everything has
a cause" to "everything except the God I am supposed to be proving".

But if apologists used that one, even the rubes would see why the
argument failed.

They don't, because they gave been conditioned to believe their god
created everything, and they can't apply critical thought to it.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
is known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven

Chris is not postulating a deity, in this case one of humanity's gods that
it was so weak that it had to bribe a follower. The Howler. The original
god, el, was the predominate senior god of the region from aprx. -600 to -
400 BCE. & then, the people took a shine to ba'al. & then, once the
priesthood had the backing of Korash, & returned from Babylon, they had
yahweh rammed up their ass's. After they settled back down,. there were no
more revealed gods until the missing jesus ben joseph. Who would qualify
as a failed messiah had he existed.

This has been explained to him several times, and he still gets it
wrong - and nastily so when he tells us what is "really" in our minds.

Gods remain merely a religious belief until their claimants
demonstrate otherwise.

This isn't a belief, it's simply the methodology for dealing with
unsupported claims.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the

The first time could have been an honest mistake, But repetition after
he has been corrected, makes it something else.

He's not a mind reader, but like most theists, he arrogantly and
nastily lectures us on what our POV "really" is after he got it wrong
and we corrected him.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
I take it you are not familiar with evidence & the rules of logic. Don't
worry, you are not alone.

He's clearly not.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
You see, when you squall gawd, god, GOD, or any other synonym, & claim it
is real, you have made a positive claim. It is then up to you to support
that claim with evidence if you want to be taken seriously by those that
have studied the myth, or have a real education. BTW, there are xians that
have real educations. Those I've met were always indoctrinated as children
under the age of eight. When they were most vulnerable.

Just like Mad Joe, he tries to cop out by hiding behind faith - but he
doesn't realise that this excuse is worthless because he made his
claim outside his religion where faith counts for nothing.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided. Then the evidence needs
examined. Your claim indicated that you believe in Na'pi. Who is the
creator, just not a god.

He's had this explained several times - and ignored it.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
It also indicates you believe in that world renown creator, Bumba. After
all, you have yet to show neither one exists. Side note, should a god
exist, there is no reason to assume that other gods don't exist.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith,

Which means it should be kept in your pants in mixed or polite company.

When he makes his claim ion the world beyond his religion, it becomes
subject to the rules and methods of the real world - in this case, t
he burden of proof.

Imagine his trying to hide behind faith in a PhD dissertation, or in a
courtroom.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
not evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've
pointed out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Again, not a belief but a falsifiable conclusion based on a lifetime
of dealing with theists since I was eight and didn't even know what
theists or theism were.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
Special pleading anyone? Not every one accepts your standard of reasoning
or evidence. Most I know here have higher & more rigid standards.

So do they, most of the time. If someone were to try and sell him a
Porsche for $500, he's demand to see proof of ownership.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a

Appeal to numbers as well as unfounded authority. You seem to believe that
just because a majority think that the Lower Slobovia Jock Straps are the
worlds best girl's Crazy Eight playing team, everyone else believes that to
be true. I don't.

Post by Aerion E.
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,

Another lie, because he is incapable of understanding the world and
people beyond his religion.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
Nope, though there are anti-atheists in this world. You see, it matters
not to me what magic tooth fairy that you call yours. That is, until you
try to make it mandatory on every one, included in public law, or imposed
on others in any way, shape or form. IO spent twenty years defending the
US Constitution. That means for twenty years I also defended your right to
believe in any magic fairy you want, not have to. I could care less.
AAMOF< I've a small library where religious types have a chance of
obtaining writings that support their view. Hell, I've even got the
Encyclopedia of Apologetics, & I've read it.

Post by Aerion E.
are the minority, as such you are the outside.

That's a bit arrogant. Xianity, including Catholics, are the majority.
Excluding Catholics, last I read, are number three. Now considering they
follow revealed gods, I can stand to be in the group that thinks. Even if
it is a minority.

Post by Aerion E.
<snip more of the same>

Thanks for demonstrating, xians, as a group are long on wind. & have a
negative supply of facts based on evidence.

Most Christians aren't as bad as their American brethren.

[walksalone]

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:48:54 +0000 (UTC), walksalone

snip minorus firstus

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by walksalone
all, it's just a word. Like god.
Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect descriptor.

&

Post by walksalone
to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group you are posting to.
One of two news groups I sub to.

I wonder if they ever considered the why the word everything is
inclusive of all. A god is a thing an idea is a thing and the idea of
a god is still a thing

Post by walksalone
Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that

the

Post by walksalone
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be

any

Post by walksalone
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the

east

Post by walksalone
& I will still be alive.

That last part is not a belief. You know that the sun will not rise
unless a black hole or otherwise dark star crosses our orbit and pulls
the earth out of the ecliptical of the sunh

But it is. It is based of facts & observations, but a belief for all
that. Just not one based on a WAG. Of course, the majority, self
included, don't think of it that way.
& even in the case of the black hole, there would be warning.

walksalone who hates to think of the blistered knees should a black hole
come our way. The perfect excuse to pretend their imaginary friend is
real, so there.



Snip, secondus minorus


No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always
convinced that it says what he means.

George Bernard Shaw

[Aerion E.]

Post by walksalone
snip. think of the electrons, BTW, SBT Chris.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
bang, and having painted himself into a corner came up with all
sorts of rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise
it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time a cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question
about one particular god that only about a quarter to a third of
the world's population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant
where you bring it up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs
a creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
as a _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

They do, they just don't say it out loud. Preacher m1ght kick them out of
the choir, or something like that. You see, a concept can be conceived as
a thing, or a persona, or just about any title you want to give it. After
all, it's just a word. Like god.
Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect descriptor. &
to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group you are posting to.
One of two news groups I sub to.

I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party newsgroup.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome
to it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.

Truth as defined by whom? You? If you are a theist of any stripe, are you
an atheist? Or don't you like that truth. BTW, all humans are atheists
for a simple reason. You can't believe in gods you've never heard of.

Post by Aerion E.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush.

I didn't apply this to others (plural) just one.
You

Post by walksalone
see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not upset me.
Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed with here. But
told her she should have included the preacher that started the shit. & I
even agree with those that call me a bastard. Legally, & by archaic
definition, I am. Of course, they don't like it when I ask them what their
excuse is.

In a sense you knew who your parents were.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

You, or it? Presuming a typo there.

Yes, thank you.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods.
In this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is
for the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the
two were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your gods. Of
which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them parallel the
gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the last god of the
Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate the Hebrew version. In
the case of the missing messiah, had he existed, he would have been a
failed messiah.

No, only one.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established
fact. It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the
universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

I can, & you are trying a red herring, among other logical errors. there
is no logical corollary as most atheists would use the terms. However,
logic does not have to be true, just logical. Nice dodge when no one
notices.

I suspect you missed the corollary as well.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
is known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven

Chris is not postulating a deity, in this case one of humanity's gods that
it was so weak that it had to bribe a follower. The Howler. The original
god, el, was the predominate senior god of the region from aprx. -600 to -
400 BCE. & then, the people took a shine to ba'al. & then, once the
priesthood had the backing of Korash, & returned from Babylon, they had
yahweh rammed up their ass's. After they settled back down,. there were no
more revealed gods until the missing jesus ben joseph. Who would qualify
as a failed messiah had he existed.

One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
they had _no_ staying power.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the

I take it you are not familiar with evidence & the rules of logic. Don't
worry, you are not alone.
You see, when you squall gawd, god, GOD, or any other synonym, & claim it
is real, you have made a positive claim. It is then up to you to support
that claim with evidence if you want to be taken seriously by those that
have studied the myth, or have a real education. BTW, there are xians that
have real educations. Those I've met were always indoctrinated as children
under the age of eight. When they were most vulnerable.

Atheist don't indoctrinate children? Of course they do.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided.

Neither can be proven, therefore both are beliefs. That is neither
can God existence be proven, neither can it's absence. So, both
are beliefs.

Then the evidence needs

Post by walksalone
examined. Your claim indicated that you believe in Na'pi. Who is the
creator, just not a god.

Atheism, by it's very nature is a position not supported by facts.
Furthermore, it is not inactive, they try to dictate through courts
of law the dis-establishment of religious symbols, values, morals etc.
With nothing.

Post by walksalone
It also indicates you believe in that world renown creator, Bumba. After
all, you have yet to show neither one exists. Side note, should a god
exist, there is no reason to assume that other gods don't exist.

Here again staying power.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith,

Which means it should be kept in your pants in mixed or polite company.

I subscribe to alt.talk creationism. The question is how do you come
into the discussion? Are you crossposting?

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
not evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've
pointed out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Special pleading anyone? Not every one accepts your standard of reasoning
or evidence. Most I know here have higher & more rigid standards.

If you don't have proof, whether you like it or not, all you have is
belief!

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a

Appeal to numbers as well as unfounded authority. You seem to believe that
just because a majority think that the Lower Slobovia Jock Straps are the
worlds best girl's Crazy Eight playing team, everyone else believes that to
be true. I don't.

Post by Aerion E.
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,

Nope, though there are anti-atheists in this world. You see, it matters
not to me what magic tooth fairy that you call yours.

I have been the tooth fairy to mine, so I have proof there is no other
real tooth proof. IOW only my dime ever is found under the pillow of
my kids. :)
That is, until you

Post by walksalone
try to make it mandatory on every one, included in public law, or imposed
on others in any way, shape or form. IO spent twenty years defending the
US Constitution. That means for twenty years I also defended your right to
believe in any magic fairy you want, not have to. I could care less.
AAMOF< I've a small library where religious types have a chance of
obtaining writings that support their view. Hell, I've even got the
Encyclopedia of Apologetics, & I've read it.

Good. If the overwhelming majority want a U.S. Flag on millitary
cemetery and a small minority don't because they are offended, who
should have the right upheld. Replace the flag with a cross.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
are the minority, as such you are the outside.

That's a bit arrogant. Xianity, including Catholics, are the majority.
Excluding Catholics, last I read, are number three. Now considering they
follow revealed gods, I can stand to be in the group that thinks. Even if
it is a minority.

">
Your "non-thinking" people don't build skyscrapers, rockets to the moon,
write books design build computers or design ships etc. These are the
thinking people most of whom are religious. What have your thinking
people contributed to society that wasn't determent and destructive?
I can name a few, destruction of morality which brings illegimate
offspring, wellfare, murders, cheating, hatred etc.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
<snip more of the same>

<further nonsense>

[walksalone]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip. think of the electrons, BTW, SBT Chris.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
bang, and having painted himself into a corner came up with all
sorts of rationalisation like continuous creation to
rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time
to time a cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question
about one particular god that only about a quarter to a third
of the world's population believe, and which is utterly
irrelevant where you bring it up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything
needs a creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
as a _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

They do, they just don't say it out loud. Preacher m1ght kick them
out of the choir, or something like that. You see, a concept can be
conceived as a thing, or a persona, or just about any title you want
to give it. After all, it's just a word. Like god.
Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect
descriptor. & to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group
you are posting to. One of two news groups I sub to.

I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party
newsgroup.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are
welcome to it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there
would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it
will rise in the east & I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.

Truth as defined by whom? You? If you are a theist of any stripe,
are you an atheist? Or don't you like that truth. BTW, all humans
are atheists for a simple reason. You can't believe in gods you've
never heard of.

Post by Aerion E.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush.

I didn't apply this to others (plural) just one.
You

Post by walksalone
see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not upset
me. Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed with
here. But told her she should have included the preacher that
started the shit. & I even agree with those that call me a bastard.
Legally, & by archaic definition, I am. Of course, they don't like
it when I ask them what their excuse is.

In a sense you knew who your parents were.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it
remains no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

You, or it? Presuming a typo there.

Yes, thank you.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your
religion, then you have to back them up using
outside-your-religion methods. In this case by providing the kind
of evidence for it that there is for the universe - because that's
your stupid question claimed the two were equivalent outside your
religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your gods.
Of which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them
parallel the gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the
last god of the Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate
the Hebrew version. In the case of the missing messiah, had he
existed, he would have been a failed messiah.

No, only one.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established
fact. It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

I can, & you are trying a red herring, among other logical errors.
there is no logical corollary as most atheists would use the terms.
However, logic does not have to be true, just logical. Nice dodge
when no one notices.

I suspect you missed the corollary as well.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
is known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are
welcome to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven

Chris is not postulating a deity, in this case one of humanity's gods
that it was so weak that it had to bribe a follower. The Howler.
The original god, el, was the predominate senior god of the region
from aprx. -600 to - 400 BCE. & then, the people took a shine to
ba'al. & then, once the priesthood had the backing of Korash, &
returned from Babylon, they had yahweh rammed up their ass's. After
they settled back down,. there were no more revealed gods until the
missing jesus ben joseph. Who would qualify as a failed messiah had
he existed.

One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
they had _no_ staying power.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the

I take it you are not familiar with evidence & the rules of logic.
Don't worry, you are not alone.
You see, when you squall gawd, god, GOD, or any other synonym, &
claim it is real, you have made a positive claim. It is then up to
you to support that claim with evidence if you want to be taken
seriously by those that have studied the myth, or have a real
education. BTW, there are xians that have real educations. Those
I've met were always indoctrinated as children under the age of
eight. When they were most vulnerable.

Atheist don't indoctrinate children? Of course they do.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided.

Neither can be proven, therefore both are beliefs. That is neither
can God existence be proven, neither can it's absence. So, both
are beliefs.
Then the evidence needs

Post by walksalone
examined. Your claim indicated that you believe in Na'pi. Who is
the creator, just not a god.

Atheism, by it's very nature is a position not supported by facts.
Furthermore, it is not inactive, they try to dictate through courts
of law the dis-establishment of religious symbols, values, morals etc.
With nothing.

Post by walksalone
It also indicates you believe in that world renown creator, Bumba.
After all, you have yet to show neither one exists. Side note,
should a god exist, there is no reason to assume that other gods
don't exist.

Here again staying power.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if
it were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't
have that also presume it is.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god
as there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith,

Which means it should be kept in your pants in mixed or polite company.

I subscribe to alt.talk creationism. The question is how do you come
into the discussion? Are you crossposting?

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
not evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's
your view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours?
I've pointed out several times, that you are entitled to _your_
belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Special pleading anyone? Not every one accepts your standard of
reasoning or evidence. Most I know here have higher & more rigid
standards.

If you don't have proof, whether you like it or not, all you have is
belief!

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a

Appeal to numbers as well as unfounded authority. You seem to
believe that just because a majority think that the Lower Slobovia
Jock Straps are the worlds best girl's Crazy Eight playing team,
everyone else believes that to be true. I don't.

Post by Aerion E.
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,

Nope, though there are anti-atheists in this world. You see, it
matters not to me what magic tooth fairy that you call yours.

I have been the tooth fairy to mine, so I have proof there is no other
real tooth proof. IOW only my dime ever is found under the pillow of
my kids. :)
That is, until you

Post by walksalone
try to make it mandatory on every one, included in public law, or
imposed on others in any way, shape or form. IO spent twenty years
defending the US Constitution. That means for twenty years I also
defended your right to believe in any magic fairy you want, not have
to. I could care less. AAMOF< I've a small library where religious
types have a chance of obtaining writings that support their view.
Hell, I've even got the Encyclopedia of Apologetics, & I've read it.

Good. If the overwhelming majority want a U.S. Flag on millitary
cemetery and a small minority don't because they are offended, who
should have the right upheld. Replace the flag with a cross.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
are the minority, as such you are the outside.

That's a bit arrogant. Xianity, including Catholics, are the
majority. Excluding Catholics, last I read, are number three. Now
considering they follow revealed gods, I can stand to be in the group
that thinks. Even if it is a minority.

">
Your "non-thinking" people don't build skyscrapers, rockets to the
moon, write books design build computers or design ships etc. These
are the thinking people most of whom are religious. What have your
thinking people contributed to society that wasn't determent and
destructive? I can name a few, destruction of morality which brings
illegimate offspring, wellfare, murders, cheating, hatred etc.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
<snip more of the same>

<further nonsense>

[Alex W.]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Let's go back to basics.

You make an assertion: "god exists".
This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
Them's the rules of the game.

In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".

Note the key words "DO NOT BELIEVE".
This is not an assertion.
An assertion is always positive.
Therefore, an atheist does not have to offer up proof for the absence of
a belief. We do not have to have proof, absolute or partial, of the
existence of any deity in order for us NOT to believe.

For that matter, any absolute proof would require the replacement of
"belief" with "knowledge": that for which there is evidence or proof is
something that is known, not believed in.

Post by Aerion E.
One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
they had _no_ staying power.

Ra became a major Egyptian deity during the Second Dynasty, ca.
2890-2686 BC. It died out with the advent of Christianity in Egypt.
Thus, Ra had a lifespan of around 3,000 years.

Christianity is only just over 2,000 years old.

So much for "staying power".

[harry k]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Let's go back to basics.
You make an assertion: "god exists".
This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
Them's the rules of the game.
In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".
Note the key words "DO NOT BELIEVE".
This is not an assertion.
An assertion is always positive.
Therefore, an atheist does not have to offer up proof for the absence of
a belief. We do not have to have proof, absolute or partial, of the
existence of any deity in order for us NOT to believe.
For that matter, any absolute proof would require the replacement of
"belief" with "knowledge": that for which there is evidence or proof is
something that is known, not believed in.

Post by Aerion E.
One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
they had _no_ staying power.

Ra became a major Egyptian deity during the Second Dynasty, ca.
2890-2686 BC. It died out with the advent of Christianity in Egypt.
Thus, Ra had a lifespan of around 3,000 years.
Christianity is only just over 2,000 years old.
So much for "staying power".

And, according to polls, is dropping the percentage of people claiming ot be Christian every year.

[Aerion E.]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Let's go back to basics.
You make an assertion: "god exists".

No! I made no such assertion. I'm only able to say I _believe_ God
exist, this is _not_ a definitive statement or assertion. Religion is a
matter of faith, not evidence.

Post by Alex W.
This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
Them's the rules of the game.

If I claimed God does exist, that would be a different matter.

Post by Alex W.
In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".

I've pointed that out. Atheism, like religion is a belief, if it is
without absolute, unequivocal proof. Absence of proof is belief.

Post by Alex W.
Note the key words "DO NOT BELIEVE".
This is not an assertion.
An assertion is always positive.
Therefore, an atheist does not have to offer up proof for the absence of
a belief. We do not have to have proof, absolute or partial, of the
existence of any deity in order for us NOT to believe.

You cannot point to any statement where I've claimed "there is a God"!
I have always understood that religion is based upon faith.

Post by Alex W.
For that matter, any absolute proof would require the replacement of
"belief" with "knowledge": that for which there is evidence or proof is
something that is known, not believed in.

We are trying to make the _same_ case. Arguing the same points.

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.
One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
they had _no_ staying power.

Ra became a major Egyptian deity during the Second Dynasty, ca.
2890-2686 BC. It died out with the advent of Christianity in Egypt.
Thus, Ra had a lifespan of around 3,000 years.

It still died out.

Post by Alex W.
Christianity is only just over 2,000 years old.
So much for "staying power".

Christianity is still around. It branched off from Judaism, which is
still around.
Judaism had greater staying power than Ra. According to
Wikipedia Ra by the 25 and 24 centuries BC had become a
major religion. But the article doesn't say low long it
survived. I haven't been able to document more than
two thousand years.

[walksalone]

Snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
You make an assertion: "god exists".

No! I made no such assertion. I'm only able to say I _believe_ God

I see your problem. It's the english language. When you say I believe,
there is an implication due to the fact you are not brain dead. It
equates to there is. Bit like my belief, & I can provide convincing
evidence that meet my criteria, I have the most beautiful daughters in
the world. Do you see the problem. I damn well understand that there
are mistaken fathers out there that don't accept my assertions. & they
are wrong, but right in doing so.

Post by Aerion E.
exist, this is _not_ a definitive statement or assertion. Religion is a
matter of faith, not evidence.

Which should tell you something important about yourself. Do you believe
in the yeti. If not, why not. That is a question only you can answer.
But if you say no, why do you not apply the same standards to your gods?

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
Them's the rules of the game.

If I claimed God does exist, that would be a different matter.

But you do, without realising it. English sucks as a communications
media. It steals words from all over the world, & frequently, as hidden
meanings that are not deliberate. Remember that logic thing? Logic does
not have to be true, just logical.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".

I've pointed that out. Atheism, like religion is a belief, if it is
without absolute, unequivocal proof. Absence of proof is belief.

Maybe for your brand of apologetics. What do you call it when Someone
says there are no unicorns? A religion. How about if that is a response
to someone claiming there are unicorns? Is it still a religion. It
might help you to realise your problem if you think about it like this.
Religions, brand immaterial, have their own drill & ceremony's. Until
the subject is brought up, atheists have nothing to say about gods. They
are just someone's fantasy. After all, you don't believe in Kerunos, in
spite of the historical evidence. Such as the Gunderstrap[sp] cauldron.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
Note the key words "DO NOT BELIEVE".
This is not an assertion.
An assertion is always positive.
Therefore, an atheist does not have to offer up proof for the absence
of a belief. We do not have to have proof, absolute or partial, of

the

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
existence of any deity in order for us NOT to believe.

You cannot point to any statement where I've claimed "there is a God"!

Sorry, it's that damned English language again.

Post by Aerion E.
I have always understood that religion is based upon faith.

A faith based on the assumption that Bumba does exist.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
For that matter, any absolute proof would require the replacement of
"belief" with "knowledge": that for which there is evidence or proof is
something that is known, not believed in.

You are starting to recognise your problem in the atheist news group.

Post by Aerion E.
We are trying to make the _same_ case. Arguing the same points.

No, that we are not. You are assuming our lack of belief is as active as
your belief. It isn't in this case. Nor by the definition of atheism

Noun: atheism
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God
2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

[WordWeb.info]

Definition number one is popular usage, which dictionary's track. #2, is
the word as used by the originators of it. The Greeks. & they too would
kill an atheist.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.
One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
they had _no_ staying power.

Ra became a major Egyptian deity during the Second Dynasty, ca.
2890-2686 BC. It died out with the advent of Christianity in Egypt.
Thus, Ra had a lifespan of around 3,000 years.

It still died out.

Died out, or was forced out due to xians gaining the power to kill with
impunity.

By way of:
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Hypatia
An early manifestation of the religious divide of the time was the razing
of the Serapeum, the temple of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis, by
Theophilus, Alexandria’s bishop until his death in 412 ce. This event was
perhaps the final end of the great Library of Alexandria, since the
Serapeum may have contained some of the Library’s books. Theophilus,
however, was friendly with Synesius, an ardent admirer and pupil of
Hypatia, so she was not herself affected by this development but was
permitted to pursue her intellectual endeavours unimpeded. With the
deaths of Synesius and Theophilus and the accession of Cyril to the
bishopric of Alexandria, however, this climate of tolerance lapsed, and
shortly afterward Hypatia became the victim of a particularly brutal
murder at the hands of a gang of Christian zealots. It remains a matter
of vigorous debate how much the guilt of this atrocity is Cyril’s, but
the affair made Hypatia a powerful feminist symbol and a figure of
affirmation for intellectual endeavour in the face of ignorant prejudice.
Her intellectual accomplishments alone were quite sufficient to merit the
preservation and respect of her name, but sadly, the manner of her death
added to it an even greater emphasis.

Fortunately, xians no longer have the power to kill in the name of their
gods with impunity.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
Christianity is only just over 2,000 years old.
So much for "staying power".

Christianity is still around. It branched off from Judaism, which is
still around.

And? People believe many foolish things. But in the case of xianity, it
is a bloodstained kill the others type history. All the way from the 1st
cent, ce to the 16th cent ce. After the *enlightenment*, bishops had a
hard time getting the mobs to kill in the name of their gods. Weird, the
most violent wars of the time were between xians.

Post by Aerion E.
Judaism had greater staying power than Ra. According to
Wikipedia Ra by the 25 and 24 centuries BC had become a
major religion. But the article doesn't say low long it
survived. I haven't been able to document more than
two thousand years.

Good starting point. Do you want to get into the pissing contest of when
was Judaism founded. The Judaism that is referred to became law of the
land when?

-400 BCE,
-500 BCe
-501 BCE
-600 BCE
or after a failed prophesy?

Surprise me, get it right & back up your information.

So, Judaism as understood by xians is not 4000+ yeas old. it is almost
as young as xianity.

BTW, once you answer the above, we get to play a fun game. When did the
Judeans become Israel. Hint, there is a good chance they never did.

walksalone who does realise, very few xians can do the study. It might
make them question their faith. & thereby, their salvation.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian




10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical
claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women,
children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy
Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in
the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you
find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen
sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the
exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in
all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet consider your religion
the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor
speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove"
Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers.
You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that
the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do
about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call
yourself a Christian.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Let's go back to basics.
You make an assertion: "god exists".

No! I made no such assertion. I'm only able to say I _believe_ God
exist, this is _not_ a definitive statement or assertion. Religion is a
matter of faith, not evidence.

Post by Alex W.
This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
Them's the rules of the game.

If I claimed God does exist, that would be a different matter.

Post by Alex W.
In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".

I've pointed that out. Atheism, like religion is a belief, if it is
without absolute, unequivocal proof. Absence of proof is belief.

What do we believe?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 17:39:50 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Let's go back to basics.
You make an assertion: "god exists".

No! I made no such assertion. I'm only able to say I _believe_ God
exist, this is _not_ a definitive statement or assertion. Religion is a
matter of faith, not evidence.

Post by Alex W.
This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
Them's the rules of the game.

If I claimed God does exist, that would be a different matter.

Post by Alex W.
In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".

I've pointed that out. Atheism, like religion is a belief, if it is
without absolute, unequivocal proof. Absence of proof is belief.

He's lying.

It might once have been an honest mistake, but we've now corrected him
several times, so its repetition amounts to lying about us, to us.

I've never understood the sheer, arrogant nastiness of this kind of
theist.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
What do we believe?

[Alex W.]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that the
sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there would be any
life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it will rise in the east
& I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Let's go back to basics.
You make an assertion: "god exists".

No! I made no such assertion. I'm only able to say I _believe_ God
exist, this is _not_ a definitive statement or assertion. Religion is a
matter of faith, not evidence.

In order to persuade us of the truth of your belief and further, to
share your belief, you cannot help but make that claim. It is
impossible to make an argument as to the existence of your god without
making a positive assertion to that effect.

Every time you dispute our position that we do not accept your belief,
you reiterate your assertion.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
This means it is incumbent on you to support your assertion with proof.
Them's the rules of the game.

If I claimed God does exist, that would be a different matter.

You do, every time you state it.

Slapping "I believe" in front does not change the nature of the statement.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
In reverse, the atheist says "I do not believe there is a god".

I've pointed that out. Atheism, like religion is a belief, if it is
without absolute, unequivocal proof. Absence of proof is belief.

Note the tiny little word "not".
We espouse an ABSENCE of a belief.
We decline to make an assertion.

If I were to phrase it differently and state that "I believe there is no
god", you would have a point. Since I do not do so (nor most of the
others in a.a.), there is no basis for your position.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
Note the key words "DO NOT BELIEVE".
This is not an assertion.
An assertion is always positive.
Therefore, an atheist does not have to offer up proof for the absence of
a belief. We do not have to have proof, absolute or partial, of the
existence of any deity in order for us NOT to believe.

You cannot point to any statement where I've claimed "there is a God"!
I have always understood that religion is based upon faith.

As before: simply sticking "I believe" in front of the statement does
not make it any less a positive assertion. There is no material
differnece between the statements that "there are leprechauns" and "I
believe there are leprechauns".

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.
One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
they had _no_ staying power.

Ra became a major Egyptian deity during the Second Dynasty, ca.
2890-2686 BC. It died out with the advent of Christianity in Egypt.
Thus, Ra had a lifespan of around 3,000 years.

It still died out.

Eventually, it did.
But to date, it still has one more millennium of staying power than
Christianity, so it's a stupid point to make.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.
Christianity is only just over 2,000 years old.
So much for "staying power".

Christianity is still around. It branched off from Judaism, which is
still around.
Judaism had greater staying power than Ra. According to
Wikipedia Ra by the 25 and 24 centuries BC had become a
major religion. But the article doesn't say low long it
survived. I haven't been able to document more than
two thousand years.

And Australian Aboriginal religious beliefs have been around for at
least 40,000 years. That is documented and provable with hard
archaeological and anthorpological evidence. So what's the point of
your comment?

[walksalone]

snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
could overcome that.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything
needs a creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
as a _thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

They do, they just don't say it out loud. Preacher m1ght kick them
out of the choir, or something like that. You see, a concept can be
conceived as a thing, or a persona, or just about any title you want
to give it. After all, it's just a word. Like god.
Hint, when something is declared to exist & can not be described in a
manner that communicates its property's, thing is a perfect
descriptor. & to make matters worse, this is an atheist mews group
you are posting to. One of two news groups I sub to.

I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party
newsgroup.

And yet, I am reading this tripe in the atheist news group where it is OT,
as well as unwelcome due to the average bleaters conduct.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are
welcome to it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there
would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it
will rise in the east & I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you

What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
your gods are real. The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we
take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as such.
Another lesson from the US Military.

Post by Aerion E.
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your

There is no discussion, for a discussion involves exchanges of information.
What you are trying, & failing to do, is demand the atheist provide
evidence for your gods. I doubt you even know it. But devout's of any
myth tend towards blind spots when their myth is open for examination.

Post by Aerion E.
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.

It's not a concern until someone like you shows up, declares they know more
than others, in your case, there are gods even though you don't know that,
for it's not a matter of concern. Bit like your atheism where Anat is
concerned. & the nice thing, you don't have to use those exact words.
Your conduct & attempts to get others to do your work tell on you. Hum,
this trend towards the deception of themselves & others may explain
politics around the world.

Post by Aerion E.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Consider xianity is a death cult, like Judaism & Islam, Why would you want
others to suffer just because you are required to.

snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush.

I didn't apply this to others (plural) just one.

When you denigrate any member of a group, you denigrate the others by
implication. That's from the tribal side of humanity.

Post by Aerion E.
You

Post by walksalone
see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not upset
me. Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed with
here. But told her she should have included the preacher that
started the shit. & I even agree with those that call me a bastard.
Legally, & by archaic definition, I am. Of course, they don't like
it when I ask them what their excuse is.

In a sense you knew who your parents were.

Which has nothing to do with the terms, ass hole & bastard. Your point of
confusion is yours.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your
religion, then you have to back them up using
outside-your-religion methods. In this case by providing the kind
of evidence for it that there is for the universe - because that's
your stupid question claimed the two were equivalent outside your
religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Noun: corollary
1. A practical consequence that follows naturally
2. (logic) an inference that follows directly from the proof of another
proposition

[WordWeb.info]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your gods.
Of which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them
parallel the gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the
last god of the Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate
the Hebrew version. In the case of the missing messiah, had he
existed, he would have been a failed messiah.

No, only one.

Really? I take it the knowledge of your myth & it's claimed authority are
somewhat below microscopic.
Hint, in spite of claims to the contrary, there is no evidence for a
historical jesus ben joseph. Given the era & location, there should have
been. Bit like the missing works of King David & King Solomon.
& before you try the old lack of evidence weasel out. Lack of evidence
when there should be evidence is evidence of lack.

As you don't know what a messiah was at that time, read & learn.
References on request after you pass the quiz.


Prerequisites To Recognize the Messiah


The Tanach (composed of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim) is
transparent on the subject of the role of the messiah. It should be noted
that, although there are many sections throughout the Tanach that vividly
describe how the world will be forever transformed with the arrival of the
messiah, very few are about the messiah personally. The vast quantity of
messianic scripture in the Tanach (Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim) depicts the
state of perfection that the world will achieve at the end of days. It is
quite clear from the vantage point of the Tanach that the significance of
the messiah himself pales in comparison to the utopian age that his arrival
will usher in. In Jeremiah, chapter 33, verse 17, G-d says that the royal
House of David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel.

The reason Jews and Noahides don't accept the messiah of Christendom is
because Jesus did not fulfill any of the clear messianic prophecies
foretold in the Tanach. In addition, the Tanach never tells of believing in
the messiah because either the events leading to his advent will be so
undeniable, or his reign will be a historically verifiable reality and
self-evident to anyone. Because no person has ever fulfilled the prophecies
in the Tanach given of this future King, the Jewish people still await the
coming of the messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus, have
ultimately been rejected by the Jewish people simply because they did not
measure up to the prophecies.

Realizing that Jesus did not fulfill the requirements of the messiah as
outlined in the Tanach, Christians quickly developed the support theory
known as the "second coming." They believe that Jesus will return to the
earth to "judge mankind, and quicken the dead." However, this was a plainly
desperate attempt on the part of some Christian leaders to keep faith
alive. There is no mention of a second coming in the Tanach or the
Christian Bible. In fact, there is definitive evidence in the Christian
Gospels to the contrary. From the Christian Bible, we can conclude that
Jesus himself knew of no such returning, and in Mark 9:1, Jesus tells his
disciples "Verily I say to you that there be some of them who stand here,
which shall not taste of death until they have seen the kingdom of G-d come
with power." We know, of course, that no such kingdom of G-d on earth was
witnessed by any of those who knew Jesus personally, so that "false
messiah" (described in Deuteronomy 13:2-6) would certainly be an accurate
description of Jesus, and no second coming was ever planned by him.

The following is an overview of the most distinct messianic prophecies as
outlined in the Jewish scriptures -- which both Christians and Jews agree
are messianic:

Descendant of David

"See, a time is coming -- declares the Lord -- when I will raise up a true
branch of David's line. He shall reign as king and shall prosper, and he
shall do what is just and right in the land." -- Jeremiah 23:5 (See also
Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:21-28; Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 30:7-10; Jeremiah
33:14-16; Hosea 3:4-5)

Preceded by Elijah

"Lo, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before the coming of the awesome
[the messiah], fearful day of the Lord. He shall reconcile parents with
children and children with their parents, so that, when I come, I do not
strike the whole land with utter destruction." -- Malachi 3:23-24

World Peace

"And he [the messiah] shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many
people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more." -- Isaiah 2:4

"He [the messiah] will destroy death forever." -- Isaiah 25:8

"Then the inhabitants of the cities of Israel will go out and make fire and
feed them with the weapons -- shields and bucklers, bows and arrows, clubs
and spears; they shall use them as fuel for seven years." -- Ezekiel 39:9

Universal Knowledge of G-d

"For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters
cover the sea." -- Isaiah 11:9

"And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or shall one teach his brother,
saying, 'Know the Lord, for they shall all know Me, from their smallest to
their greatest' says the Lord." -- Jeremiah 31:33

"All who survive of all those nations that came up against Jerusalem shall
make a pilgrimage year by year to bow low to the King Lord of Hosts and to
observe the feasts." -- Zechariah 14:16

"And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be
one Lord, and His name one." -- Zechariah 14:9

"Thus said the Lord of Hosts: 'In those days, ten men from nations of every
tongue will take hold -- they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of
his cloak and say, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with
you'." -- Zechariah 8.23

Building of the Third Temple

"And I will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My temple
also shall be with them. Yes, I will be their G-d and they shall be My
people. And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when
My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore." -- Ezekiel 37:26-
28 (See also Ezekiel 40-48; Isaiah 33:20)

Death Will Cease

"He [the messiah] will swallow up death forever." -- Isaiah 25:8

Resurrection of the Dead

"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust, for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast out the dead." -- Isaiah 26:19

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." -- Daniel
12:2

"Therefore, prophecy and say to them, 'So says the Lord G-d: Lo! I open
your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves as My people, and
bring you home to the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the
Lord, when I open your graves and lead you up out of your graves as My
people'." -- Ezekiel 37:12-13

Ingathering of Israel

"I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather you from the west. I will
say to the north, 'Give up', and to the south, 'Keep not back, bring My
sons from far, and My daughter from the ends of the earth'." -- Isaiah
43:5-6. (See also Jeremiah 16:15; 23:3; Isaiah 11:12; Zechariah 10:6;
Ezekiel 37:21-22)

The Nations Will Help the Jews Materially

"Then you shall see and be radiant, and your heart shall fear and expand;
because the abundance of the sea shall be overturned upon you, the wealth
of the nations shall come to you." -- Isaiah 60:5

"Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to
you. Men shall bring you the wealth of the nations with their kings led in
procession. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall
perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste." -- Isaiah 60:10-12

"But you shall be called 'priests of the Lord', men shall say of you,
'ministers of our G-d'; you shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in
their riches you shall glory." -- Isaiah 61:6

Eternal Joy and Gladness Will Characterize the Jewish Nation

"And the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion in song;
everlasting joy shall be upon their head; they shall obtain joy and
gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee." -- Isaiah 51:11

The Jews Will Be Sought For Spiritual Guidance

"Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'In those days ten men out of all the
languages of the nations shall take hold and seize the robe of a Jew,
saying: 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you'." --
Zechariah 8:23

All Weapons Of War Will Be Destroyed

"Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go forth and set fire to
the weapons and burn them, shields and bucklers, bows and arrows,
handspikes and spears, and they will make fires of them for seven
years." -- Ezekiel 39:9

The Enemy Dead Will Be Buried

"For seven months the House of Israel will be burying them, in order to
cleanse the land." -- Ezekiel 39:12

The Egyptian River Will Run Dry

"And the Lord will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt and wave
His hand over the river with His scorching wind, and smite it into seven
channels, and make men cross dryshod." -- Isaiah 11:15

Trees Will Yield New Fruit Monthly in Israel

"And on both sides of the bank of the stream, all trees for food will grow;
their leaves will not wither nor will their fruit fail, but they will bear
fresh fruit every month, because their waters flow from the Sanctuary;
their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine." -- Ezekiel
47:12

Each Tribe of Israel Will Receive It's Inheritance

"Thus says the Lord, G-d: 'These are the boundaries by which you shall
divide the land for inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph
shall have two portions. And you shall divide equally that which I swore to
give your fathers, and this land shall fall to you as your
inheritance'." -- Ezekiel 47:13-14

All Warfare Will Cease

"And He shall judge among the nations and decide for many peoples; and they
shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning
hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they
learn war anymore." -- Isaiah 2:4

It is interesting to note that these Messianic prophecies foretell the
nations' subjugation to Israel. If Jesus was really the messiah and the
Jews persecuted and killed him, why is G-d going to reward them so greatly?
Partly for not yielding to centuries of Christian persecution.

Moreover, when looking back at all of these prophecies, we can clearly see
Jesus is not the messiah. Jesus fell short of fulfilling any of the major
messianic prophecies; he was never anointed as King, he never ruled Israel,
and the world was certainly not perfected in his time. In addition, he was
not preceded by the return of the prophet Elijah. To suggest Jesus is the
Jewish messiah is, in effect, saying that G-d was lying when he promised a
messiah from the house of David who would fulfill all of the prophecies.
Why was G-d able to create the earth in 7 days, but Jesus could not fulfill
these prophecies in an entire lifetime?

Now, you, as a truth-seeker, must thoroughly and honestly examine these
prophecies. Read the Tanach with an open heart and mind. Ask yourself if
Christianity has something to offer for you that Noahism or Judaism cannot.


Now the Jews did recognize a messiah. Care to name him?

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established
fact. It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

I can, & you are trying a red herring, among other logical errors.
there is no logical corollary as most atheists would use the terms.
However, logic does not have to be true, just logical. Nice dodge
when no one notices.

I suspect you missed the corollary as well.

You don't & didn't have one. It takes more than a declaration to make one.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
is known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are
welcome to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven

Chris is not postulating a deity, in this case one of humanity's gods
that it was so weak that it had to bribe a follower. The Howler.
The original god, el, was the predominate senior god of the region
from aprx. -600 to - 400 BCE. & then, the people took a shine to
ba'al. & then, once the priesthood had the backing of Korash, &
returned from Babylon, they had yahweh rammed up their ass's. After
they settled back down,. there were no more revealed gods until the
missing jesus ben joseph. Who would qualify as a failed messiah had
he existed.

One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
they had _no_ staying power.

I was right, you have damn little knowledge of history, or mythology. Even
today the Greek Pantheon is in business. Their cash flow is not equal to
xians, but they had been banned for century's. & worshipers killed
legally. Not any more.
You see, they were not replaced as such. That imply's a peaceful
conversion. It was by the sword, & that is not suspicion, it is evidence
based on church records a well as archaeology. When you work with
fanatics, there is no limitation on what you will do. That's history &
observation.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the

I take it you are not familiar with evidence & the rules of logic.
Don't worry, you are not alone.
You see, when you squall gawd, god, GOD, or any other synonym, &
claim it is real, you have made a positive claim. It is then up to
you to support that claim with evidence if you want to be taken
seriously by those that have studied the myth, or have a real
education. BTW, there are xians that have real educations. Those
I've met were always indoctrinated as children under the age of
eight. When they were most vulnerable.

Atheist don't indoctrinate children? Of course they do.

As in deliberate indoctrination via xianity. Never seen it. So your
verifiable reference will be, with references. Post them here or withdraw
your lie.

BTW, I raised mine with mythology. By the time they could read, they were
into it once I explained what the purpose of mythology was, & how very few
of them claimed to have a only true deity. Hell, N.Z. has one that only
the priesthood & king knew it's name. talk about bashful.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided.

Neither can be proven, therefore both are beliefs. That is neither

Assuming existence of your god, yes it could. True, no autographs, no
photos, but things that interact with our time space physical location
leave evidence. Take the parting of the Red Sea. yes, I know it never
happed for the exodus & moses are fiction according to the evidence.
When xians go to the location, in spite of Ron Wyatt, there is no evidence
of the violent motions of the waters, no footprints, no chariot tracks or
parts.
The evidence shows it to be a just so story. BTW, I've seen videos that
show how it could have happened. But again, no physical evidence.

Post by Aerion E.
can God existence be proven, neither can it's absence. So, both
are beliefs.

There is that three letter word again. Until you can define a word, it is
meaningless in a medium of this nature.

Try this for starters.

Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities of
the human species. [Incomplete]

Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a victim
of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these types of
gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are, lessor
gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less powerful than
others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the European
ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything from
Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red Hat, are
not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world,
they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most understand
the term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of humans
or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are entitled to
go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies

& of course, there is another, fatal to your argument for reasons you can't
accept, there is the problem of which god. Or shame on you, goddess.

A (Babylonia) Chaldean moon goddess. Her emblem is a disk with eight rays,
a number associated with the goddess of light.

AB (h1) Hebrew awb; a prim. word; father in a lit. and immed., or fig. and
remote application): - chief, (fore-) father ([-less]), * patrimony,
principal. Comp. names in "Abi-"

ABGAL Seven Sumerian wise men, the attending deities of the god Enki. They
emerged from the sweet-water Apsu and are portrayed as fish-men. In
Akkadian myth they are called Apkallu see below.

ABRAHAM

ABSU (Apsu, Abzu, Apzu) The "sweet water." The limitless space, out of
which the first waters precipitated (Ency Myth) This was where Ab, the
father of the waters and lord of wisdom lives. The husband of Tiamat,
father of the first level gods who evolved. The fresh underground water was
the home of Ea and of the Seven Sages. It is also the name of Ea's temple
in Eridu.

ABYSS [from Greek a not + byssos, bythos deep, depth] Bottomless, chaos,
space, the watery place where cosmos or orderly, adorned world evolved. It
gave birth to Ea, the All-wise, unknowable infinite deity. Chaldean
cosmogony Tiamat, the female principle, is the personification of chaos
(Heb. Tehowm). It was the place where all wisdom lived.. This is the void
and emptiness expressed in the Biblical creation, the Flood, Crossing the
Red Sea and in the "become emptiness" of the Hebrew people people when they
rejected Yahweh (Jeremiah 4

ABZU abzu wr. ab-su, ab-zu The abzu as Enki's shrine / temple in Eridu ;
mythical place where the life influencing powers reside and where their
results, as well as the means to influence their effects, originate;
incomprehensible, unfathomable, secret; a place producing raw materials.

ADAD See Hadad (Sumerian Ishkur, West Semitic Hadad, Adar, and Addu, also
Rimmon, Ramman, "Earth-shaker"). Storm-god, canal-controller, son of Anu.
God of lightning, rain, and fertility. In the Gilgamesh epic, the god of
winds, thunder, and storms. Symbols: bull and forked lightning; worshipped
in towns including Babylon and Ashur
Adad's father was the heaven god Anu, also called the son of Bel, Lord of
All Lands and god of the atmosphere. His consort was Shalash, which may be
a Hurrian name. The symbol of Adad was the cypress. In Babylonia, Assyria,
and Aleppo in Syria, he was also the god of oracles and divination.
See: An Assyrian governor standing before the deities Adad (centre) and
Ishtar (left), limestone relief from Babylon, 8th century BC; in the Museum
of Oriental Antiquities, Istanbul

ADAPA (Uan, Oannes) One of the sages and citizen of Eridu. Given super
intelligence by Ea (Sumerian: Enki), god of wisdom, became the hero of the
Sumerian version of the myth of the Fall of Man. In spite of his possession
of all wisdom he was denied immortality. One day, while he was fishing, the
south wind blew so violently that he was thrown into the sea. Lost his
temper and broke the wings of the south wind, which then ceased to blow.
Anu (Sumerian: An), the sky god, called him before his gates to be
punished, but Ea warned him not to touch the bread and water that would be
offered him. When Adapa came before Anu, the two heavenly doorkeepers
Tammuz and Ningishzida interceded for him and explained to Anu that as
Adapa had been endowed with all knowledge he needed only immortality to
become a god. Anu, relented and offered Adapa the bread and water of
eternal life, which he refused to take. Thus mankind became mortal

ADMINISTRATION
The civil-religious cult created the base upon which society rested. The
chief was the city ruler, or, when the country was united, the king. The
city ruler and the king were civil leaders but also charismatic figures who
impregnated god-given magic into their rule. This created peace and
fertility. In certain periods the king was deified; throughout the 3rd
millennium, he became, in ritual action, the god Dumuzi in the rite of the
sacred marriage and brought fertility for his land. Most of the rulers were
treated incarnations of the dying god Damu and invoked in the ritual
laments for him. As a vessel of sacred power the king was surrounded by
strict ritual to protect that power, and he had to undergo elaborate
rituals of purification if the power became threatened. As in Israel's
kingdom period, worship was the purvue of the king and his officials and
not the "congregation."
The individual temples were usually administered by officials called sangas
("bishops"), who headed staffs of accountants, overseers of agricultural
and industrial works on the temple estate, and gudus (priests), who looked
after the god as house servants.
Among the priestesses the highest-ranking was termed en (Akkadian entu).
They were usually princesses of royal blood and were considered the human
spouses of the gods they served, acting as brides in the rites of the
ritual marriage. Other levels of priestesses were orders of nuns. The best-
known are the servants of the sun god, who lived in a cloister (gagûm) in
Sippar. There were also priestesses devoted to sacred prostitutes under the
protection of the goddess Inanna (Ishtar).

ADONAI The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to
reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the
name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim. Thus,
the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being.
'Adonai (Hebrew) [from 'adon lord] My Lords; through usage, Lord, a plural
of excellence. Originally a sort of appeal or prayer to the hierarchical
spiritual powers of the earth planetary chain, and more particularly of the
planetary spirit of the earth itself; later it became a mere substitute for
the unutterable name of God, usually for Tetragrammaton (YHVH).
"As the inner nature of YHVH is hidden; therefore He (YHVH) is only named
with the Name of the Shekhinah, Adonai, i.e., Lord; therefore the Rabbins
say (of the name YHVH); Not as I am written (i.e., YHVH) am I read. In this
world My Name is written YHVH and read Adonai, but in the world to come,
the same will be read as it is written, so that Mercy (represented by YHVH)
shall be from all sides" (Zohar iii 320a). Adonai is rendered Lord in the
Bible, although it means "my Lords"; whereas 'elohim is translated God in
the English Authorized Version.

AGADE See Akkad Below

AHIKAR Tale of Babylonian or Persian origin, about a wise and moral man
who supposedly served as one of the chief counselors of Sennacherib, king
of Assyria (704-681 BC). Like the biblical Job, Ahikar was a prototype of
the just man whose righteousness was sorely tested and ultimately rewarded
by God. Betrayed by his power-hungry adopted son, Ahikar was condemned to
death, suffered severely, but was finally restored to his former position.
According to the book of Ahikar, the cupbearer of the Assyrian king
Esarhaddon, was Tobit's nephew; he is a secondary personage in the plot,
and his own story is mentioned. Ahikar is the hero of a Near Eastern non-
Jewish work, The Story of Ahikar. The book exists in medieval translations,
the best of them in Syriac. The story was known in the Persian period in
the Jewish military colony in Elephantine Island in Egypt, a fact
demonstrated by the discovery of fragmentary Aramaic papyri of the work
dating from 450-410 BCE. Thus, the author of the book of Tobit probably
knew The Story of Ahikar, in which, as in the book of Tobit, the plot is a
pretext for the introduction of speeches and wise sayings. Some of Tobit's
sayings have close parallels in the words of the wise Ahikar.

AKITU The Babylonian creation epic (Enuma elish) "When on High") states
that at first there was only the male (Apsu) and female (Tiamat) gods of
the deep. They created a family of gods who made so much noise that Apsu
plotted to kill them. This upset Ea who easily destroyed Apsu. However,
because of her superior magical incantatiosn, Tiamat was too frightening
for Ea. Marduk agreed to destroy her if he was made supreme god. This
automatically transferred the role of Creator to him. In the Assyrian
version, Ashur is important. Tiamat, wanted to get even for Apsu's murder.
However, Marduk won the battle cut her in two and used her carcass to
create the universe. Out of half her body he fashioned the sky containing
the heavenly bodies to mark the periods of time, the other half was made
into the earth and mountains. In song and sermon Marduk was now praised.
The Enuma elish was read on the Akitu, or New Year festival, at Babylon, to
reestablish order, by performing sympathetic magic caused by reciting
Marduk's creation. The function of the Akitu is thus to regenerate society
for the next year. When Israel "worshipped like the nations" this festival
was repeated in Jerusalem.

AKKAD The first Babylonian city. Akkad was the northern (or northwestern)
division of ancient Babylonia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come
close. The first people were predominantly Semitic, and their language was
Akkadian. To the south of Akkad was Sumer, the southern (or southeastern)
part of ancient Babylonia. This was home of non-Semitic people known as
Sumerians.
Akkad was taken from the city of Agade, founded by the Semitic Sargon about
2300 BC. Sargon united the city-states and ruled much of Mesopotamia. After
the fall of Sargon's dynasty in about 2150 BC, the area was ruled by
Sumerians and Akkadians. Under the kings of Akkad, their Semitic language,
known as Akkadian, became a written language made with the cuneiform system
of writing.

AKKADIANS A non-Semitic race before the Semites in Babylonia. The name is
from Agade, the capital of Sargon I. They may have been emigrants from
India and were the Aryan educators of later Babylonians. Peace and
prosperity was interrupted by changes in the people who spread east, south
and west

AN (Sumerian) A sky god, the symbol, "Dingir," was the same as that for
heaven and for divinity showing his high but not superior role. He was
generally regarded as the child of Uras, or of Ansar and Kisar. In an
"evolutionary" principle for the "gods," he was a product of the "embryo"
heaven-earth before the world became visible.
His wife is Antum, or Ki. He is viewed as the 'father' of the all the gods.
An exercised great authority. There is agreement with the Bible that the
spoken command is 'the very foundation of heaven and earth.' In heaven, his
authority allowed him to 'raise up' other gods to positions of greater
power. Without losing authority he involved more active deities in support
of his authority.

ANATH SEE ISHTAR

ANNEDOTI See Oannes Even the name Annedoti is quite similar to the people
of Enki - the Anunnaki, from whence it was probably derived. The Greek term
may have originated with the Sumerians and was later carried over as a
description of a race that was both retilian and loathsome.

ANSHAR and KISHAR The male and female principles, the twin horizons of sky
and earth. Their parents were either Apsu (the watery deep beneath the
earth) and Tiamat (the personification of salt water) or Lahmu and Lahamu,
the first set of twins born to Apsu and Tiamat. Anshar and Kishar, in turn,
were the parents of Anu (An), the supreme heaven god. See Enuma Elish

ANTUM In Akkadian myth Anu's consort was Antum (Antu), but she is often
confused with Ishtar (Inanna), the goddess of love. She helped produce the
Anunnaki or the seven evil underworld demons. She is replaced literally or
figuratively by Inanna / Ishtar who is at times her daughter.

ANU Son of the first pair of gods, Anshar and Kishar. Consort was Antu
(Anatum) later replaced by Ishtar He was the son of Anshar and Kishar.

(Akkadian), Sumerian An, Mesopotamian sky god and a member of the triad of
deities completed by Bel (Sumerian: Enlil) and Ea (Enki). Like most sky
gods, Anu, although theoretically the highest god, played only a small role
in the mythology, hymns, and cults of Mesopotamia. He was the father of the
gods Enlil and Enki and a daughter Ninkhursag. He was also the father of
evil spirits and demons; Anu was also the god of kings and of the yearly
calendar. He was typically depicted in a headdress with horns, a sign of
strength. His city was Erech, (Later Uruk or Ur) king of angels and
spirits, ruler of destiny

ANUNNA Sumerian name for the sky and earth gods, the assembly of the high
gods, and especially for the deities of a local pantheon. Before they
destroyed the earth with a great flood, they warned Ziusudra, king of
Shurappak, of the deluge. He built an ark in which the seeds of mortals
were preserved during the seven days and seven nights the waters raged. The
name means "those of princely seed". They are similar to the Akkadian
Anunnaku.

ANUNNAKI (Anukki, Enunaki) The Akkadian name for a group of gods of the
underworld - chthonic and fertility. They are judges in the realm of the
dead. Their counterparts are the Igigi or good gods (although in some texts
the positions are reversed). The Anunnaku are the children of Anu and Ki
and are like the Apkallu and they are paired with an igigi. Below the
anunnaki were several classes of genii -- sadu, vadukku, ekimu, gallu --
some of which were represented as being good, some evil.

ANZU The Babylonian version of the Sumero-Akkadian Anzu. Doorkeeper of
Ellil, born in the mountain Hehe. One day, when Ellil was bathing, Anzu
stole the Tablets of Destiny and fled to the desert. With these tablets you
could rule the universe. Ea persuaded the mother-goddess Belet-Ili to give
birth to a divine hero to defeat Anzu. Belet-Ili produced Ninurta and sent
him into battle. After a huge battle, Ninurta pierced Anzu's lung with an
arrow, and recaptured the tablets.
While normally evil, he is kindly in the Sumerian epic of Lugalbanda. These
tablets were taken by Marduk from Kingu and gave all of the skills needed
for sucular and religious rule. The epic ends with praises for the son of
Ellil.

APKALLU Akkadian mythology, the seven (or sometimes eight) sages serving
the kings as ministers. Some were poets composing the epics of Erra and
Gilgamesh, others were ministers to the god Ea. The arts or skills were the
ME which existed before the flood. These included skills such as deviant
sexual acts and instrumental music. These sages were:
Adapa (U-an, called Oannes), U-an duga, E-me-duga, En-me-galama,
En-me-bulaga, An-Enlida, Utu-abzu.
Each is known by other names or epithets, and is paired with an
antediluvian king, hence their collective names "counselors", "muntalku".
They were credited with building walled cities. Responsible for technical
skills, they were also known as craftsmen, "ummianu.". Some of them were
traditionally poets composing the epics of Gilgamesh and Erra. They were
banished back to the Absu forever after angering Ea. After the flood,
certain great men of letters and exorcists were accorded sage-status,
although only as mortals. Some Deities other than Ea - Ishtar, Nabu, and
Marduk - also claimed to control the sages. Thesy are seen as fish-men or
with bird attributes appropriate to underworld creatures.

APOPIS also called Apep, Apepi, or Rerek, ancient Egyptian demon of chaos,
who had the form of a serpent and, as the foe of the sun god, Re,
represented all that was outside the ordered cosmos. Although many serpents
symbolized divinity and royalty, Apopis threatened the underworld and
symbolized evil. Each night Apopis encountered Re at a particular hour in
the sun god's ritual journey through the underworld in his divine bark.
Seth, who rode as guardian in the front of Re's bark, attacked him with a
spear and slew him, but the next night Apopis, who could not be finally
killed, was there again to attack Re. The Egyptians believed that they
could help maintain the order of the world and assist Re by performing
rituals against Apopis.
See Oannes for some links

APSU Akkadian god: the consort of Tiamat and the father of the gods Lahmu/
Lahamu and Anshar/Kishar. (Babylonian) Abzu (Sumerian). A primeval Sumero-
Akkadian god who personifies the primordial abyss of sweet waters
underneath the earth. He is the consort of Tiamat, the primordial abyss of
salt waters of Chaos.
In the Enuma Elish, the sweet water mingled with the bitter waters of the
sea and with a third watery element, perhaps cloud or Mummu, the first gods
were birthed. When the younger gods got too noisy, Apsu plotted with Mummu
to have them killed. However, Ea got wind of it and the waters of Apsu were
held immobile underground by a 'spell' death-like sleep, but it is also
said that Ea had Apsu killed.

AQHAT or Aqahat See DANIEL

ARURU (Mammi) A Babylonian goddess of creation. She created Enkidu from
clay in the image of Anu. The Great Mother goddess in Babylonian mythology.
See Ki/Ninhursag. Ninhursag's other names include: Dingirmakh ("Exalted
Deity"), Ninmakh ("Exalted Lady"), As "Dropper," the one who "loosens" the
scion in birth), and Nintur ("Lady Birth Giver"). Her husband is the god
Shulpae, and among their children were the sons Mululil and Ashshirgi and
the daughter Egime.

ASAG (KUR): Dragon of the Abyss or Abzu. Daemon of Disease. Asag was not
separated like Tiamat. Instead, he lived within the Abyss "after" creation
and held back the Primordial Waters from overflowing the Earth. He
kidnapped Ereshkigal, and Enlil went to rescue her. What we know is that
Enlil is the Lord of the Waters, and that he built his home on the Sea. On
the other hand, Ereshkigal herself is still the Queen of the Underworld.
Asag was not killed because another god decided to destroy him for some
reason. This was Ninurta (possibly a model for Marduk). See Demons.

ASALLUHE Sumerian deity and city god of Ku'ar, near Eridu in the
southeastern marshland region. Asalluhe was active with the god Enki
(Akkadian: Ea) in rituals of lustration magic and was considered his son.
He may have originally been a god of thundershowers, as his name, "Man-
Drenching Asal," suggests; he may corresponded to the Sumerian gods Ishkur
and Ninurta. In incantations Asalluhe was usually the god who first called
Enki's attention to existing evils because he flew around as a
thundercloud. He was later identified with Marduk of Babylon.

ASHERAH Ancient West Semitic goddess, consort of the supreme god. She was
probably "She Who Walks in the Sea," but she was also called "Holiness,"
and, occasionally, Elath, "the Goddess." According to the texts from Ugarit
(modern Ras Shamra, Syria), Asherah's consort was El, and by him she was
the mother of 70 gods. As mother goddess she was widely worshiped
throughout Syria and Palestine, although she was frequently paired with
Baal, who often took the place of El in worship. As Baal's consort, Asherah
was usually called Baalat.
Also a sacred wooden pole or image standing close to the massebah and altar
in early Shemitic sanctuaries, part of the equipment of the temple of
Jehovah in Jerusalem till the reformation of Josiah (2 Kings 23:6). The
plural, 'asherim, denotes statues, images, columns, or pillars; translated
in the Bible by "groves." Maachah, the grandmother of Asa, King of
Jerusalem, is accused of having made for herself such an idol, which was a
phallus. Called the Assyrian Tree of Life, "the original Asherah was a
pillar with seven branches on each side surmounted by a globular flower
with three projecting rays, and no phallic stone, as the Jews made of it,
but a metaphysical symbol. 'Merciful One, who dead to life raises!' was the
prayer uttered before the Asherah, on the banks of the Euphrates. See
Ezekiel 31. Assyria is the "tallest tree in Eden."

ASHUR (Assur) City god of Ashur and national god of Assyria. In the
beginning he may be a local deity of the city of Ashur. From about 1800 BC
onward identified with the Sumerian Enlil (Akkadian: Bel), while under the
Assyrian king Sargon II (reigned 721-705 BC), there is some identity of
Ashur with Anshar, the father of An (Akkadian: Anu) in the Enuma Elish.
Under Sargon's successor Sennacherib, deliberate and thorough attempts were
made to transfer to Ashur the primeval achievements of Marduk, as well as
the whole ritual of the New Year festival. Then, as now, the "gods" are
made in the image of the dominant city or nation.

ASHURBANIPAL

ATRAHASIS The Old Babylonian "Myth of Atrahasis" is a motif showing a
relationship with the account of the creation of man to relieve the gods of
toil in the "Enki and Ninmah" myth, and with a Sumerian account of the
Flood in the "Eridu Genesis." The Atrahasis myth, however, treats these
themes with noticeable originality and remarkable depth. It relates, first,
how the gods originally had to toil for a living, how they rebelled and
went on strike, how Enki suggested that one of their number--the god We

BABYLON (Babil) "Gate(s) of God", capital of the Babylonians, on the river
Euphrates. Its patron god was Marduk. Also known as Shuanna. It is said to
have been founded by the Assyrian Ninus or his wife Semiramis. The Greek
form of the Hebrew word bavel, which is closely allied and probably derived
from the Akkadian babilu or "gate of God." The connection between Akkad,
Calneh, Erech, and Babylon (Gen. 10:10) indicates a period at least as
early as 3000 B.C. Babylon may have been founded originally by the
Sumerians, and an early tablet recorded that Sargon of Akkad (c. 2400)
destroyed Babylon.

BABEL Hebrew baÇbel (confusion) from balal (overthrow). The inner meaning
of the Tower of Babel,as a device so that the "worshippers could move into
the presence of the gods" It is a house of initiation, a gate, portal,
opening, or entrance to the divine. The physical tower was both the
building to house and protect the initiation chambers, along with the
ceremonies that take place in them, and an architectural symbol to signify
a raising up towards heaven. The tower may have either a divine or evil
significance, either haughty pride and self-sufficiency or spiritual
aspiration.

BAU (Sumerian), also called NININSINA, Akkadian Gula, or Ninkarrak, in
Mesopotamian religion, city goddess of Urukug in the Lagash region and,
under the name Nininsina, the Queen of Isin, city goddess of Isin, south of
Nippur. Bau seems originally to have been goddess of the dog; as Nininsina
she was long represented with a dog's head, and the dog was her symbol.
Perhaps because the licking of sores by dogs was believed to have healing
value, she became a goddess of healing. She was a daughter of An, king of
the gods, and the wife of Pabilsag, a rain god who was also called Ninurta,
or Ningirsu.

BEER AND BARLEY Barley is still the primary ingredient of beer. It along
with rye supports ergot, a fungus. After eating flour milled from ergot-
infected rye, humans and livestock may develop ergotism, a condition
sometimes called St. Anthony's Fire. The symptoms may include convulsions,
miscarriages in females, and dry gangrene and may result in death. Ergot is
also the source of lysergic acid, from which the powerful hallucinogen
lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is easily synthesized. Mild beer or wine
naturally fermented was often "spiked" with contaminated beer. The
"exercises," then and now, were considered proof of the indwelling "gods."
The same effect can be procuded by revivalistic music causing "speaking in
tongues."

BEL (Akkadian), Sumerian Enlil, Mesopotamian god of the air and a member
of the triad of gods completed by Anu (Sumerian: An) and Ea (Enki). Enlil
meant Lord Wind: both the hurricane and the gentle winds of spring were
thought of
as the breath issuing from his mouth, and eventually as his word or
command. He was sometimes called Lord of the Air. The Hebrew ruwach as in
"the spirit hovered over the face of the waters" is often personified as a
third member of the god "family" and is assigned tasks quite similar to Bel
or Enlil.

Baal (Chaldean) [from Semitic ba`al chief, lord] Lord, considered as the
lord of the land, and his temple at Nippur was called E-kur (the mountain
house), just as Ea's was the watery house.
In Exodus he was named Ba`al-Tsephon, the god of the crypt. He was likewise
ned Seth or Sheth, signifying a pillar (phallus); and it was owing to these
associations that he was considered a hidden god. Among the Ammonites, a
people of East Palestine, he was known as Moloch (the king); at Tyre he was
called Melcarth. The worship of Ba`al was introduced into Israel under
Ahab, his wife being a Phoenician princess.
"Typhon, called Set, who was a great god in Egypt during the early
dynasties, is an aspect of Baal and Ammon as also of Siva, Jehovah and
other gods. Baal is the all-devouring Sun, in one sense, the fiery Moloch"
As to the leaping of the prophets of Ba`al, mentioned in the Bible (1 Kings
18:26), Blavatsky writes: "It was simply a characteristic of the Sabean
worship, for it denoted the motion of the planets round the sun. That the
dance was a Bacchic frenzy is apparent. Sistra were used on the occasion"

BELILI

BELIT (Akkadian), Sumerian Ninlil, Mesopotamian goddess, the consort of
the god Bel (Sumerian: Enlil) and a deity of destiny. She was worshiped
especially at Nippur and Shuruppak and was the mother of the moon god, Sin
(Sumerian: Nanna). In Assyrian documents Belit is sometimes identified with
Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna) of Nineveh and sometimes made the wife of either
Ashur, the national god of Assyria, or of Enlil (Bel), god of the
atmosphere. The Sumerian Ninlil was a grain goddess, known as the
Varicoloured Ear (of barley). She was the daughter of Haia, god of the
stores, and Ninshebargunu (or Nidaba). The myth recounting the rape of
Ninlil by her consort, the wind god Enlil, reflects the life cycle of the
grain.

BRAZEN Serpent When the Jews in the wilderness complained to Moses, "the
Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and
much people of Israel died" (Num 21:6); wherefore "Moses made a serpent of
brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent has
bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived" (21:9).
As the Hebrew words for serpent and brass are the same when the Massoretic
points are omitted (N H SH),has been used referring to the Evil One, called
by the later Jews the Deprived (Nahash), but the fiery serpents "were the
Seraphim, each one of which, as Isaiah shows (6:2), 'had six wingsf.'
Just as the serpent is connected with knowledge, wisdom, and magic, so
likewise has copper or brass since immemorial time in all mystic schools
been a metallic compound supposed to be under the particular governance of
the planet Venus, which is the ruler or controller of the human higher
manas -- manas being at once the savior as well as the tempter of mankind,
for it is in the mind where temptation and sin or evildoing ultimately
arise. See also SERPENT. Nahash and Lahash make a close connection between
the tempter in the garden of Eden, the offspring of Lamech (reincarnated as
Ea) and the musical enchanters of Mesopotamis. Theosophy

BULL OF HEAVEN Anu created this monster to kill Gilgamesh at the request
of Ishtar. It had the bad habit of throwing spit and "Bull excrement" in
the battle with Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Showing no mercy, Enkidu and
Gilgamesh kill it and offer it to the sun or Shamash.

BULL WORSHIP The bull has been worshiped as a symbol of fertility. He may
be white as seen in the Egyptian Apis, who in legend is Osiris "incarnate"
This was the worship by the Israelites at Mount Sinai where the golden calf
was worshipped with singing, dancing, instruments and sex. The sacred bulls
did not necessarily represent male animals, but were mystically considered
to be hermaphrodite or even sexless: thus the Egyptian bull, Apis, was a
hermaphrodite to show his magical character. Gender confusion was always a
primary ingredient to the priesthood which H. Bamford Parkes identifies as
the world's oldest profession.
See the worship in Egypt

BYTHUS, Bythos (Greek) The depth; chaos, the primeval deep, adopted by the
Gnostics. For example, with Valentinus it was the cosmic source whence
emanated two by two the series of aeons. Sometimes it was considered as one
member of a primordial cosmic mystic square -- sige (silence), bythos
(depth), nous (intellect), and aletheia (truth); sometimes bythos was
paired by Gnostics with sige as composing a primordial cosmic binary. See
also ABYSS. The worship of Jesus Christ was not to be in "place" or "time"
but in spirit (much like nous) and in truth (aletheia). Paul insisted that
women remain in silence for that short period for taking the Lord's Supper
and prayer. This extended to mose men who were nost inspired, which menta
most men.

CALAH Ashurnasirpal's most impressive monument was his own palace in
Kalakh, covering a space of 269,000 square feet (25,000 square metres).
Hundreds of large limestone slabs were used in murals in the staterooms and
living quarters. Most of the scenes were done in relief, but painted murals
also have been found. Most of them depict mythological themes and symbolic
fertility rites, with the king participating. Brutal war pictures were
aimed to discourage enemies. The chief god of Kalakh was Ninurta, god of
war and the hunt. The tower of the temple dedicated to Ninurta also served
as an astronomical observatory. Kalakh soon became the cultural centre of
the empire. Ashurnasirpal claimed to have entertained 69,574 guests at the
opening ceremonies of his palace

CHALDEA (Chaldaea, Assy Kaldu, Bab Kasdu, Heb Kasddim) Chaldea is first
mentioned in the annals of the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (reigned
884/883-859 BC), though earlier documents referred to the same area as the
"Sealand." In 850 Shalmaneser III of Assyria raided Chaldea and reached the
Persian Gulf, which he called the "Sea of Kaldu." On the accession of
Sargon II to the Assyrian throne (721), the Chaldean Marduk-apla-iddina II
(the biblical Merodach-baladan), ruler of Bit-Yakin (a district of
Chaldea), seized the Babylonian throne and, despite Assyrian opposition,
held it from 721 to 710. He finally fled, however, and Bit-Yakin was placed
under Assyrian control.

CHALDEAN Chaldees, inhabitants of Chaldea or lower Mesopotamia, where Ur
(Genesis 11:28) was the ancient city of the Sumerians. They invented
writing, astrology, and the magic arts in the fourth millennium BC. They
were highly in demand until Roman times for their knowledge of divining,
interpreting dreams and fortune-telling. They are implicated in 1
Corinthians 13 as Paul compared speaking in tongues to the pagan musical
magic made possible by the clanging sounds of brass or bronze. As long as
the Persian empire lasted there was always a distinction between the
Persian magi, who were credited with profound and extraordinary religious
knowledge, and the Babylonian magi, who were often considered to be
outright imposters.

COSMOS Man's view of the cosmos has influenced his understanding of what
are called angels and demons. The cosmos may be viewed as monistic, as in
Hinduism, in which the cosmos is regarded as wholly sacred or as
participating in a single divine principle (Brahman, or Being itself). The
cosmos may also be viewed as dualistic, as in Gnosticism (an esoteric
religious dualistic belief system, often regarded as a Christian heretical
movement, that flourished in the Greco-Roman world in the 1st and 2nd
centuries AD), in which the world of matter was generally regarded as evil
and the realm of the spirit as good. A third view of the cosmos, generally
found in the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Zoroastrianism,
Christianity, and Islam, centred on a tripartite universe: celestial,
terrestrial, and subterrestrial. This third view has influenced Western
man's concepts of angels and demons as well as his scientific and
metaphysical concepts.

DEMON OR Daemon It seems that in addition to the public and official cult
of the "twelve great gods" and their subordinate divinities, the Assyrians
had a more sacred and secret religion, a religion of mystery and magic and
sorcery. These "religious" texts, moreover, together with a mass of
talismanic inscriptions on cylinders and amulets, prove the presence of an
exceedingly rich demonology. Below the greater and lesser gods there was a
vast host of spirits, some of them good and beneficent and some of them
evil and hurtful. And these spirits were described and classified with an
exactness which leads some to liken the arrangement to that of the choirs
and orders of our own angelic hierarchy. The antiquity and importance of
this secret religion, with its magic and incantations of the good spirits
or evil demons, may be gathered from the fact that by order of King
Assurbanipal his scribes made several copies of a great magical work
according to a pattern which had been preserved from a remote antiquity in
the priestly school of Erech in Chaldea. This work consisted of three
books, the first of which is entirely consecrated to incantations (chanting
a powerful song), conjurations (to summon a god), and imprecations (A
curse) against the evil spirits. These cuneiform books, it must be
remembered, are really written on clay tablets. And each of the tablets of
these first books which has come down to us ends with the title, "Tablet
No. - of the Evil Spirits". The ideogram which is here rendered as kullulu
-- "accursed" or "evil" -- might also be read as limuttu -- "baneful".
Besides being known by the generic name of udukku -- "spirit" -- a demon is
called more distinctly ecimmu, or maskimmu. One special class of these
spirits was the sedu, or divine bull, which is represented in the well-
known figure of a man-headed bull so common on the Assyrian monuments. This
name, it may be remarked, is probably the source of the Hebrew word for
demon. The Assyrian sedu, it is true, was more commonly a beneficent or
tutelary (guardian) spirit. But this is hardly an obstacle to the
derivation, for the good spirits of one nation were often regarded as evil
by men of rival races. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

DAG, DAGAN, Dagon (Hebrew, Phoenician) [from dag fish + on diminutive; or
from dagan grain] Fish or a little fish; a Philistine god, at Ashod and
Gaza, mentioned several places in the Bible (e.g. Judges 16). He was more
than a local deity, however, as place-names called after him are
widespread. Some scholars assert there was an ancient Canaanite deity of
similar name, and also associate this Shemitic god with the Babylonian
Dagan. It is commonly believed that Dagon was represented as half-man half-
fish and identified with Oannes, though no such early representations bear
his name. Some scholars cite Philo Byblius as making Dagon the discoverer
of grain and the inventor of the plow, an earth god parallel with Bel.

DAMKINA (Chaldean, Babylonian) Consort of Enki, ruler of absu of Eridu.
Dannina "Stronghold", term for the underworld. Sometimes Davkina. Consort
of Ea or Hea, god of the watery regions, partaking of Ea's characteristics,
therefore called Damgal-nunna (great lady of the waters), likewise Nin-Ki
(lady of that which is below, i.e., the watery deeps or underworld). Mother
of Marduk (or Merodach or Bel).

DAMU Sumerian deity, city god of Girsu on the Euphrates River near Ur in
the southern orchards region. Damu, son of Enki, was a vegetation god,
especially of the vernal flowing of the sap of trees and plants. His name
means "the child," and his cult--apparently celebrated primarily by women--
centred on the lamentation and search for Damu, who had lain under the bark
of his nurse, the cedar tree, and had disappeared. The search finally ended
when the god reappeared out of the river.
The cult of Damu influenced and later blended with the similar cult of
Dumuzi the Shepherd, a Sumerian deity worshiped by the central grasslands
people. A different deity called Damu was a goddess of healing and the
daughter of Nininsina of Isin.

DANIEL or Danel

DAZIMUA: Married Ningishzid amother of the Eight children of Ki

DEEP (See Abyss, Bythos) The Hebrew word is "tehom" which is different from
the normal word for sea which is "yam". Genesis 1:2 also uses it: "The
earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the
deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." The
waters from the flood also came from the deep as stated in Genesis 7:11:
"on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the window
of the heavens were opened." Rain was often thought to be the water of the
deep coming through the sky ceiling of the firmament. The word "tehom" is
related to the Babylonian word TIAMAT.

DEMIGODS One of the orders of semi-divine instructors, spiritual beings in
human form. Herodotus, among other Greek writers, speaks of humanity being
ruled successively by gods, demigods, heroes, and men. We still get
confused.

DEMONS GALAS The demons of the underworld. In ancient Babylonia many demons
were mentioned on the clay tablets, e.g. Alu, who crushed men by falling on
top of them when they were asleep. The demoness Lamastu, pale-faced with
donkey's ears, bare-breasted and with poisonous claws, killed babies at
their mother's breast. Illnesses and misfortunes were personified as
demons, both make and female, with Akkadian or Sumerian names. She is a
model for Lilith.
Groups of demons are: Asakku (Sumerian Asag), seven created by Anu and
defeated by Ninurta, a victory also attributed to Nergal. Gallu, a term
which originally referred to police officers (!) Sebitti, "The Seven".

Individuals with Akkadian names are: Bel Uri "Lord of the Roof" Bennu
"Fits" Idiptu "Wind" Libu "Scab" Lamashtu, a female demon, a disease Mimma
lemnu "Something evil" Miqut "stroke" Muttabriqu "Flashes of lightning"
Pasittu "She who erases" (an epithet of Lamashtu) Ugallu (Lion demon)
Rabishu "The Croucher" Sarabda "Bailiff" Sidana "Staggers" Suruppu, a
disease brought on by flood waters Tirid "Expulsion" Umma "Feverhot" Umu, a
storm demon.
Individuals with Sumerian names are: Saghulhaza, "Upholder of evil" And the
doorkeepers of the Underworld: Engidudu (also an epithet of Erra),
Endushuba, Endukuga, Endashurimma, Ennugigi, Enuralla/Nerulla, Nerubanda.

Dilmun is the Sumerian name of an ancient independent kingdom that
flourished c. 2000 BC, often identified with al-Bahrain
Because Dilmun has no fresh sparkling water ENKI orders UTU, the sun god,
to fill it with fresh water brought up from the earth. Dilmun is thus
turned into a divine garden. In this garden 8 plants are created and grown
by NINHURSAG only to be eaten by ENKI. NINHURSAG becomes so angry that she
places the curse of death on ENKI whose eight organs then begin to fail.
NINHURSAG leaves Dilmun although the other gods eventually convince
NINHURSAG to return to cure ENKI. She does so by creating eight healing
gods including NINTI.

DIMME LAMASHTU

DINGIR The chief deity of the Akkadians; one of the forms of the creative
powers as recognized by the earlier Akkadians. Every one of these demiurgic
powers is the chief or first in his or her own field of activity in the
universe, so that in one mythology may be found several such chief or first
divinities, each being the chief or hierarch in his or her own hierarchy,
but all nevertheless subordinate to the karmic mandates of the inclusive,
all-enclosing, cosmic primordial elements. These chief divinities are the
cosmic elements originating in and from the primordial element, which
because of the extreme reverence in which it was held by archaic thought is
often not mentioned, it being part of the teaching of the sanctuary.

DRAGON Monster usually viewed as a huge, bat-winged, fire-breathing, scaly
lizard or snake with a barbed tail. These beasts are apt symbols of kings
such as that of Tyre and Babylon who, when evil, are under the influence of
Lucifer.
In the Middle East the snakes are large and deadly and therefore the
serpent or dragon was symbolic of the principle of evil. The Egyptian god
Apepi,was the serpent of the world of darkness. But the Greeks and Romans,
though accepting the Middle Eastern idea of the serpent as an evil power,
also thought the drakontes as beneficial--sharp-eyed dwellers in the inner
parts of the Earth.
The Chaldean dragon Tiamat had four legs, a scaly body, and wings, whereas
the biblical dragon of Revelation, "the old serpent," was many-headed like
the Greek Hydra. Because they not only possessed both protective and
terror-inspiring qualities but also had decorative effigies, dragons were
early used as warlike emblems.

DUMUZI "Son of the Abyss," the ever-dying, ever-reviving Sumerian
prototype of the resurrected savior, was a harvest god of ancient
Mesopotamia, Sumerian god of vegetation and the under-world. Also called
"the shepherd" and "lord of the sheepfolds." Dumuzi known from his horned
lunar crown, is the son-husband of the goddess Gula-Bau seen sitting in
front of the serpent in a relief "Goddess of the Tree of Life" ca. 2500
B.C. Dumuzi's mother was Ningizzida, an ancestor of Gilgamesh, consort of
Ianna (Ishtar). The Great Goddess (symbolized by Demeter) also correlates
to Dionysus-Bacchus-Zagreus (or in the older, Sumero-Babylonian myths,
Dumuzi-absu, Tammuz, the "child of the abyss," who was originally a tree
god and son of Ningishzida, he died because of Ishtar's love. Tammuz also
Thammuz is the tenth month of the year in the Jewish calendar [Hebrew
Tammuz, from Babylonian Duíuzu, the name of a god]. In Egypt, Tammuz was a
god of harvest (late summer month) of Mesopotamia, Akkad and Sumer.
Tammuz (Ezek. 8:14) is equivalent to Osiris (Hay-Tau) in Egypt and Adonis
[Greek Adonis, from Phoenician adon, lord]. Osiris is Dionysus in the Greek
tongue, and the Roman Bacchus. A cylinder seal from Erech, end of the
fourth century B.C., depicts the god Tammuz (a fertility god widely
worshipped in Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine) feeding the cattle of the
temple. Tammuz was killed by a wild boar while shepherding his flocks. His
wife rescued him from the underworld. His death was taken to represent the
onset of winter. The Adonis Cult (in Nega, Byblus -Syrian coast) parallels
Dumuzi, Tammuz, and Attis.

DUMUZI-AMASHUMGALANA Tammuz and Damu were joined to become a fertility god
who probably represented the power in the sap to rise in trees and plants
in spring. The relation of still other figures to Tammuz, such as Dumuzi-
Abzu--a goddess who appears to have been the power in the waters
underground (the Abzu) to bring new life to vegetation--is not entirely
clear. see marriage to Ishtar from above link
Sumerian deity especially popular in the southern orchard regions and later
in the central grassland area. He was the young bridegroom of the goddess
Inanna (Akkadian: Ishtar), a fertility figure sometimes called the Lady of
the Date Clusters. As such, he represented the power of growth and new life
in the date palm. In Erech, the marriage of Inanna, in her role as goddess
of the storehouse, to Dumuzi-Amaushumgalana was essentially a harvest
festival, symbolizing the security the community felt after laying in
provisions for the new year.

DUMUZI-ABZU Sumerian deity, city goddess of Kinirsha near Lagash in the
southeastern marshland region. She represented the power of fertility and
new life in the marshes. Dumuzi-Abzu corresponded to the Sumerian god
Dumuzi (see Tammuz) of the central herding area, and thus around Eridu she
was viewed as male and as son of Enki (Akkadian: Ea, also called the Lord
of Apsu).

EA (ENKI) (Akkadian), Sumerian Enki, Mesopotamian god of water and a
member of the triad of deities completed by Anu (Sumerian An) and Bel
(Enlil). From a local deity worshiped in the city of Eridu, Ea evolved into
a major god, Lord of Apsu (also spelled Abzu), the fresh waters beneath the
earth (although Enki means literally "lord of the earth"). In the Sumerian
myth, "Enki and the World Order," Enki is said to have fixed national
boundaries and assigned gods their roles. According to another Sumerian
myth Enki is the creator, having devised men as slaves to the gods. In his
original form, as Enki, he was associated with semen and amniotic fluid,
and therefore with fertility. He was commonly represented as a half-goat,
half-fish creature, from which the modern astrological figure for Capricorn
is derived. He is also identified with Oannes.
Ea governed the arts of sorcery and incantation. In some stories he was
also the form-giving god, and thus the patron of craftsmen and artists (see
KOSMOS below); he was known as the bearer of culture. In his role as
adviser to the king, Ea was a wise god although not a forceful one. In
Akkadian myth, as Ea's character evolves, he appears frequently as a clever
mediator who could be devious and cunning. He is also significant in
Akkadian mythology as the father of Marduk, the national god of Babylonia.
Also known as Nudimmud, a name associated with function as a creator-god.
Epithet: "Nussiku" translated here as far-sighted.
When the younger gods grew too noisy, Apsu and Mummu decided to murder
them. Ea, who knows all, discovered the plot and attacked Apsu with a
magical spell. Tiamat plotted revenge but again Ea found out but was too
fearful. His father, Anshar urged him on but Ea decided to negotiate.
However, when Tiamat refused, Ea's son, Marduk, decided to destroy her if
he could become the most high God. He succeeded and of course all earlier
gods were demoted so that he got all of the glory.

EA-EL Ea or Hea (Akkadian, Chaldean) [from house + water] One of the three
chief gods of the Chaldaeo- or Assyro-Babylonian celestial triad of Anu,
Bel, and Ea. In the division of the universe into heaven, earth, and water,
Ea is king of the watery deeps (Shar Apsi); also Lord of that which is
below (En-Ki).
Ea is seen as a man with the body of a fish, and is probably Oannes and
Dagon. Marduk are also aspects of this same deity. His consort is Damkina
(lady of that which is below) or Damgal-nunna (great lady of the waters).

EANNA or E-Anna "House of the Sky, name of the temple of Anu and Ishtar in
Uruk, also called "The Pure Treasury." Anu descended to Earth only on
special occasions, in time of crisis, or for ceremonial reasons. When on
Earth he would stay in the temple of Anu and Ishtar, the E-ANNA or "House
of An" or the "House of the Sky" or "the Pure Treasury" atop the ziggurat
in Uruk, his sacred city. The word ziggurat comes from the Babylonian
"zaquru" and means "to be high or raised up." It signifies the top of a
mountain or a staged tower and such a tower provided an artificial mountain
on the flat Mesopotamian plain.

EA-ENGURRA Temple of the god Ea in Eridu.

EIGHT CHILDREN OF KI Abu, Nintul, Ninsutu, Ninkasi, Nazi, Dazimua, Ninti,
Enshagag. The Goddess Uttu, in the paradise of Dilmun, made 8 plants sprout
from her union with Enki. He then proceeded to eat them all. Ki cursed him
for this and he became ill. He convinced her to remove her curse, and she
created eight gods of healing, one for each pain Enki was having, to cure
him. Each name of the gods is a pun for the body parts they healed.

EKUR "Mountain-house" The temple of the god Ellil in Nippur, where Ninurta
was born.

ENHEDUANNA

ELLIL (Illil, Sumerian Enlil) Sumerian god, leader of the younger
generation of Sumerian and Akkadian gods. Cult center Nippur. Temple called
Ekur. Spouse Mulittu; son Ninurta. Old interpretation of his name as "Lord
Wind/Air" uncertain. Epithet: "King of all populated lands." Symbol: A
horned crown on a shrine. Son of the supreme god Anu, whom he succeeded.
See also Anzu, Ninurta.

ENKI (EA) Enki, son of An and Nammu, was the god of the underground
freshwater ocean (the abzu", sometimes referred to as the apsu"). His name
can be taken to mean "Lord Earth," but "ki" can also refer to 'the below'
in the two-tiered cosmic structure, in opposition to "an": heaven. Enki is
also a god of wisdom, a faculty which included practical skills (such as
arts and crafts), intellectual faculties, the ability to "decree fates",
and the command of magical powers. In the Atrahasis myth, for example, it
was Enki's intercession which saved mankind from the flood and pestilence
ordered by Enlil. He is sometimes referred to as Nudimmud or Ninsiku. His
wife is Damgaknuna/Damkina. Among his children are Asarluhi, Enbilulu,
Adapa, and Nanse. His symbols include the goatfish, the tortoise, a ram-
headed staff, and a ship or similar vessel overflowing with water.

ENKIDU (Ea-bani): Hero and friend and fellow warrior with Gilgamesh.
Earlier, he is a wild man who lives with wild animals. He was tamed by a
harlot and taken to Uruk to oppose Gilgamesh. His name means "created by
Ea"

ENLIL See Bel He is the wind or storm god and Christian writers are prone
to equate the Holy Spirit as a "person" to Enlil as the chief administrator
of the other "gods." His chief, in turn, is Nusku and he is the leader of
the Anunnaki.
Enlil is one of the most important gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon.
Sometimes he is said to be the offspring of An, and brother of the birth-
goddess Aruru. He is also, however, sometimes described as the descendant
of Enki and Ninki "Lord" and "Lady Earth," not to be confused with the
deity Enki). Yet a third tradition attributes his birth to the primeval
water-goddess Nammu. His wife is Ninlil ( Among his prominent offspring are
Inanna, Adad, Nanna, Nergal, Ninurta, and Utu. The personality of Enlil is
very complex. It is not certain what the Sumerian element "lil" originally
stood for. It has had meanings as diverse as 'air,' and 'spirit.' He is the
lord who 'determines the fates,' a function he shares with the god Enki. It
was Enlil who was said to have separated the primordial heaven/earth, thus
bringing forth the created universe. On a cosmic level, while Enki's realm
was below (the abzu), and An ruled above (the heavens), Enlil's realm was
the earth and the spheres of the winds and weather above it. Enlil was
responsible for all aspects of life: fertility and prosperity, as well as
famine and catastrophe. His great cult center was the temple E-kur at
Nippur. He is sometimes also referred to as Nunamnir. Enlil, who saw Ninlil
bathing in a canal, raped and impregnated her. For his crime he was
banished to the Underworld.

ENMERKER A Sumerian hero and king of Erech, a city-state in southern
Mesopotamia, who is thought to have lived at the end of the 4th or
beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. Along with Lugalbanda and Gilgamesh,
Enmerkar is one of the three most significant figures in the surviving
Sumerian epics.

Although scholars once assumed that there was only one epic relating
Enmerkar's subjugation of a rival city, Aratta, it is now believed that two
separate epics tell this tale. One is called Enmerkar and the Lord of
Aratta. The longest Sumerian epic yet discovered, it is the source of
important information about the history and culture of the Sumero-Iranian
border area. According to this legend, Enmerkar, son of the sun god Utu,
was envious of Aratta's wealth of metal and stones, which he needed in
order to build various shrines, especially a temple for the god Enki in
Eridu. Enmerkar therefore requested his sister, the goddess Inanna, to aid
him in acquiring material and manpower from Aratta; she agreed and advised
him to send a threatening message to the lord of Aratta. The lord of
Aratta, however, demanded that Enmerkar first deliver large amounts of
grain to him. Though Enmerkar complied, the lord of Aratta refused to
complete his part of the agreement; threatening messages were again sent
out by both men, each claiming the aid and sanction of the goddess Inanna.
The text becomes fragmented at that point in the narrative, but in the end
Enmerkar was apparently victorious.
The other epic relating the defeat of Aratta is known as Enmerkar and
Ensuhkeshdanna. In this tale the ruler of Aratta, Ensuhkeshdanna (or
Ensukushsiranna), demanded that Enmerkar become his vassal. Enmerkar
refused and, declaring himself the favourite of the gods, commanded
Ensuhkeshdanna to submit to him. Although the members of Ensuhkeshdanna's
council advised him to comply with Enmerkar, he listened instead to a local
priest, who promised to make Erech subject to Aratta. When the priest
arrived in Erech, however, he was outwitted and killed by a wise old woman,
Sagburru, and the two sons of the goddess Nidaba. After he learned the fate
of his priest, Ensuhkeshdanna's will was broken and he yielded to
Enmerkar's demands.
A third epic, Lugalbanda and Enmerkar, tells of the heroic journey to
Aratta made by Lugalbanda in the service of Enmerkar. According to the
epic, Erech was under attack by Semitic nomads. In order to save his
domain, Enmerkar required the aid of Inanna, who was in Aratta. Enmerkar
requested volunteers to go to Inanna, but only Lugalbanda would agree to
undertake the dangerous mission. The epic concerns the events of
Lugalbanda's journey and the message given him from Inanna for Enmerkar.
Although obscure, Inanna's reply seems to indicate that Enmerkar was to
make special water vessels and was also to catch strange fish from a
certain river.

ENUMA ELISH

ENSUHKESHDANNA See Enmerker Above

ERECH Sumerian Uruk, Greek ORCHOË, modern Tall Al-warka', ancient
Mesopotamian city located northwest of Ur (Tall Al-Muqayyar) in
southeastern Iraq. According to legend it were built by the Gilgamesh.
The principal Sumerian divinity worshiped in ancient Erech appear to have
been Anu (An), a sky god, and the goddess Inanna ("Queen of the Sky"). One
of the chief landmarks of the city is the Anu ziggurat crowned by the
"White Temple."

Eriskegal, Ereshkigal (Allatu). Queen of the underworld (Kur), of death,
and enemy of Inanna. All underwold deities are called Chthonic Deities. She
is said to be the sister of Inanna, making her the daughter of Nanna. She
is defineitly not one of the Seven Chthonic Anunnaki, yet she is still an
Anunnaki. Most likely she is the Destructive Forces of Saturn as Inanna is
Venus.
She was sister of Ishtar, spouse of Nergal, mother of Ninazu. The
Babylonian Persephone, spouse of Nergal, the god of the dead in the
Underworld. As Mesopotamian goddess of the nether world, queen of the lower
regions, she is often praised in hymns. One day Nergal was sent to her from
heaven with an offering of food. They fell in love with each other, and
when he had to leave, she was in tears and threatened Anu, the supreme god,
that she would revive all the dead, over which she ruled, and send them
back to earth, "so that they will outnumber the living", unless Nergal was
sent back to her, for ever, as a husband. Her minister Namtar had to go to
heaven as her messenger, for Ereshkigal felt that she was already pregnant.
At last Nergal came storming down the stairs, broke down the seven gates
and burst into the goddess' palace straight into her passionate embrace,
"to wash away her tears."

ERIDU One of the oldest seats of religious culture in ancient Babylonia,
located a few miles SSW of Ur in Chaldea, and mentioned in ancient records
as the city of the deep. In it was a temple of Ea, god of the sea and of
wisdom. Rediscovered in 1854, it is now about 120 miles from the Persian
Gulf, though spoken of in old records as being on the shore; calculations
based on the rate of alluvial deposition places its date in the seventh
millennium BC. Sayce, by comparing the Akkadian calendar with the present
position of the vernal equinox, gives a date going back to 4700 BC

THE ERIDU GENESIS Sumerian epic primarily concerned with the creation of
the world, the building of cities, and the flood. According to the epic,
after the universe was created out of the primeval sea and the gods were
given birth, the deities in turn fashioned man from clay to cultivate the
ground, care for flocks, and perpetuate the worship of the gods.
Cities were soon built and kingship was instituted on Earth. For some
reason, however, the gods determined to destroy mankind with a flood. Enki
(Akkadian Ea), who did not agree with the decree, revealed it to Ziusudra
(Utnapishtim), a man well known for his humility and obedience. Ziusudra
did as Enki commanded him and built a huge boat, in which he successfully
rode out the flood. Afterward, he prostrated himself before the gods An
(Anu) and Enlil (Bel), and, as a reward for living a godly life, Ziusudra
was given immortality.

ERRA (Mythica) God of war, hunting, plagues. Etymology "Scorched earth"
probably incorrect. Assimilated with Nergal and Gerra. Temple Emeslam in
the city Kutha. Epithet Engidudu "Lord who prowls by night" (see demons).
See Nergal. Babylonian god of war, death, and other disasters. His greatest
ally was famine caused by drought. He may be identified with Nergal, the
god of death. He expressed death himself symbolically by his continuous
lethargy as he lay in a drunken stupor. War has always been the major cause
of death throughout history. Erra was supplicated to ward off pestilence
and other calamities. One of the earliest known epic poems to come to
light, written on clay tablets, is the Epic of Erra. At the opening of the
epic, Erra sits in his palace while his weapons, which are in reality minor
gods called the Sibitti, complain about his inaction. Erra persuades the
old king-god of Babylon to visit his old craftsmen in the land of Absu
beneath the earth. Erra is just on the point of destroying Babylonia when
old Ishum, minister of Marduk, warns him: "Those who make war are the
ignorant/War kills the priests and the sinless..." Although he has already
started devastating the country, Erra is pacified by the wise minister and
calls off the hounds of war. Marduk returns to peace. See also Sibitti.

ESAGILA Most important temple complex in ancient Babylon, dedicated to the
god Marduk, the tutelary deity of that city. The temple area was located
south of the huge ziggurat called Etemenanki; it measured 660 feet (200 m)
on its longest side, and its three vast courtyards were surrounded by
intricate chambers. The whole complex reflects centuries of building and
rebuilding by the Babylonian kings, especially Nebuchadrezzar II (reigned
604-562 BC). The tremendous wealth of Esagila was recorded by the Greek
historian Herodotus.

ETANA Son of Kish and twelfth king of Kish after the Flood, father of
Balih. Thirteenth god-king of the Sumerian dynasty ruling the city of Kish.
Though he was appointed by Anu and prayed daily to Shamash the sun-god, he
had no son. Shamash directed him to an eagle who had been snared by a
snake. Etana freed the eagle who, in gratitude, carried the king on his
back to heaven. There, Etana, in front of the throne of Ishtar, begged for
a son. She gave him the plant of birth, which he probably had to eat
together with his wife. We know from history that Etana had a son named
Balih. An incomplete epic about his exploits has been discovered.

ETANA MYTH In the beginning, according to the epic, there was no king on
the earth; the gods thus set out to find one and apparently chose Etana,
who proved to be an able ruler until he discovered that his wife, though
pregnant, was unable to give birth, and thus he had no heir to the throne.
The one known remedy was the birth plant, which Etana was required to bring
down personally from heaven. Etana, therefore, prayed to the god Shamash,
who heard his request and directed him to a mountain where a maimed eagle,
languishing in a pit (into which it had been thrown as punishment for
breaking a sacred pact), would help him obtain the special plant. Etana
rescued the eagle, and as a reward it carried him high up into the sky.
According to one fragment, Etana reached heaven and bell before the gods.
There the text breaks off. According to another fragment, however, Etana
either became dizzy or lost his nerve before reaching heaven and crashed to
the ground. If, as many scholars believe, Etana was successful, the myth
may have been used to support early dynastic claims.

ETEMENANKI The Esagila was the seven-storied temple of Marduk which was
the "House of the Platform of heaven and earth." This was the ancient and
modern "Tower of Babel" where the slave-enriched population were convinced
that they could musically ascend the steps and possibly come into the
presence of a god. Then, as now, they believed that the temple at the top
was the platform upon which the gods landed. From Esagila northward passed
the paved Processional Way, its walls decorated with enamelled lions.
Passing through the Ishtar Gate, adorned with enamelled bulls and dragons,
it led to the Akitu House, a small temple outside the city, visited by
Marduk at the New Year festival. West of the Ishtar Gate, one of eight
fortified gates, were two palace complexes that covered about 40 acres with
their fortifications.

FLOOD Tablet XI of the epic of Gilgamesh describes the great flood epic, as
George Smith and Friedrich Delitzsch discovered around the turn of the
century, is about a thousand years older than the biblical tale of Noah in
Genesis 6. The Babylonian epic introduces the immortal sage called
Utanapishtim (in Sumerian called Ziusudra). The gods decided one day to
drown all human beings because they were noisy. The god Ea however,
secretly descended to his favorite - Uta-Napishtim - and told him to build
a ship, giving him the exact measurements and other instructions:
"Dismantle your house, build a boat, leave your possessions, look for your
living ones to save them, out the seeds of all that lives in your boat!" -
a remarkably practical piece of advice, such as one needs when disaster is
immanent! Uta-Napishtim did as he was advised, adding gold and silver to
his cargo. For six days and seven nights the storm blew. After that, the
wind and sea became calm once more. The flood then receded. Silence
reigned. All humanity had returned to clay. Uta-Napishtim the sent out a
dove followed by a swallow and a raven. The first two returned but the
raven did not. The flood had by then diminished and land become visible. In
the Sumerian version all the windstorms (spirits), exceedingly powerful,
attacked as one At the same time the floods swept over the cult-centers For
seven days and nights the boat was tossed about... Ziusudra (Zisutra) who
has built his boat with instructions from the god of wisdom, Enki, "Opens a
window in his boat...[until] Utu the sun-god sends his rays of light into
the boat." Ziusudra then worshipped Utu.

GALAS, THE: The demons of the underworld. Gallu In Chaldean theology, a
class of spirits beneath the angels of earth

GESHTINANNA, GESTINNANA (Demi-god) (Sumerian) Sister of Dumuzi, Divine
poetress, singer, and interpreter of dreams. The dying Dumuzi, tortured by
nightmares, brought the dreams to his sister for interpretation. Gestinanna
realized her brother was under attack by demons. She tells him this and
advises him to flee. Dumuzi flees, swearing Gestinanna to secrecy as to
where he is going into hiding. The demons attacked Gestinanna to force her
to reveal her brother's whereabouts, but she remained silent. The demons,
however, soon found Dumuzi, hiding in the form of a gazelle in his sister's
sheepfold. He was carried off to the underworld by them; Gestinanna then
set out to rescue him. They were eventually reunited after many adventures.
The goddess then persuaded the underworld divinities to grant Dumuzi half
her own life; thus each was allowed to live on earth six months of each
year. Her sister in the netherworld was Ereshkigal.

GILGAMESH King of Uruk, son of Lugalbanda and Ninsun in the Epic. Name may
mean "The old man is a young man" in Sumerian. Listed with gods in very
early texts. Late epithet: "King of Earth"

GUDEA general background)

GUGALANA The Bull of Heaven husband of Ereshkigal's

GULU As Ninmah (See Ninkhursag) alias Nintu, Ki, Ninki, Ninmah, Ninlil,
Innini, Bau, Gula, Ninkarrak, Gam-Tum-Dug, Belit-Illu, Belitis, was one of
four main Sumerian gods (See Damkina). Damkina or Damgalnunna; alias Ninka,
goddess wife of Ea -- Sumerian god of sweet waters. As Ninlil wife of
Enlil; as Ninki wife of Enki (Ea).

HADAD Also spelled HAD, HADDA, OR HADDU, the Old Testament Rimmon, West
Semitic god of storms, thunder, and rain. His attributes were identical
with those of Adad of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. He was the chief baal
("lord") of the West Semites (including both sedentary and nomadic
Aramaeans) in north Syria, along the Phoenician coast, and along the
Euphrates River. As Baal-Hadad he was represented as a bearded deity, often
holding a club and thunderbolt and wearing a horned headdress. The bull was
the symbolic animal of Hadad, as of the Hittite deity Teshub, who was
identical with him.

HAMMURABI King of Babylon 1848-1806 BC.

HESOID Theogony: Deals with the origin of the gods and is the fullest
record of the Greek myths which have parallels in Babylonia.

HULLUPU TREE After the heavens had been separated from the earth and as
Enki was attacked, a huluppu (tree) had been planted on the banks of the
Euphrates. Then the South Wind plucked it up. Inanna roving around in fear
found the tree and took it to Erech. As it grew, the snake set up a nest in
the roots, the bird reared its young and Lilith built her house. Everyone
laughed at Inanna's weeping. Later, Gilgamesh struck the serpent, the Anzu-
Bird flew away and Lilith smashed her home and fled into the wild. From the
trunk of the tree Gilgamesh carved a throne for his sister.

HUMBABA (Humwawa) Guardian of the Pine forest, fire breathing servant of
the god Wer, depicted with a face lined like coiled intestines, ancestor of
the Greek Gorgon. His voice is the Abubu-weapon.
Gilgamesh, also of that dynasty, figures as the hero of a variety of short
tales; some, such as "Gilgamesh and Huwawa" and
In tablet 3-5 Enkidu and a friend of Gilgamesh set out together against
Huwawa or Humbaba, the guardian of a remote cedar forest. There is not
record of the outcome. Clay mask of Humbaba, the guardian of the ceadar
trees of the Gods; defeated by Gilgamesh

IGIGI (ee gee' gee) Sumerian term for the great gods of the younger
generation, sky-gods headed by Ellil, often paired with the Anunnaki.
Early deities who guide and control every aspect of nature. Either they
were not given much promenance later, or they simply were never given much
attention. Chances are that these are Angels were the gods are Archangels.
Collective name for the great gods of heaven associated with blood, madness
and revenge.

INANNA (Inannu) Sumerian earth-goddess, sister of Ereshkigal. She loved
Dumuzi. Babylonian mother-goddess, "mistress of heaven." See Ishtar
(Babylonian) .
Nanna's daughter, and goddess of love and war. Inanna also visits Kur,
which results in a myth similar to Greek seasonal story of Persephone. She
sets out to witness the funeral rites of her sister-in-law Ereshkigal's
husband Gugalana, the Bull of Heaven. She takes precaution before setting
out, by telling her servant Ninshubur to seek assistance from Enlil, Nanna,
or Enki at their shrines, should she not return. Inanna knocks on the outer
gates of Kur and the gatekeeper, Neti, questions her. He consults with
queen Ereshkigal and then allows Inanna to pass through the seven gates of
the underworld. After each gate, she is required to remove adornments and
articles of clothing, until after the seventh gate, she is naked. The
Annuna pass judgment against her and Ereshkigal killed her and hung her on
the wall.
The goddess Inanna was the most important female deity of ancient
Mesopotamia. The etymology of her name is uncertain; but by the end of the
third millennium B.C. it was taken to derive from nin.an.na : "Lady of
Heaven." Also known as Innin, her epithets reflect her broad role in the
pantheon: Ninmesarra - "Queen of all the Me," a title making her one of the
most influential deities in the world of gods and men; Nu-ugiganna - "the
Hierodule of Heaven," a projection of her erotic functions to the cosmic
scale; and Usunzianna - "Exalted Cow of Heaven," she who provides life and
sustenance to the land. In this aspect, it was Inanna who yearly reunited
symbolically with her consort Dumuzi to restore life and fertility in the
land.
This cycle, known as the Sacred Marriage, was a common theme in songs sung
in her praise. Inanna represented the force of sexual reproduction and the
power of the passions so incited. This passion finds its compliment in her
martial character, 'the heroic champion, the destroyer of foreign lands,
foremost in battle.' She was the daughter of the moon-god Nanna (though
some traditions held her to be the daughter of An). Her sister was the
netherworld goddess Ereskigal. Inanna's beast was the lion. Her usual
symbol was the star or star disk (though it may also have been the
rosette).

IMDUGUD See NINURTA

ISHKUR Married goddess Shala Sumerian god of the rain and thunderstorms of
spring. He was the city god of Bit Khakhuru. He is similar to Ninhar
(Ningubla) and was imagined in the form of a great bull and the son of
Nanna (Akkadian Sin), the moon god. When he is portrayed in human shape, he
often holds his symbol, the lightning fork. Ishkur's wife was the goddess
Shala. In his role as god of rain and thunder, Ishkur corresponded to the
other Sumerian deities Asalluhe and Ninurta. He was identified by the
Akkadians with their god of thunderstorms, Adad.

ISHTAR (Akkadian), Sumerian Inanna, in Mesopotamian religion, goddess of
war and sexual love. Ishtar is the Akkadian counterpart of the West Semitic
goddess Astarte. Inanna, an important goddess in the Sumerian pantheon,
came to be identified with Ishtar, but it is uncertain whether Inanna is
also of Semitic origin or whether, as is more likely, her similarity to
Ishtar caused the two to be identified. In the figure of Inanna several
traditions seem to have been combined: she is sometimes the daughter of the
sky god An, sometimes his wife; in other myths she is the daughter of
Nanna, god of the moon, or of the wind, Enlil. In her earliest
manifestations she was associated with the storehouse and thus personified
as the goddess of dates, wool, meat, and grain; the storehouse gates were
her emblem. She was also the goddess of rain and thunderstorms--leading to
her association with An, the sky god--and was often pictured with the lion,
whose roar resembled thunder. The power attributed to her in war may have
arisen from her connection with storms. Inanna was also a fertility figure,
and, as goddess of the storehouse and the bride of the god Dumuzi-
Amaushumgalana, who represented the growth and fecundity of the date palm,
she was characterized as young, beautiful, and impulsive--never as helpmate
or mother. She is sometimes referred to as the Lady of the Date Clusters.
Ishtar's primary legacy from the Sumerian tradition is the role of
fertility figure; she evolved, however, into a more complex character,
surrounded in myth by death and disaster, a goddess of contradictory
connotations and forces: fire and fire-quenching, rejoicing and tears, fair
play and enmity. The Akkadian Ishtar is also, to a greater extent, an
astral deity, associated with the planet Venus: with Shamash, sun god, and
Sin, moon god, she forms a secondary astral triad. In this manifestation
her symbol is a star with 6, 8, or 16 rays within a circle.
As goddess of Venus, delighting in bodily love, Ishtar was the protectress
of prostitutes and the patroness of the alehouse. Part of her cult worship
probably included temple prostitution, and her cult centre, Erech, was a
city filled with courtesans and harlots. Her popularity was universal in
the ancient Middle East, and in many centres of worship she probably
subsumed numerous local goddesses.
In later myth she was known as Queen of the Universe, taking on the powers
of An, Enlil, and Enki.
She appears at times as Anu' second consort. Ishtar, with Shamash and Sin
(the life-force, the sun, and the moon), formed an important triad of
divinities. In astronomy Ishtar was a name of the planet Venus -- the
double aspect of the goddess being made to correspond to the morning and
evening star. (Lucifer)
(Chaldean) Ancient Babylonian deity, eldest of heaven and earth, daughter
of Anu (the lord of the heavens) and Antum. She is the sister of Ereshkigal
and has to face her in the underworld. This visit is conntected with
Tammuz. Her worship was fervently pursued by the multitude both in
Babylonia and Assyria, although she was known under various names in
different localities -- Anunit, Nina, Nanna, Innanna, Atar -- even when
represented as the consort of Marduk (Babylonia) and of Assur (Assyria). In
popular conception, she was the bounteous nature goddess, queen of beauty
and joyousness, equivalent to Aphrodite or Venus, however, rather than
Ceres, although synthesizing certain attributes of both these goddesses.
Her other aspect is as the grim, stern harvester, withdrawing the life-
forces so that everything during this period shall have sleep and rest.
This aspect was stressed by the warlike Assyrians, who represented her as
armed with bow and arrows, and hence she becomes their chief goddess of
battles; whereas the Babylonians stressed the mother and child idea. Her
symbol was an eight-rayed star.

KI / Ninhursag (Sumerian) (Aruru), Mammi -Babylonian) goddess of earth. Ki
is likely to be the original name of the earth goddess, whose name more
often appears as Ninhursag (queen of the mountains), Ninmah (the exalted
lady), or Nintu (the lady who gave birth). It seems likely that she and An
were the progenitors of most of the gods. She is the mother goddess and
assists in the creation of man.
There advised Enki as he shaped several forms of man from the heart of the
clay over the Abzu. In Dilmun, she bore eight new trees from Enki. When he
then ate her children, she cursed him with eight wounds. After being
persuaded by Enlil to undo her curse, she bore Enki eight new children
which undid the wounds of the first ones. Most often she is considered
Enlil's sister, but in some traditions she is his spouse instead.

KINGS (Sumerian)

KINGU The dragon of chaos. See Below

KISH First to establish the kingship after the flood according to the
Sumerian king list. East of Babylon, connected to it by canal. Cult center
of Ishtar (temple E-hursag-kalama) and Zababa (temple E-mete-ursag). A
Babylonian city. See Etana.

KISHAR "Whole earth" Sumerian god of old generation, paired with Anshar.
She is the offspring of Tiamat and Apsu and the mother of Anu.

KOSMOS Pythagoreanism Speculation on number and proportion led to an
intuitive feeling of the harmonia ("fitting together") of the kosmos ("the
beautiful order of things"); and the application of the tetraktys to the
theory of music (see below Music) revealed a hidden order in the range of
sound. Pythagoras may have referred, vaguely, to the "music of the
heavens," which he alone seemed able to hear; and later Pythagoreans seem
to have assumed that the distances of the heavenly bodies from the Earth
somehow correspond to musical intervals--a theory that, under the influence
of Platonic conceptions, resulted in the famous idea of the "harmony of the
spheres." Though number to the early Pythagoreans was still a kind of
cosmic matter, like the water or air proposed by the Ionians, their stress
upon numerical proportions, harmony, and order comprised a decisive step
toward a metaphysic in which form is the basic reality. See Apopis.
Chaldean is a synonym in the Bible for soothsayers or enchanters who always
used music to deceive people. Judas, for instance, carried the Glosokomon
or the bag for carrying the mouthpieces of wind instruments. It is made up
of "speaking in tongues" and "of the Kosmos."

KOTHAR Also called KHASIS, OR KHAYIN, ancient West Semitic god of crafts,
equivalent of the Greek god Hephaestus. Kothar was responsible for
supplying the gods with weapons and for building and furnishing their
palaces. During the earlier part of the 2nd millennium BC, Kothar's forge
was believed to be on the biblical Caphtor (probably Crete), though later,
during the period of Egyptian domination of Syria and Palestine, he was
identified with the Egyptian god Ptah, patron of craftsmen, and his forge
was thus located at Memphis in Egypt. According to Phoenician tradition,
Kothar was also the patron of magic and inventor of magical incantations;
in addition, he was believed to have been the first poet. SEE Aqhat Epic.

KUR The Underworld. (See Asag). Kur is the name of the area which either
was contained by or contained the Abzu. Enki also struggled with Kur as
mentioned in the opening to "Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Underworld" and
presumably was victorious and thereby able to claim the title "Lord of
Kur" (the realm). Kramer suggests that Kur was a dragon-like creature,
calling to mind Tiamat and Leviathan. The texts suggests that Enki's
struggle may have been with instruments of the land of kur - its stones or
its creatures hurling stones. (See also Apsu and Tiamat.)

LAGASH The city was founded in the prehistoric Ubaid Period (c. 5200-c.
3500 BC) and was still occupied as late as the Parthian era (247 BC-ad
224). In the Early Dynastic Period the rulers of Lagash called themselves
"king" (lugal), though the city itself never was included within the
official Sumerian canon of kingship. Among the most famous Lagash monuments
of that period is the Stele of the Vultures, erected to celebrate the
victory of King Eannatum over the neighbouring state of Umma. Another is
the engraved silver vase of King Entemena, a successor of Eannatum. Control
of Lagash finally fell to Sargon of Akkad (reigned c. 2334-2279 BC), but
about 150 years later Lagash enjoyed a revival.
It prospered most brilliantly under Gudea, who was probably a governor
rather than an independent king and was nominally subject to the Guti, a
warlike people who controlled much of Babylonia from about 2230 to about
2130.
Lagash was endowed with many temples, including the Eninnu, "House of the
Fifty," a seat of the high god Enlil. Architecturally the most remarkable
structure was a weir and regulator, once doubtless possessing sluice gates,
which conserved the area's water supply in reservoirs.

LAHMU AND LAHAMU in Mesopotamian mythology, twin deities, the first gods
to be born from the chaos that was created by the merging of Apsu (the
watery deep beneath the earth) and Tiamat (the personification of the salt
waters); this is described in the Babylonian mythological text Enuma elish
(c. 12th century BC). Mummu is the womb for this "evolution of the gods."
Usually, Lahmu and Lahamu represent silt, but in some texts they seem to
take the form of serpents, and, because the wavy line of a gliding snake is
similar to the ripple of water, some scholars believe that Lahmu and Lahamu
may have been only synonyms of Tiamat. Lahmu and Lahamu were rather vague
deities who do not seem to have played any significant part in subsequent
myths, although they may have been the parents of Anshar and Kishar.

LAMU: He and his wife Lahamu are said to be the silt created by the
junction of the primeval Waters, the rivers and sea. They are the Children
of Apsu and Tiamat. (see Lahamu).

LAHAMU: Wife/sister of Lamu.

LAMASHTU Demoness who steals babies from their mothers. A source for much
of the Hebrew Lilith. (Akkadian), Sumerian Dimme, in Mesopotamian religion,
the most terrible of all female demons, daughter of the sky god Anu
(Sumerian: An). A wicked female who slew children, drank the blood of men,
and ate their flesh, she had seven names and was often described in
incantations as the "seven witches." Lamashtu accomplished a variety of
evil deeds: she disturbed sleep and brought nightmares; she killed foliage
and infested rivers and streams; she bound the muscles of men, caused
pregnant women to miscarry, and brought disease and sickness. Lamashtu was
often portrayed on amulets as a lion- or bird-headed female figure kneeling
on an ass; she held a double-headed serpent in each hand and suckled a dog
at her right breast and a pig or another dog at her left breast.

LARSA One of the ancient capital cities of Babylonia, located about 20
miles (32 km) southeast of Uruk (Erech; Arabic Tall al-Warka'), in southern
Iraq. Larsa was probably founded in prehistoric times, but the most
prosperous period of the city coincided with an independent dynasty
inaugurated by a king named Naplanum (c. 2025-c. 2005 BC).

LEVIATHAN liweyathan (Hebrew) Hebrew LIVYATAN, in Jewish mythology, a
primordial sea serpent. Its source is in prebiblical Mesopotamian myth,
especially that of the sea monster in the Ugaritic myth of Baal (see Yamm).
In the Old Testament, Leviathan appears in Psalms 74:14 as a multiheaded
sea serpent that is killed by God and given as food to the Hebrews in the
wilderness. In Isaiah 27:1, Leviathan is a serpent and a symbol of Israel's
enemies, who will be slain by God. In Job 41, it is a sea monster and a
symbol of God's power of creation.
Foldings, turnings, windings, hence whatever is infolded or wound.
Mystically time as the great serpent of cyclic or circling time, likewise
space and the various phenomena that happen in space such as the turnings
and windings of forces as manifested by electricity in lightning or
thunderbolt. Ancient Hebrew Biblical esotericism made of Leviathan a great
sea monster, with particular reference to the waters of space. In its
exalted sense it means the cycling and everlasting motion of divinity in
duration and in abstract space; its concrete or lowest aspect signifies the
apparently unregulated, winding, turbulent forces of the material worlds --
also inimical forces which seem antagonistic to the spiritual and
intellectual balance of him who strives upwards. One significance was that
of a great serpent or crocodile -- it is sometimes compared to the Hindu
Makara; another is "Deity in its double manifestation of good and evil"
(Theosophy)

LILITH (Hebrew) Isaiah 34:16b Female demon of Jewish folklore; her name
and personality are derived from the class of Mesopotamian demons called
lilû (feminine: lilitu, from layil night ). In rabbinic literature Lilith
is variously depicted as the mother of Adam's demonic offspring following
his separation from Eve or as his first wife, who left him because of their
incompatibility. Three angels tried in vain to force her return; the evil
she threatened, especially against children, was said to be counteracted by
the wearing of an amulet bearing the names of the angels. A cult associated
with Lilith survived among some Jews as late as the 7th century AD. ( In
Isaiah 14:12 Heylel (h1966) hay-lale'; from 1984 (in the sense of
brightness); the morning-star: - lucifer.) Represented by the king of
Babylon and of Tyre called "the harp-playing" prostitute who used musical
priestesses to seduce travelers out of their wealth.
Babylo-Assyrian Lilit or Lilu. In Rabbinical writings Lilith is the first
consort or wife of the mindless Adam, and it was from the snares of Eve-
Lilith that the second Eve, the woman, become his savior.
"The numberless traditions about Satyrs are no fables, but represent an
extinct race of animal men. The animal 'Eves' were their foremothers, and
the human 'Adams' their forefathers; hence the Kabalistic allegory of
Lilith or Lilatu, Adam's first wife, whom the Talmud describes as a
charming woman, with long wavy hair, i.e., -- a female hairy animal of a
character now unknown, still a female animal, who in the Kabalistic and
Talmudic allegories is called the female reflection of Samael, Samael-
Lilith, or man-animal united, a being called Hayoh Bishah, the Beast or
Evil Beast. (Zohar, ii, 255, 259). It is from this unnatural union that the
present apes descended" (Theosophy view)

LUCIFER (Latin) Light-bringer [Hebrew heylel, from halal) the planet
Venus, the morning star. Lucifer is light bringer to earth, not only
physically as the brightest of the planets, but in a mystical sense also.
In mysticism he is the chief of those minor powers or logoi who are said to
rebel against high heaven and to be cast down to the bottomless pit -- the
so-called war in heaven and the fall of the angels.

LUGALBANDA (Mesop. hero) Lugal-gabajal Father of Gilgamesh, king of Uruk,
son of Emerkar, deified hero of several Sumerian stories. Consort of the
goddess Ninsun, native of Kullab. Ancestor of Gilgamesh.
Dumuzi (not Dumuzi the shepherd) was a human offspring as The Wild Bull.
His mother was Ninsum the "Lady Wild Cow." Her husband was Lugalbanda.

MARDUK The son of Ea and Damkina and in Mesopotamian religion, the chief
god of the city of Babylon and the national god of Babylonia; as such he
was eventually called simply Bel, or Lord. Originally he seems to have been
a god of thunderstorms. A poem, known as Enuma elish and dating from the
reign of Nebuchadrezzar I (1124-03 BC), relates Marduk's rise to such
preeminence that he was the god of 50 names, each one that of a deity or of
a divine attribute. After conquering the monster of primeval chaos, Tiamat,
he became "lord of the gods of heaven and earth." All nature, including
man, owed its existence to him; the destiny of kingdoms and subjects was in
his hands.
Marduk's chief temples at Babylon were the Esagila and the Etemenanki, a
ziggurat with a shrine of Marduk on the top. In Esagila the poem Enuma
elish was recited every year at the New Year festival. The goddess named
most often as the consort of Marduk was Zarpanit, or Zarbanit (She of the
City Zarpan). (See Akitu.)

MARTU Of the kings after Shar-kali-sharri (c. 2217-c. 2193), only the
names and a few brief inscriptions have survived. Quarrels arose over the
succession, and the dynasty went under, although modern scholars know as
little about the individual stages of this decline as about the rise of
Akkad. Two factors contributed to its downfall: the invasion of the nomadic
Amurrus (Amorites), called Martu by the Sumerians,
from the northwest, and the infiltration of the Gutians, who came,
apparently, from the region between the Tigris and the Zagros Mountains to
the east

MASHU, Mount See First Adam and Eve for a description of the Supernatural
Mountain and Second Adam and Eve

ME Remember that when Jacob tricked Esau out of his father's blessing Esau
had no tribal authority as first born. The recitation of the words by his
father gave power which we cannot understand. In a similar way, in Sumer,
the ME were words, incantantations or skills such as music or perverted sex
required to pass on the "spirit of" arts and sciences to keep civilization
going. All of these ME were collected in Ekur but then given to Enki to
protect and hand out as "gifts of the spirit." Eridu, where he was
worshipped, was to be the central sanctuary of these gifts. However, Inanna
complained and got Enki drunk and gained 94 of the Me and removes them to
her center at Erich. When Enki sobered up he tried to recover them.

MESLAMTAEA One of the three underwold gods. These are not part of the
Seven Dreaded Anunnaki, as they are children of Enlil and Ninlil. (See
Ninazu). In Mesopotamian religion, city god of Cuthah in Akkad. His temple
in Cuthah was called Emeslam, or Meslam ("Luxuriant Mesu Tree"). His name,
which means "He Who Issues from Meslam," perhaps indicates that he was
originally a tree god, which would agree with his general chthonian, or
underworld, character. He was the son of Enlil (Akkadian: Bel), god of the
atmosphere, and of Ninlil (Belit), goddess of grain, and he appears in
hymns as a warrior similar to the war god Ninurta. Meslamtaea's weapons,
however, sometimes seem to be turned against his own people and their
herds, when he kills them in great plagues. He seems to have been closely
related to or identical with the god Nergal, and, as such, he was ruler of
the netherworld and the spouse of its queen, Ereshkigal; this position,
however, may not have been original with the god. The Assyrians are treated
as fir trees in the garden of Eden whose head reached into the sky.

MESOPOTAMIAN CULT In the cultic practices, humans fulfilled their destiny:
to take care of the gods' material needs. They therefore provided the gods
with houses (the temples) that were richly supplied with lands, which
people cultivated for them. In the temple the god was present in--but not
bounded by--a statue made of precious wood overlaid with gold. For this
statue the temple kitchen staff prepared daily meals from produce grown or
raised on the temple's fields, in its orchards, in its sheepfolds, cattle
pens, and game preserves, brought in by its fishermen, or delivered by
farmers owing it as a temple tax. The statue was also clad in costly
raiment, bathed, and escorted to bed in the bedchamber of the god, often on
top of the temple tower, or ziggurat. To see to all of this the god had
priests trained as cooks, bakers, waiters, and bathers, or as encomiasts
(singers of praise) and musicians to make the god's meals festive, or as
elegists to soothe him in times of stress and grief. Diversions from the
daily routine were the great monthly festivals and also a number of special
occasions.
See the story of David and Saul
Such special occasions might be a sudden need to go through the elaborate
ritual for purifying the king when he was threatened by the evils implied
in an eclipse of the Moon, or in extreme cases there might be a call for
the ritual installation of a substitute king to take upon himself the
dangers threatening, and various other nonperiodic rituals. When Israel
demanded to live like the nations David's counting of the warriors with the
goal of enslaving them in a peace-time army, he had to perform similar
rituals to purify the temple. When the temple became totally polluted with
Assyrian idols and worship Hezekiah had to purify them with animal
sacrifices and musical instruments. As usual, this was not a ritual for the
common citizens.
Partly regular, partly impromptu, were the occasions for audiences with the
god in which the king or other worshipers presented their petitions and
prayers accompanied by appropriate offerings. These were mostly edibles,
but not infrequently the costly containers in which they were presented,
stone vases, golden boat-shaped vessels, etc., testified to the ardour of
the givers. Appropriate gifts other than edibles were also acceptable--
among them cylinder seals for the god's use, superhuman in size, and
weapons for him, such as maceheads, also outsize.

MOABITE-STONE King Omri of Israel (reigned c. 884-c. 872 BC), who is
mentioned in 1 Kings 16:23-28, reconquered Moabite lands that had been lost
since Solomon's death in 922 BC, when Israel split into two kingdoms.
Omri's reconquest is known from the Moabite Stone, a stela that the Moabite
king Mesha erected about 40 years later in the city of Dibon (modern
Dhiban, Jordan).

MUMMU -Tiamat The Sumerian goddess of the primeval ocean also called the
deep and the consort of APSU. Mummu means "mold" or "womb."
APSU needs a vizier named MUMMU as an aid in carrying out his forming
(creating) commands. Thus TIAMAT represents or is the personification of
the deep without the molding life-giving abilities. MUMMU-TIAMAT seems to
be the equivalent of the Canaanite ASHERAH.

MUSARUS See Oannes

MUSHUSSU (Offsite Mushussu) The Snake Dragon "Red/furious snake" A dragon
or monster made of many animals. Symbol of Marduk. Previously read
"sirrus." "Mushussu has been in the mountain for over two millennia, and
perhaps longer. Why he came here is unknown. What is known is that he seeks
to free someone from the 'heart' of the volcano. Mushussu has never shown
the capacity for speaking Greek or any other language known to the
characters, instead speaking an alien language quite outside the
character's experience (ancient Babylonian)."

MUSIC From Greek mousike (techne) the art of the Muses] The music of the
Greeks did not signify merely the harmony of sounds, but actually imbodied
the idea of inner harmony of the spirit, the becoming at one with the
spirit of the Muses, so that the soul responded in harmonic rhythm to the
beat of universal harmony. Music with the Greeks, therefore, included,
besides vocal and instrumental music, choral dancing, rhythmic motions, and
various modes of harmony expressed in action.
Music, in all its various branches is represented as having been taught to
man by his divine and divine-human ancestors, such as Isis-Osiris, Thoth,
Edris (in the Koran), etc. It is one of the elements of the power known as
mantrikasakti. Music was represented as one of four divisions of
mathematics, the others being arithmetic, astronomy, and geometry. The
music of sound arouses in us a power which needs to be controlled, as it
can carry us to heights from which we may fall. If regarded as a sensual
indulgence, even though a refined one, its true import is not realized.

MUSIC OF THE SPHERES Plato declared that rhythmic and melodic complexities
were to be avoided because they led to depression and disorder. Music
echoes divine harmony; rhythm and melody imitate the movements of heavenly
bodies, thus delineating the music of the spheres and reflecting the moral
order of the universe. Earthly music, however, is suspect; Plato distrusted
its emotional power
An extremely archaic teaching repeated by Pythagoras, who travelled in
Babylonia, and therefore in the West commonly associated with his doctrine,
for he taught that the world had been called forth out of Chaos by sound or
harmony, and that the universe is constructed on harmonic proportions. He
further taught that the planets were arranged in relation to each other and
to the Sun in the progression of a musical scale

NABU Hebrew NEBO, major god in the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. He was
patron of the art of writing and a god of vegetation. Nabu's symbols were
the clay tablet and the stylus, the instruments held to be proper to him
who inscribed the fates assigned to men by the gods. In the Old Testament,
the worship of Nebo is denounced by Isaiah (46:1).
Samsuditana, the last king of the 1st dynasty of Babylon (reigned 1625-1595
BC), introduced a statue of Nabu into Esagila, the temple of Marduk, who
was the city god of Babylon. Not until the 1st millennium BC, however, did
the relationship between Marduk and Nabu and their relative positions in
theology and popular devotion become clear. Marduk, the father of Nabu,
took precedence over him, at least theoretically, in Babylonia. But in
popular devotion it was Nabu, the son, who knows all and sees all, who was
chief, especially during the centuries immediately preceding the fall of
Babylon. He had a chapel named Ezida in his father's temple Esagila, where
at the New Year feast he was installed alongside Marduk. In his own holy
city, Borsippa, he was supreme.
Goddesses associated with Nabu were Nana, a Sumerian deity; the Assyrian
Nissaba; and the Akkadian Tashmetum, queen of Borsippa, stepdaughter of
Marduk, and, as her abstract Akkadian name indicates, Lady of Hearing and
of Favour. She was rarely invoked apart from her husband, Nabu, whose name
means "speaking." Thus, while Nabu speaks, Nana listens.

NAMMU Water was so close that the early Babylonians believed that the earth
floated on water. In a process of evolution, Nammu split the earth from the
heavens. The sky was active and destructive and was called An, the sky god.
All life evolves out of the earth and brings forth mountains or Ki. An and
Ki in turn produced Enlil or atmosphere the noisy "child" in between. Enlil
broke the sky and rain fell.
Nammu's sign was usually written with the sign "en-gur;" the same sign used
to denote the abzu: the underground sweet waters which brought life to the
land. It was from her ancient waters that Enlil was said, in some
traditions, to have been brought forth. She was also said to be the mother
of Enki (Ea) (as well as the mother of the 'Great Gods' in general).

NAM-SHUB

NAMTAR (Namtara) When men grew two numerous and too noisy, at first Enlil
had Namtar, the god of death, cause a plague to diminish mankind's numbers,
but the wise Atrahasis, at the advice of Enki, had man concentrate all
worship and offerings on Namtar. Namtar, embarrassed at hurting people who
showed such love and affection for him, stayed his hand.
Namtar was the "decider of fate" vizier(CHIEF MINISTER) of Ereshkigal,
demon god of the underworld. God of the plague and other disease and fear,
in the land of the dead. She could set loose 60 diseases

NANNAR. The Sumerian moon-god of the city of Ur. Also called Sin
(Babylonia) and the son of Ninlil. The moon travels through the sky in a
boat.

NANNA-SIN Nanna-Suen (Sumerian) The god of the moon, and the father of Utu
and Inanna. Nanna: is another name for the moon god Sin, and was located at
Ur.
He is the product of Enlil's rape of Ninlil. Nanna was the tutelary deity
of Ur, appointed as king of that city by An and Enlil. He established Ur-
Nammu as his mortal representative, establishing the third Ur dynasty.
Nanna was married to Ningal and they produced Inanna and Utu. He rests in
the Underworld every month, and there decrees the fate of the dead. He
averts a flood of his city by visiting Enlil in Nippur on a boat loaded
with gifts and pleading with him. He refuses to send aid to Inanna when she
is trapped in the underworld.
A third myth built over the motif of journeying to the netherworld is the
myth of "The Engendering of the Moongod and his Brothers," which tells how
Enlil (Lord Wind), when still a youngster, came upon young Ninlil (goddess
of grain) as she--eager to be with child and disobeying her mother--was
bathing in a canal where he would see her. He lay with her in spite of her
pretending to protest and thus engendered the moon god Suen. For this
offense Enlil was banished from Nippur and took the road to the
netherworld. Ninlil, carrying his child, followed him. On the way Enlil
took the shape first of the Nippur gatekeeper, then of the man of the river
of the netherworld, and lastly of the ferryman of the river of the
netherworld. In each such disguise Enlil persuaded Ninlil to let him lie
with her to engender a son who might take Suen's place in the netherworld
and leave him free for the world above. Thus three further deities, all
underworld figures, were engendered: Meslamtaea (He Who Comes Out of the
Meslam Temple), Ninazu (Water Sprinkler [?]), and Ennugi (the God Who
Returns Not). The myth ends with a paean to Enlil as a source of abundance
and to his divine word, which always comes true.

Nanna-Suen's journey to Nibru

NANSHE Also spelled NANSE, OR NAZI, in Mesopotamian religion, Sumerian
city goddess of Nina (modern Surghul, Iraq) in the southeastern part of the
Lagash region of Mesopotamia. According to tradition, Nanshe's father Enki
(Akkadian: Ea) organized the universe and placed her in charge of fish and
fishing. Nanshe was also described as a divine soothsayer and dream
interpreter. Although at times overshadowed by her sister Inanna (Akkadian:
Ishtar), Nanshe was, nevertheless, important in her own geographic area,
and many rulers of Lagash record that they were chosen by her.

NERGAL (arrow shooting god of II Kings 17:30), fire-god, identified with
Mars or fire-star. a Babylonian god and king of the Underworld "Lord of the
great dwelling." When ejected from heaven he invaded the underworld with
fourteen demons. His wife was Ereshkigal (possibly Gulu). During the great
flood he tore away the mast of the ship in which Utanapishtim (the
Babylonian Noah) escaped and was saved along with his family and specimens
of all manner of animals. Nergal is also the god of plague with Namtar
(evil god, negative aspect of fate, disease bringer), his symbols are a
sword and a lion's head. From the contract tablets found by Rassam at Tel-
Ibrahim it appears that the ancient name of Cuthah was Gudua or Kuta. Itís
ruins were 3,000 feet in circumference and 280 feet high. In it was a
sanctuary dedicated to Ibrahim (Abraham). Both the city and its great
temple, the later dedicated to Nergal, appear to date back to Sumerian
times. Nergal (Heb. nereghal, a Babylonian deity of destruction and
disaster, associated with the planet Mars (god of war and agriculture)
Also pronounced Erakal, "Lord of Erkalla (the great city)" Chief god of the
Underworld, consort of Ereshkigal (and of Mammetum; see Ninhursag).

NIMROD (Hebrew) The traditional founder of the kingdom of Babylon, known
in Babylonia as Izdubar or Gilgamesh. According to the Bible, the son of
Cush; in legend a mighty hunter (Genesis 10:9). The name Nimrod has not
been found prior to the period of the Israelites (500 BC).
The only other references to Nimrod in the Old Testament are Mic. 5:6,
where Assyria is called the land of Nimrod, and I Chron. 1:10. The
beginning of his kingdom is said in Genesis to be Babel, Erech, and Akkad
in the land of Shinar. Nimrod is said to have built Nineveh, Calah (modern
Nimrud), Rehoboth-Ir, and Resen.

NIBRU

NINAZU God of Eshnunna. Temple called E-sikil and E-kurmah. Son of
Ereshkigal, father of Ningishzida. Replaced by Tishpak as patron of
Eshnunna. Babylonian god of magic incantations.
Sumerian deity, the city god of Enegir, which was located on the Euphrates
River between Larsa and Ur in the southern orchard region. Ninazu was also
the city god of Eshnunna (modern Tall al-Asmar in eastern Iraq). Ninazu,
whose name means "water knower," was primarily an underworld deity,
although the exact nature of his character or functions is not clear. In
Enegir he was considered the son of Ereshkigal, goddess of the netherworld;
according to another tradition, however, he was the son of Enlil (Akkadian
Bel) and Ninlil (Belit). His spouse was Ningirda, a daughter of Enki (Ea).

NINGAL Consort of Nanna Sin. She was the mother of Shamash. The third
"song" relates that the goddess Ningal hears the pleas of the people of Ur,
but she is not able to dissuade the gods Anu and Enlil from their decision
to destroy the city, and the remaining "songs" relate the devastating
results of Ur's defeat in battle. The last stanza ends with a plea to
Nanna, the husband of Ningal, that the city may once more rise up and that
the people of Ur may again present their offerings to him.

NINGIRSU (Sumerian), also called NININSINA, Akkadian Gula, or Ninkarrak,
in Mesopotamian religion, city goddess of Urukug in the Lagash region and,
under the name Nininsina, the Queen of Isin, city goddess of Isin, south of
Nippur. Bau seems originally to have been goddess of the dog; as Nininsina
she was long represented with a dog's head, and the dog was her emblem.
Perhaps because the licking of sores by dogs was supposed to have curative
value, she became a goddess of healing. She was a daughter of An, king of
the gods, and the wife of Pabilsag, a rain god who was also called Ninurta,
or Ningirsu.

NINGISHZIDA Sumerian deity, city god of Gishbanda, near Ur in the southern
orchard region. Although Ningishzida was a power of the netherworld, where
he held the office of throne bearer, he seems to have originally been a
tree god, for his name apparently means "Lord Productive Tree." In
particular, he probably was god of the winding tree roots, since he
originally was represented in serpent shape. When pictured in human form,
two serpent heads grow from his shoulders in addition to the human head,
and he rides on a dragon. He was a son of Ninazu and Ningirda and was the
husband of Ninazimua ("Lady Flawlessly Grown Branch").Along with Tammuz, a
guard of the gate to Heaven.

NINHAR Also NINGUBLA, in Mesopotamian religion, Sumerian deity, city god
of Kiabrig, near Ur in the southern herding region. Ninhar was god of the
thunder and rainstorms that made the desert green with pasturage in the
spring; as such he was represented in the form of a roaring bull. He was
the son of Nanna (Akkadian Sin) and Ningal and the husband of Ninigara
("Lady of Butter and Cream"), goddess of the dairy.

NINHURSAG See Ki. Also spelled NINHURSAGA (Sumerian), Akkadian Belit-ili,
in Mesopotamian religion, city goddess of Adab and of Kish in the northern
herding regions; she was the goddess of the stony, rocky ground, the
hursag. In particular, she had the power in the foothills and desert to
produce wildlife. Especially prominent among her offspring were the onagers
(wild asses) of the western desert. As the sorrowing mother animal she
appears in a lament for her son, a young colt, but as goddess of birth she
is not only the goddess of animal birth but the Mother of All Children, a
mother-goddess figure. Her other names include: Dingirmakh ("Exalted
Deity"), Ninmakh ("Exalted Lady"), Aruru ("Dropper," i.e., the one who
"loosens" the scion in birth), and Nintur ("Lady Birth Giver"). Her husband
is the god Shulpae, and among their children were the sons Mululil and
Ashshirgi and the daughter Egime. Mululil seems to have been a dying god,
like Dumuzi, whose death was lamented in yearly rites.
(Mammu, Aruru):"Mountain-lady" also known as Ninmah "supreme lady" Nintu
"birth lady?" Mamma, Mammi, Mammitum "Mommy", Belet-Ili "mistress of the
gods" Aruru (meaning unknown) Epithets: sassuru, "womb-goddess"; tabsut ili
" midwife of the gods"; qurqurrat ili "smelter of the gods" "mother of the
gods" and "mother of all children" Spouse of Shulpae and then of Nergal.
Shrine at Kesh in central Mesopotamia, still not identified. A goddess in
Sumerian and Mesopotamian mythology, the earth-mother. She was the wife of
the water-god Enki.
Also known as Ninmah, she was given the title Ninhursag - "Lady of the
Hursag (The stoney foothills)" by her son Ninurta in the myth Lugal-e. She
was an ancient Sumerian form of the mother-goddess, known as 'mother of the
gods,' and 'mother of all children.' It was
Ninhursag who was said to have been midwife to Nammu at the creation of
man. She represents the innert procreative power of the mother which,
though powerful, requires the union of the male force to be brought to its
full potential. This was not to diminish her role, but simply a recognition
that neither the female nor the male alone was a fully procreative force.
Her major cult center was probably at Kish.

NINIB (Babylonian) A Chaldean deity originally with solar attributes,
especially prominent at Shirgulla, where he was closely associated with Bel
and regarded as his son. In hymns he is described as a healing god who
releases men from illness. But he was also classed as a god of war, and
represented as armed for the chase. The aspect stressed was the sun at the
morning and the springtime season, showering beneficence upon mankind. In
theogony, Ninib was regent of the planet Saturn, and the animal symbol
connected with him was the swine.

NINKASA Beer

NINLIL (Akkadian Belit) Enlil's wife. This Goddess followed Enlil to the
underworld after he had been banished there by the Anunnaki for raping her.
At this point she was pregnant with Nanna (from the rape). In the
underworld she gave birth to the Three Underworld Deities and gave birth to
Nanna after she made it back out.
The Sumerian goddess of sailors. She was seduced by the sky-god Enlil, who
was condemned by the gods for this sin to live in Hades. However, Ninlil
loved him and insisted on following him to the underworld. The gods decided
that she had to postpone her departure until she had given birth because
her child must not be born under the earth, as it was to be Nanna the moon-
god. When Nanna was born and rose into the sky, Ninlil descended to join
her husband and had three more children by him. Ninlil is sometimes
identified with the goddess Ishtar, (Babylonian Mullitu, Mylitta)

NINMAH SEE NINHURSAG

NINSUN Sumerian city goddess of Kullab in the southern herding region. As
Ninsun's name, "Lady Wild Cow," indicates, she was originally represented
in cow form and was considered the divine power behind, as well as the
embodiment of, all the qualities the herdsman wished for in his cows: she
was the "flawless cow" and a "mother of good offspring that loves the
offspring." She was, however, also represented in human form and could give
birth to human offspring. She is also goddess of the city of Uruk, mother
of Gilgamesh.
The Wild Bull Dumuzi (as distinct from Dumuzi the Shepherd) was
traditionally her son, whom she lamented in the yearly ritual marking his
death. In her role as a mother figure, her other Sumerian counterparts
include Ninhursag (Akkadian: Belit-ili) and Ninlil (Belit). Ninsun's
husband was the legendary hero Lugalbanda.

Ninurta was the son of Enlil (Akkadian: Bel) and Ninlil (Belit) and was
married to Bau, in Nippur called Ninnibru, Queen of Nippur. A major
festival of his, the Gudsisu Festival, marked in Nippur the beginning of
the plowing season.
Hero of the Gods. God of the Stormy South Winds. Possible pre-cursur to
Marduk. This god owned a weapon that was alive. This weapon, Sharur, for
some reason, convenced Nunurta to destroy Asag. This he did. However, once
Asag was gone, the Waters rose up and engulfed the Earth. Nothing could
grow. So, Nunurta built a stone wall over Asag's body that stopped and held
back the Waters. Then he took the Waters that had already engulfed the land
and dumped them into the Euphrates. This caused the overflow of the
Euphrates, and the land became abundant
Also called Ningirsu, in Mesopotamian religion, city god of Girsu (Tal'ah,
or Telloh) in the Lagash region. Ninurta was the farmer's version of the
god of the thunder and rainstorms of the spring. He was also the power in
the floods of spring and was god of the plow and of plowing. Ninurta's
earliest name was Imdugud (now also read as Anzu), which means "rain
cloud," and his earliest form was that of the thundercloud envisaged as an
enormous black bird floating on outstretched wings roaring its thunder cry
from a lion's head. With the growing tendency toward anthropomorphism, the
old form and name were gradually disassociated from the god as merely his
emblems; enmity toward the older inacceptable shape eventually made it
evil, an ancient enemy of the god.
Ninurta (Nergal, Orion) in the Epic of Gilgamesh helps to flood the earth
by throwing down the dykes and breaking dams. Here Gula helped breathe life
into mankind. Ninurta and Gulu's wedding feast was celebrated on New Year's
day. The goddess Gulu, (the earth-goddess, mother goddess; also Ninmah,
goddess of the underworld) sits below ground with her dog, where the cosmic
serpent begins to rise. She is the patroness of herbs, healing, life, as
her flowered garment shows. Hands lifted in prayer, she sits with her dog,
defender of homes, while before her a Scorpion Archer mounts guard at the
uttermost bound of the earth (cosmic sea), to defend against demonic powers
and protect the rising and setting sun.

NINUS In Greek mythology, king of Assyria and the eponymous founder of the
city of Nineveh, which itself is sometimes called Ninus. He was said to
have been the son of Belos, or Bel, and to have conquered in 17 years all
of western Asia with the help of Ariaeus, king of Arabia. During the siege
of Bactra he met Semiramis, the wife of one of his officers, Onnes; he then
took her from Onnes and married her. The fruit of the marriage was Ninyas--
i.e., the Ninevite.

NIPPUR In Sumerian mythology Nippur was the home of Enlil, the storm god
and representation of force and the god who carried out the decrees of the
assembly of gods that met at Nippur. Enlil, according to one account,
created man at Nippur. Although a king's armies might subjugate the
country, the transference to that king of Enlil's divine power to rule had
to be sought and sanctioned. The necessity of this confirmation made the
city and Enlil's sanctuary there especially sacred, regardless of which
dynasty ruled Mesopotamia. Ur-Nammu (reigned 2112-2095 Bc), first king of
the 3rd dynasty of Ur, laid out Enlil's sanctuary, the Ekur, in its present
form. A ziggurat and a temple were built in an open courtyard surrounded by
walls.

NUSKU A fire god invoked, with two others, against black magic. God of
light Mesopotamian religion, Sumero-Akkadian god of light and fire. His
father was Sin (Sumerian: Nanna), the moon god. Semitic texts describe
Nusku as the king of the night, who illuminates the darkness and repels the
demons of the dark. On Babylonian boundary stones he is identified by a
lamp. He is visible at the new moon and thus is called its son. The last
day of the month is sacred to him, so that he is a lunar deity. He figures
much in incantations and rituals as the fire. He is Ellil's servant.

OANNES Mesopotamian amphibious being who taught mankind wisdom. Oannes, as
described by the Babylonian priest Berosus, had the form of a fish but with
the head of a man under his fish's head and under his fish's tail the feet
of a man. In the daytime he came up to the seashore of the Persian Gulf and
instructed mankind in writing, the arts, and the sciences. Oannes was
probably the emissary of Ea, god of the freshwater deep and of wisdom.
The 'fish' is an old and very suggestive symbol in the Mystery-language, as
is also 'water.' Ea or Hea was the god of the sea and Wisdom, and the sea
serpent was one of his emblems, his priests being 'serpents' or Initiates.
Thus one sees why Occultism places Oannes and the other Annedoti in the
group of those ancient 'adepts' who were called 'marine' or 'water
dragons' -- Nagas.
The Indian "Naga" is similar to that of many ancient nations. Click for
some pictures and collected quotations.
Serpent worship was and is popular among more primitive people. Click for
an index of articles and pictures.
Berossus describes Oannes as follows: "At Babylon there was (in these
times) a great resort of people of various nations, who inhabited Chaldaea,
and lived in a lawless manner like the beasts of the field. In the first
year there appeared, from that part of the Erythraean sea which borders
upon Babylonia, and animal destitute of reason [sic] by name Oannes, whose
whole body (according to the account of Apollodorus) was that of a fish;
that under the fish's head he had another head, with feet also below,
similar to those of a man, subjoined to the fish's tail. His voice too, and
language, was articulate and human; and a representation of him is
preserved even to this day. (From Ancient Fragments, by Isaac Preston
Cory.)
Apollodorus referred to Oannes and the Annedoti as "Musarus." The word
"musarus" means "an abomination" in Greek just as "annedoti" means "the
repulsive ones." In other words, the creatures credited with founding
civilization were frankly described by the ancient Babylonian people, who
revered them, as "repulsive abominations."
If the tradition had been invented, a more normal attitude would be to
glorify these creatures as splendid gods and heroes. Yet the fact that they
chose to describe their ancestors this way argues for the authenticity of
the account. It was the Babylonian tradition that they owed their knowledge
to creatures who came up from the sea who were disgusting and loathsome to
gaze upon.

PABILSAG God of Larak, a city of importance before the flood. Bau seems
originally to have been goddess of the dog; as Nininsina she was long
represented with a dog's head, and the dog was her emblem. Perhaps because
the licking of sores by dogs was supposed to have curative value, she
became a goddess of healing. She was a daughter of An, king of the gods,
and the wife of Pabilsag, a rain god who was also called Ninurta, or
Ningirsu.

PAPSUKKEL The chief minister of the Sumerian gods of heaven, especially of
Ea, and messenger of the gods.

PHILO

PUKKU AND MIKKU After Gilgamesh made a dangerous journey (Tablets IX and
X) in search of Utnapishtim, the survivor of the Babylonian flood, in order
to learn from him how to escape death. He finally reached Utnapishtim, who
told him the story of the flood and showed him where to find a plant that
would renew youth (Tablet XI). But after Gilgamesh obtained the plant, it
was seized by a serpent, and Gilgamesh unhappily returned to Uruk. An
appendage to the epic, Tablet XII, related the loss of objects called pukku
and mikku (perhaps "drum" and "drumstick") given to Gilgamesh by Ishtar.
The epic ends with the return of the spirit of Enkidu, who promised to
recover the objects and then gave a grim report on the underworld. .

QINGU or Kingu A form of this motif is found in Enuma elish, in which Enki
(Ea) alone fashioned man out of the blood of the slain rebel leader Kingu.
Qingu was Tiamat's chosen battle leader. Holder of the Tablet of Destinies.
She gave him the Tablets of Destiny, and set him as the leader of the
"demonic" army of ugly monsters she had created for the purpose of
attacking Ea and the other younger gods to avenge the death of Apsu. After
Marduk won the battle, he enslaved the rebel gods for a time, until he
finally took pity on their cries of burden. He asked them who their leader
had been, so that he might suffer in their place. The gods readily handed
Kingu over to Marduk. Kingu was slain, and his blood was used by Enki (Ea)
to make man. Man was then used to work so that the the gods were set free.
The tablets were laws or words of Anu. When the law is willed the real
world was affected.

RIMMON "Earth-shaker," fierce, severe, name of Adad. See Hadad Above
(Zechariah 12:11)

RESHEP Syrian War-god, with the head of a gazelle. (from Hebrew reshef,
"the burner," or "the ravager"), ancient West Semitic god of the plague and
of the underworld, the companion of Anath, and the equivalent of the
Babylonian god Nergal. He was also a war god and was thus represented as a
bearded man, brandishing an ax, holding a shield, and wearing a tall,
pointed headdress with a goat's or gazelle's head on his forehead. Resheph
was worshiped especially at Ras Shamra, Byblos, and Arsuf (later Apollonia,
near modern Tel Aviv-Yafo). Under the title Mikal (or Mekal), he was also
worshiped at Beth-shean in eastern Palestine and at Ialium in Cyprus.
Resheph was usually believed to be related to Mot, the god of sterility and
death, but he also seems to have been a god of well-being, plenty, and
fertility, and in that respect he may have been a form of the god Baal.

SABBATH

SAMMU-RAMAT Greek SEMIRAMIS, Assyrian queen who became a legendary
heroine.
Sammu-ramat was the mother of the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III (reigned
810-783 BC). Her stela (memorial stone shaft) has been found at Ashur,
while an inscription at Calah (Nimrud) shows her to have been dominant
there after the death of her husband, Shamshi-Adad V (823-811 BC). Sammu-
ramat was mentioned by Herodotus, and the later historian Diodorus Siculus
elaborated a whole legend about her. According to him, she was born of a
goddess, and, after being married to an Assyrian officer, she captivated
the king Ninus by her beauty and valour and became his wife. Soon
afterward, when Ninus died, Sammu-ramat assumed power and reigned for many
years. In that time she built Babylon and turned to the conquest of distant
lands.

SARPANITUM: Marduk's consort.

SARGON 23rd century BC byname SARGON OF AKKAD (Agade), ancient
Mesopotamian ruler (reigned c. 2334-2279 BC), one of the earliest of the
world's great empire builders, conquering all of southern Mesopotamia as
well as parts of Syria, Anatolia, and Elam (western Iran). He established
the region's first Semitic dynasty and was considered the founder of the
Mesopotamian military tradition.

SERPENT The mythological predecessor of the Serpent is the Sumerian god
Enki, "Lord Earth," the Babylonian Ea, the god who rules the Earth and with
it the lives of all creatures. The ancient Semites associated the serpent
with the Moon-god, perhaps for its power to rejuvenate itself.
One of the most fundamental and prolific symbols of the mystery-language.
Its most basic meaning is of the eternal, alternating, cyclic motion during
cosmic manifestation. For motion, which to the physicist and the
philosopher alike seems an abstraction, is for the ancient wisdom a
primordial principle or axiom, of the same order as space and time,
existing per se. Never does motion cease utterly even during kosmic
pralaya. And motion is essentially circular: where physics would derive
circular motion from a composition of rectilinear motions, the opposite
procedure would be that of the ancient wisdom. This circular motion,
compounding itself into spirals, helixes, and vortices, is the builder of
worlds, bringing together the scattered elements of chaos; motion per se is
essential cosmic intelligence. This circular motion, returning upon itself
like a serpent swallowing its tail, represents the cycles of time. This
conscious energy in spirals whirls through all the planes of cosmos as
fohat and his innumerable sons -- the cosmic energies and forces,
fundamentally intelligent, operating in every scale or grade of matter. The
caduceus of Hermes, twin serpents wound about a staff, represents
cosmically the mighty drama of evolution, in its twin aspects, the staff or
tree standing for the structural aspect, the serpent for the fohatic forces
that animate the structure. (vortex)
The serpent is characteristically a dual symbol. In the beginnings of
creation two poles were emanated, spirit and matter; and forthwith began
interaction between the downward forces of the one and the upward forces of
the other. Hermes, Mercury, intelligence, may represent a sage or a thief;
the serpentine wisdom may work in every plane of materiality. The perverse
will of man may turn natural forces to evil purposes, and thus we speak of
the good serpent and the bad, of Agathodaemon and Kakodaemon, of Ophis and
Ophiomorphos. A serpent can be a sage or a sorcerer.
The dragon is the eternally vigilant one, guardian of the sacred treasures;
but he is the ruthless destroyer of him who attempts to gain by force the
riches to which he has not won a title. To gain knowledge, we must know how
to tame the serpent which rules the nether worlds, as the Christ refuses to
make obeisance to Satan.
The seven sacred planets, or again the seven human principles, form a
serpent, often collocated with the sun and moon as making a triad. One form
of this spiraling conscious energy, when manifesting in man, is kundalini-
sakti, the serpentine power, which in the ordinary person today lies
relatively sleeping and performing merely automatic vital functions; but
when aroused can ether waft to sublime heights of vision and power or blast
like a lightning-stroke.
The power which a serpent has of casting its old skin is analogous to what
the earth does at the commencement of each round, and to the clothing of
the human jiva with a new body when it enters the womb. Again, the astral
light is called a serpent; its lowest strata are dangerous and deceptive,
while it extends through all planes up to the highest akasa, the vehicle of
divine wisdom.
See Oannes for some links

SHAMASH (Akkadian), Sumerian (Utu) Hebrew Shemesh, in Mesopotamian
religion, the god of the sun, who, with the moon god, Sin (Sumerian:
Nanna), and Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna), the goddess of Venus, was part of an
astral triad of divinities.
Shamash was the son of Sin and Ningal. The sun and moon were part of the
seven "planets" or roving stars which were personified and diefied.
The wandering planets of Enoch
As a the solar deity Sin exercised the power of light over darkness and
evil. In this capacity he became known as the god of justice and equity and
was the judge of both gods and men. (According to legend, the Babylonian
king Hammurabi received his code of laws from Shamash.) At night, Shamash
became judge of the underworld.
He was not only the god of justice but also governor of the whole universe;
in this aspect he was pictured seated on a throne, holding in his hand the
symbols of justice and righteousness, a staff and a ring. Also associated
with Shamash is the notched dagger. The god is often pictured with a disk
that symbolized the Sun.

Shulgi, the son of Ur-Nammu, the founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur, is one
of the more renowned kings of Sumer, whose reign endured for almost half a
century. He was military commander, temple builder, patron of the arts and
athlete
Shulgi, too, called himself king of the four quarters of the earth.
Although he resided in Ur, another important centre was in Nippur, whence--
according to the prevailing ideology-- Enlil, the chief god in the Sumerian
state pantheon, had bestowed on Shulgi the royal dignity. Shulgi and his
successors enjoyed divine honours, as Naram-Sin of Akkad had before them;
by now, however, the process of deification had taken on clearer outlines
in that sacrifices were offered and chapels built to the king and his
throne, while the royal determinative turned up in personal names. Along
with an Utu-hegal ("The Sun God Is Exuberance") there appears a Shulgi-
hegal ("Shulgi Is Exuberance"),

SHULPAE Major Sumerian god with demonic and many other powers. Consort of
Ninhursag. Identified with planet Jupiter. Husband of Ninhursag, and among
their children were the sons Mululil and Ashshirgi and the daughter Egime.
Mululil seems to have been a dying god, like Dumuzi, whose death was
lamented in yearly rites.

Shuruppak was celebrated in Sumerian legend as the place of the flood,
which destroyed all humanity except one survivor, Ziusudra. He had been
commanded by a protecting god to build an ark, in which he rode out the
disaster, afterward re-creating man and living things upon the earth, and
was himself endowed with eternal life. Ziusudra corresponds with
Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh epic and with the biblical Noah.

SIDURI In the Gilgamesh epic, the aging folk hero, haunted by the prospect
of his own death, sets off to visit Utnapishtim, who, with his wife, was
the only mortal to have achieved immortality. He meets Siduri, the wine
maiden, who exhorts him to make the most of the present for "the life which
thou seekest thou wilt not find." There was no judgment after death, a
common fate awaiting the good and the bad alike. Death was conceived of in
terms of appalling grimness, unrelieved by any hope of salvation through
human effort or divine compassion. The dead were, in fact, among the most
dreaded beings in early Mesopotamian demonology. In a myth called "The
Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld," the fertility goddess decides to
visit kur-nu-gi-a ("the land of no return"), where the dead "live in
darkness, eat clay, and are clothed like birds with wings." She threatens
the doorkeeper: "If thou openest not that I may enter I will smash the
doorpost and unhinge the gate. I will lead up the dead, that they may eat
the living." Given this background, it is not surprising that offerings to
the dead were made in a spirit of fear; if not propitiated they would
return and cause all kinds of damage.

SIN Moon God. Born of Enlil and Ninlil. S=Nanna. (Akkadian), Sumerian
Nanna, in Mesopotamian religion, the god of the moon. Sin was the father of
the sun god, Shamash (Sumerian: Utu), and, in some myths, of Ishtar
(Sumerian: Inanna), goddess of Venus, and with them formed an astral triad
of deities.
(The city of Ur, of the same region, was the chief centre of the worship of
Nanna.) The crescent, Nanna's emblem, was sometimes represented by the
horns of a great bull. Nanna bestowed fertility and prosperity on the
cowherds, governing the rise of the waters, the growth of reeds, the
increase of the herd, and therefore the quantity of dairy products
produced. His consort, Ningal, was a reed goddess. Each spring, Nanna's
worshipers reenacted his mythological visit to his father, Enlil, at Nippur
with a ritual journey, carrying with them the first dairy products of the
year. Gradually Nanna became more human: from being depicted as a bull or
boat, because of his crescent emblem, he came to be represented as a
cowherd or boatman.

SINUHE Middle Kingdom Egyptian official of the 12th dynasty (1938-1756 BC)
who fled Egypt to settle in Syria. His biography yields information about
political and social conditions of the time.
Sinuhe was an official of the harem maintained for Amenemhet I by his
queen. While on an expedition to Libya he learned of the king's
assassination (1908 BC) and fled, either from fright or because of his
complicity. He intended to travel southward but was blown to the north
while crossing the Nile, and he passed into Palestine. After much wandering
in Palestine and Lebanon, he was invited to settle with a chieftain of
southern Syria, who adopted him and married him to his eldest daughter. In
that land Sinuhe raised a family and became a veritable patriarch. He
defended his father-in-law's territory and entertained emissaries traveling
to and from Egypt.
The pharaoh Sesostris I invited Sinuhe to return to Egypt, and Sinuhe
eagerly accepted. The king forgave him his real or imagined crimes and
welcomed him with rich gifts; thereafter Sinuhe remarried in his homeland,
while the pharaoh ordered a fine tomb built for him.

SIPPAR

TAMMUZ () get bible ezekiel 8:14 Akkadian Dumuzi, god of fertility
embodying the powers for new life in nature in the spring. The name Tammuz
seems to have been derived from the Akkadian form Tammuzi, based on early
Sumerian Damuzid, The Flawless Young. The later standard Sumerian form,
Dumu-zid, in turn became Dumuzi in Akkadian. The earliest known mention of
Tammuz is in texts dating to the early part of the Early Dynastic III
period (c. 2600-c. 2334 BC), but his cult probably was much older.
As shown by his most common epithet Sipad (Shepherd), Tammuz was
essentially a pastoral deity. His father Enki is rarely mentioned, and his
mother, the goddess Duttur, was a personification of the ewe. His own name,
Dumu-zid, and two variant designations for him, Ama-ga (Mother Milk) and U-
lu-lu (Multiplier of Pasture), suggest that he actually was the power for
everything that a shepherd might wish for: grass to come up in the desert,
healthy lambs to be born, and milk to be plentiful in the mother animals.
The cult of Tammuz centred around two yearly festivals, one celebrating his
marriage to the goddess Inanna, the other lamenting his death at the hands
of demons from the netherworld. During the 3rd dynasty of Ur (c. 2112-c.
2004 BC) in the city of Umma (modern Tell Jokha), the marriage of the god
was dramatically celebrated in February-March, Umma's Month of the Festival
of Tammuz. During the Isin-Larsa period (c. 2004-c. 1792 BC), the texts
relate that in the marriage rite the king actually took on the identity of
the god and thus, by consummating the marriage with a priestess incarnating
the goddess, magically fertilized and fecundated all of nature for the
year.
Among the texts dealing with the god is "Dumuzi's Dream," a myth telling
how Tammuz had a dream presaging his death and how the dream came true in
spite of all his efforts to escape. A closely similar tale forms the second
half of the Sumerian myth "The Descent of Inanna," in which Inanna
(Akkadian Ishtar) sends Tammuz as her substitute to the netherworld. His
sister, Geshtinanna, eventually finds him, and the myth ends with Inanna
decreeing that Tammuz and his sister may alternate in the netherworld, each
spending half of the year

TAMMUZ Tamaz (Dumuzi) [täŽmuz] The Jews took over the name of the deity
and in the Old Testament we find: "Behold there sat women weeping for
Tammuz" (Ezek 8:14) -- in Hebrew tammuz. "The women of Israel held annual
lamentations over Adonis (that beautiful youth being identical with
Tammuz).
The feast held in his honour was solstitial, and began with the new moon,
in the month of Tammuz (July), taking place chiefly at Byblos in Phoenicia;
but it was also celebrated as late as the fourth century of our era at
Bethlehem, . . . Indeed, in the Mysteries of Tammuz or Adonis a whole week
was spent in lamentations and mourning. The funereal processions were
succeeded by a fast, and later by rejoicings; for after the fast Adoni-
Tammuz was regarded as raised from the dead, and wild orgies of joy, of
eating and drinking, as now in Easter week, went on uninterruptedly for
several days"
All the great ancient initiations comprised a purification or preparation
(katharsis) (BM), a trance followed by a dying, and a later resurrection of
the initiant or neophyte as a fully born initiate, adept, or new man.

THE CULT OF TAMMUZ Centred around two yearly festivals, one celebrating
his marriage to the goddess Inanna, the other lamenting his death at the
hands of demons from the netherworld. During the 3rd dynasty of Ur (c.
2112-c. 2004 BC) in the city of Umma (modern Tell Jokha), the marriage of
the god was dramatically celebrated in February-March, Umma's Month of the
Festival of Tammuz.
Modern, musical rituals to move the "worshippers into the presence of the
gods" have their bitter roots in ancient pagan rituals. For instance, when
the king was married he took on the identity of the god. When the marriage
was consumated with a priestesses who was a goddess-incarnate, the entire
kingdom was impregnated with fertility for the year.
This ritual was celebrated by the women in the Jerusalem while the males
held their early sun-rise ceremonies bowing to the east. (Ezekiel 8)

TIAMAT (also pronounced Tiwawat and Tamtu, probably pronounced Tethys in
Ionian Greek; also known as Ayabba chiefly in West Semitic.): "Sea", salt
water personified as a primeval goddess. Mother of the first generation of
gods in the Enuma. Spouse of Absu. Epitomizes chaos. She is the mother of
Lahmu, Lahamu, Anshar, and Kish.
This is the main goddess of the Primordial Waters, the origonal holder of
the Tablets of Destiny, and she symbolised the Salt waters of the Persian
Gulf. She was defeated by Marduk. Note: Tiamat, as a god-form, does still
exist. She can be likened to the Abyss itself (like Asag of Summeria).
She is the universe's wish to return to Chaos Tismat (Chaldean) Chaldean
serpent, slain by Bel, the chief deity. The tale is repeated in the later
Babylonian account, with the exception that Marduk or Merodach (producer of
the world) replaces Bel. The mythologic serpent, described as the
imbodiment of evil both physical and moral, was enormous (300 miles long),
it moved in undulations 6 miles in height. When Marduk finally slew Tiamat
he split the monster into two halves, using one as a covering of the
heavens, so that the upper waters would not come down. Tiamat is cognate
with the Babylonian tiamtu, tamtu, "the ocean," rendered Thalatth by
Berosus in his Chaldean cosmogony. There is here likewise the reference to
the waters of wisdom, the divine wisdom and the lower wisdom of
manifestation. Marduk then took Qingu, Tiamat's commander, spilled his
blood and made mankind

TOBIT

TOWER OF BABEL (babel, gate of God), In biblical literature, structure
built in the land of Shinar (Babylonia) some time after the Deluge. The
story of its construction, given in Genesis 11:1-9, appears to be an
attempt to explain the existence of diverse human languages. According to
Genesis, the Babylonians wanted to make a name for themselves by building a
mighty city and a tower "with its top in the heavens." God disrupted the
work by so confusing the language of the workers that they could no longer
understand one another. The city was never completed, and the people were
dispersed over the face of the earth. In Babylonianit was called Bab-ilu
("Gate of God"), Hebrew form Babel, or Bavel. The similarity in
pronunciation of Babel and balal ("to confuse") led to the play on words in
Genesis 11:9: "Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord
confused the language of all the earth."

UMMANU The Seven Sages, who wrote the great epic poems such as those of
Erra and Gilgamesh. "Ammenon, another of the forms into which Enmenluanna
was corrupted, is in Akkadian ummanu, 'artificer,' 'artisan,' which, when
translated into Hebrew, becomes Kenan and in an abbreviated form, Cain."
(George Barton). In the Apocalyptic literature Jubal, Jabal, Tubal-Cain and
Naamah are all summed up under the name Genun.
Pilikam, the next name, means in Sumerian "with intelligence to build." In
Babylonian Semitic it would be literally Ina-uzni-eresu, or, rendered in
one word, ummanu, "artificer." The Hebrew translation of this is Kenan,
which means "artificer." Melamkish gives us the Hebrew Lamech by the simple
elision of the first and last consonants. Langdon makes the suggestion that
Lamech is the Sumerian, LUMHA, an epithet of the Babylonian god Ea as the
patron of music. (Barton, George, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 323)
No. 4 on the list, Ammenon is the Babylonian Ummanu, meaning "artificer,"
and is the equivalent of Kenan (Cainan) which means "smith." Constance
[Genun is "Jubal" in the musical sense and Kenan in the "smith" sense]

UNDERWORLD Known as "The Earth, Ersetum (Hebrew Erech) The Stronghold
Daninna Arali Kutha (city where Nergal was patron god) Meslam (Nergal's
temple in Kutha) The Lower Regions saplatu The Great Place kigallu, gingal
The Land of No Return Kurnugi The Great City Erkalla Great gate called
Ganzir, palace Egalgina. Ruled by Ereshkigal and by Nergal. recorder:
Belet-Seri. Judges: The Anunnaki gods, and Gilgamesh.
Literally, the ritual celebrants went through the gates of the seven
temples of Ishtar. In myth, Ishtar went through seven gates at which she
had to leave off some item of worth. By the time she arrived she was naked.
In order to return after being resurrected, she passed through the seven
gates and picked up her property.

Unug?

UR City port on the Euphrates near the Arabian gulf. Patron god: Sin.
Temple E-kishnugal, holy sea of the royal Entu-priestess. Ur 'ur
(Chaldean?) Light, city of light; a town famous in ancient times as one of
the chief seats of lunar worship in Babylonia, being an important center of
the worship of the masculine god of the moon. It was commonly called among
the Chaldeans 'ur khasdim (Ur of the Chaldeans). See Lucifer
The meaning of city of light is not merely that it was a town which revered
the light of the moon, but refers to ceremonials of occult instruction and
initiation which evidently were conducted in this ancient place. Ur is
supposed to be the capital of the Sumerian civilization, situated on the
south bank of the Euphrates near the Persian Gulf. More than 5,000 years
ago it had reached a highly advanced cultural and commercial prominence.

UTU-HEGAL, Utu-Hegal (Utu-khegal) The 3rd dynasty of Ur: Utu-hegal of Uruk
is given credit for having overthrown Gutian rule by vanquishing their king
Tiriqan along with two generals. Utu-hegal calls himself lord of the four
quarters of the earth in an inscription, but this title, adopted from
Akkad, is more likely to signify political aspiration than actual rule.
Utu-hegal was a brother of the Ur-Nammu who founded the 3rd dynasty of Ur
("3rd" because it is the third time that Ur is listed in the Sumerian king
list). Under Ur-Nammu and his successors Shulgi, Amar-Su'ena, Shu-Sin, and
Ibbi-Sin, this dynasty lasted for a century (c. 2112-c. 2004). Ur-Nammu was
at first "governor" of the city of Ur under Utu-hegal.

UR-NAMMU [ur-nämŽOO] From Infoplease 2060 B.C., king of the ancient city of
Ur, sometimes called Zur-Nammu or Ur-Engur. He founded a new Sumerian
dynasty, the third dynasty of Ur, that lasted a century. Ur-Nammu was the
promulgator of the oldest code of law yet known, older by about three
centuries than the code of Hammurabi. It consists of a prologue and seven
laws; the prologue describes Ur-Nammu as a divinely appointed king who
established justice throughout the land. This code is of great importance
to the study of biblical law, which it predates by about five centuries.
The two most famous monuments of Ur-Nammu's reign are the great ziggurat
(temple) at Ur and his stele, of which fragments remain.

URUK

UTNAPISHTIM The Babylonian Noah, the name means "he found life" i.e.
became immortal. He is the hero of the great flood in the epic of
Gilgamesh. He was the son of Ubaratutu of Shuruppak. He was warned by Ea to
build a boat to escape the flood. He saved his wealth as well as his
animals. Ea advised Enlil that he could control the population better with
wild animals, famine and plages. As a result, Enlil makes Utnapishtim
immortal.
In the ancient Middle Eastern worldview, gods could become mortal, and men
could become gods. Utnapishtim, the hero of the Babylonian Flood story, was
deified together with his wife by the fiat of the great god Enlil:
"Hitherto Utnapishtim has been but human; henceforth Utnapishtim and his
wife shall be like us gods" (Gilgamesh epic). In the Hebrew Bible, God so
loved Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) that he carried them
to heaven as immortals.

UTTU Sumerian goddess of the earth and plants, daughter of Enki, and
Ninkurra. Enki wanted to marry her, and Uttu demanded a present of
cucumbers, apples and grapes. Enki created the desired fruits, then ate
them, as he was a god of both creation and destruction.

UTU see Shamash The Sumerian sun-god, created by Enlil and Ninlil. Nergal
was the underworld personification of the sun-god Utu, more specifically
relating to the dark winter months when the sun was thought to have
descended to the great below. As a result, Nergal represented the more
negative aspects of the solar deity: pestilence, famine, disease. These
traits gave rise to an outwardly marshal character: a warrior god whose
wrath at time appears indiscriminate (see, for example "Erra and Ishum").
Born of Enlil and Ninlil, he was usually regarded as the husband of the
underworld goddess Ereskigal Among his symbology is the scimitar, and the
single or double-headed lion-sceptre. His main cult center was the temple
Utu was the Sumerian sun-god, who rose each morning from the 'interior of
heaven,' and crossed the sky before finally reentering through the bolts in
the west. He represents the brilliant light of the sun, which returns each
day to illuminate the life of mankind, as well as giving beneficial warmth,
allowing the growth of plant and animal life. He was regarded as a god of
truth, justice, and right. Together with the storm-god Adad, he was often
invoked in extispacy rituals. He was the son of Nanna, the moon-god, and
twin brother of the goddess Inanna. His main cult center was at Larsa, in
temple E-Babbar (White House). His symbol was the pruning-saw.
Remember that Inanna got Enki drunk and took the MES which included the
secret uses of music. From her Utu got the secret and became the "the god
of music and song" and the inventor of the flute and the lyre.

UTU-HEGAL, Utu-Hegal (Utu-khegal) The 3rd dynasty of Ur: Utu-hegal of Uruk
is given credit for having overthrown Gutian rule by vanquishing their king
Tiriqan along with two generals. Utu-hegal calls himself lord of the four
quarters of the earth in an inscription, but this title, adopted from
Akkad, is more likely to signify political aspiration than actual rule.
Utu-hegal was a brother of the Ur-Nammu who founded the 3rd dynasty of Ur
("3rd" because it is the third time that Ur is listed in the Sumerian king
list). Under Ur-Nammu and his successors Shulgi, Amar-Su'ena, Shu-Sin, and
Ibbi-Sin, this dynasty lasted for a century (c. 2112-c. 2004). Ur-Nammu was
at first "governor" of the city of Ur under Utu-hegal.

UTU-HEJAL Utu-hegal of Uruk is given credit for having overthrown Gutian
rule by vanquishing their king Tiriqan along with two generals. Utu-hegal
calls himself lord of the four quarters of the earth in an inscription, but
this title, adopted from Akkad, is more likely to signify political
aspiration than actual rule. Utu-hegal was a brother of the Ur-Nammu

UTU-HEGAL, Utu-Hegal (Utu-khegal) The 3rd dynasty of Ur: Utu-hegal of Uruk
is given credit for having overthrown Gutian rule by vanquishing their king
Tiriqan along with two generals. Utu-hegal calls himself lord of the four
quarters of the earth in an inscription, but this title, adopted from
Akkad, is more likely to signify political aspiration than actual rule.
Utu-hegal was a brother of the Ur-Nammu who founded the 3rd dynasty of Ur
("3rd" because it is the third time that Ur is listed in the Sumerian king
list). Under Ur-Nammu and his successors Shulgi, Amar-Su'ena, Shu-Sin, and
Ibbi-Sin, this dynasty lasted for a century (c. 2112-c. 2004). Ur-Nammu was
at first "governor" of the city of Ur under Utu-hegal.

YAH Yaho 'yahu, yeho (Hebrew) Yah is an abbreviation of Jehovah, but
equally well Jehovah could be said to be merely an enlargement of the
original form Yah. The Zohar says that the 'Elohim used this word to form
the world.
"To screen the real mystery name of ain-soph -- the Boundless and Endless
No-Thing -- the Kabalists have brought forward the compound attribute-
appellation of one of the personal creative Elohim, whose name was Yah and
Jah, the letters i or j or y being interchangeable, or Jah-Hovah, i.e.,
male and female; Jah-Eve an hermaphrodite, or the first form of humanity,
the original Adam of Earth, not even Adam-Kadmon, whose 'mind-born son' is
the earthly Jah-Hovah, mystically. And knowing this, the crafty Rabbin-
Kabalist has made of it a name so secret, that he could not divulge it
later on without exposing the whole scheme; and thus he was obliged to make
it sacred" (Theosophy on the Ancient Near East)

ZARPANIT Marduk's chief temples at Babylon were the Esagila and the
Etemenanki, a ziggurat with a shrine of Marduk on the top. In Esagila the
poem Enuma elish was recited every year at the New Year festival. The
goddess named most often as the consort of Marduk was Zarpanit, or Zarbanit
(She of the City Zarpan). (See Akitu.)


ZISUTRA Sumerian Priest-King of the great flood. See Atrahasis.

ZIUSUDRA (Sumerian) Role in eridue Genesis Shuruppak was celebrated in
Sumerian legend as the scene of the Deluge, which destroyed all humanity
except one survivor, Ziusudra. He had been commanded by a protecting god to
build an ark, in which he rode out the disaster, afterward re-creating man
and living things upon the earth, and was himself endowed with eternal
life. Ziusudra corresponds with Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh epic and with
the biblical Noah.

ZU (Imdugud) This is probably the earliest dragon legend - from about 7000
years ago. In Babylonian mythology, a bird-god who was an enemy of the
gods. One day Zu stole the tablets of destiny. The gods were dismayed
because no one was prepared to recover these vital records of the future.
Finally, King Lugalbanda, father of Gilgamesh, as able to retrieve the
tablets after slaying Zu. In Assyrian myths it is Marduk who crushed Zu's
skull. In another myth it seems that it was Ninurta who overcame Zu.
Perhaps Zu was the ancestral bull.

As you can see, this is a small regional list.

Post by Aerion E.
Then the evidence needs

Post by walksalone
examined. Your claim indicated that you believe in Na'pi. Who is
the creator, just not a god.

Atheism, by it's very nature is a position not supported by facts.

All it is is a lack of belief in any god. Just as you are atheist to
venus.

Post by Aerion E.
Furthermore, it is not inactive, they try to dictate through courts

That's not atheism. That is individuals, that may or may not be atheist,
or organizations with the same characteristics that are defending the
constitution from xians. Xians play by the same rules everyone else plays
by, they don't have the problem.

Post by Aerion E.
of law the dis-establishment of religious symbols, values, morals etc.
With nothing.

Inasmuch as morals are a societal item, which ones are those. That I can't
force you to not buy grocery's on a sunday. How about no beer/alcoholic
beverages on a sunday. The blue laws are still on the books. But there is
no law in the US that says xianity must be given special treatment. &
yes,. that is in spite of xians voiced opinions.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
It also indicates you believe in that world renown creator, Bumba.
After all, you have yet to show neither one exists. Side note,
should a god exist, there is no reason to assume that other gods
don't exist.

Here again staying power.

The only power xianity has is by coercion & propaganda.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if
it were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't
have that also presume it is.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god
as there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith,

Which means it should be kept in your pants in mixed or polite company.

I subscribe to alt.talk creationism. The question is how do you come
into the discussion? Are you crossposting?

No, I am not cross posting. I am responding to an intruder that is cross
posting. As I said, I subscribe to only two groups. Only one is in the
newsgroups line in the headers. If you don't want to see anymore
disagreements with your corrupted world view, remove the alt.atheism from
your newsgroups line. & learn to pay attention to that line in the future.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
not evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's
your view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours?
I've pointed out several times, that you are entitled to _your_
belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Special pleading anyone? Not every one accepts your standard of
reasoning or evidence. Most I know here have higher & more rigid
standards.

If you don't have proof, whether you like it or not, all you have is
belief!

Nope, atheism, as you should know, is no more than the concept of no gods.
It is inactive till someone tries to drop a load on the new carpet by
pretending their gods are real. Until then, it is a nonevent. So you see,
you have shown atheists to be superior to you in at least one aspect. &
that's not counting knowledge of the xian myth. We don't waste skull sweat
on claims that are less real than Alice In Wonderland.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a

Appeal to numbers as well as unfounded authority. You seem to
believe that just because a majority think that the Lower Slobovia
Jock Straps are the worlds best girl's Crazy Eight playing team,
everyone else believes that to be true. I don't.

Post by Aerion E.
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,

Nope, though there are anti-atheists in this world. You see, it
matters not to me what magic tooth fairy that you call yours.

I have been the tooth fairy to mine, so I have proof there is no other

IOW, you usurped the rights & duty's of a deity. I'm not sure how the
tooth fairy & the God of Hangovers are going to take to that. OK, so she
is a hired hand, but she does work for the real tooth fairy. Sir Pratchet
said so. In print.

Post by Aerion E.
real tooth proof. IOW only my dime ever is found under the pillow of
my kids. :)

So you believe, but to use your logic, you have no concrete evidence. She,
who is never to be named, could substitute one of her dimes for yours, &
let you take the tooth. With goddesses & gods, there are no rules.

Post by Aerion E.
That is, until you

Post by walksalone
try to make it mandatory on every one, included in public law, or
imposed on others in any way, shape or form. IO spent twenty years
defending the US Constitution. That means for twenty years I also
defended your right to believe in any magic fairy you want, not have
to. I could care less. AAMOF< I've a small library where religious
types have a chance of obtaining writings that support their view.
Hell, I've even got the Encyclopedia of Apologetics, & I've read it.

Good. If the overwhelming majority want a U.S. Flag on millitary
cemetery and a small minority don't because they are offended, who
should have the right upheld. Replace the flag with a cross.

Your arrogance is noted. The thing with national cemetery's is, they are
to honor all the dead. Not just the majority. If you want a picture of
minerva on a headstone, it would be a right you have earned. You don't
like it, in this case, go suck an egg & may they decide to tell the truth
about xianity when you die. & replace the cross with a portrait of Alfred
E. Neuman. With his motto. At least yours would stand out & you would be
getting the attention you crave.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
are the minority, as such you are the outside.

That's a bit arrogant. Xianity, including Catholics, are the
majority. Excluding Catholics, last I read, are number three. Now
considering they follow revealed gods, I can stand to be in the group
that thinks. Even if it is a minority.

">
Your "non-thinking" people don't build skyscrapers, rockets to the

As usual, you are long on assertions, implied & otherwise. In this case,
that you know & can show that no atheist did any of the above, or
following. It takes but one example, famous or otherwise, to put that lie
to rest.

Post by Aerion E.
moon, write books design build computers or design ships etc. These
are the thinking people most of whom are religious. What have your

Indeed, when a society has been as indoctrinated by a myth as this one, the
majority of that generation will be religious. But you said most, does
that mean you admit atheists could have been involved. BTW, Isaac Asminov
shows there is no heaven of hell. He never wrote a book on either one.
But he did write books on the Hebrew Bible & Greek Testament.

Post by Aerion E.
thinking people contributed to society that wasn't determent and
destructive? I can name a few, destruction of morality which brings
illegimate offspring, wellfare, murders, cheating, hatred etc.

You just described the general population of the bible belt. IIRC,
Mississippi has the highest rate of teen pregnancy, & yet they are one of
the most fanatical xian populated states. As to ethics, societal more,
etc. Individuals that must have your myth to be decent I want to have
keep that belief. Otherwise the violent crime rate will go through the
universe.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
<snip more of the same>

<further nonsense>

Yes, you did have further nonsense, so for any reduction of that, thanks.

walksalone who has wondered, do bleaters try & snow us under by the sheer
volume of the nonsense they post. Seems to be the case this time.


Fundamentalism means never having to say I'm wrong.
Author unkown to me.

[Alex W.]

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
could overcome that.

Shuld there be genuine incontrovertible evidence for a deity, an atheist
could and would admit it.

But then the real fun would start: how to worship that god. Which
prayers to say. How to formulate his divine nature. Decyphering his
divine will. What version of his revealed word to adopt. Which
followers of false teachings to persecute.

In the end, actual proof of a god would not change much in real terms...

[Aerion E.]

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
could overcome that.

Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
anyone. You have free agency.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
,SNip>
I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party
newsgroup.

And yet, I am reading this tripe in the atheist news group where it is OT,
as well as unwelcome due to the average bleaters conduct.

That's odd. I subscribe to alt.talk.creationism yet I'm reading
your words. Also I respond on the same site. How do you explain
that?

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are
welcome to it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there
would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it
will rise in the east & I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you

What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
your gods are real.

NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
upon evidence.

The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we

Post by walksalone
take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as such.
Another lesson from the US Military.

Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
have is a belief. Also, you are engaged in a discussion about your

There is no discussion, for a discussion involves exchanges of information.
What you are trying, & failing to do, is demand the atheist provide
evidence for your gods. I doubt you even know it. But devout's of any
myth tend towards blind spots when their myth is open for examination.

Post by Aerion E.
belief regarding the absence of God, thus this is a mental activity.

It's not a concern until someone like you shows up, declares they know more
than others, in your case, there are gods even though you don't know that,
for it's not a matter of concern. Bit like your atheism where Anat is
concerned. & the nice thing, you don't have to use those exact words.
Your conduct & attempts to get others to do your work tell on you. Hum,
this trend towards the deception of themselves & others may explain
politics around the world.

I neither need or want others to do 'work' for me.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Consider xianity is a death cult, like Judaism & Islam, Why would you want
others to suffer just because you are required to.

This is utter insanity, I'm _not_ required to suffer, nor do I want
others to suffer.
I have noted that it was Christians who took me in, fed clothed and
raised me. They cared for me. There were no atheist who offered to do
the same.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush.

I didn't apply this to others (plural) just one.

When you denigrate any member of a group, you denigrate the others by
implication. That's from the tribal side of humanity.

I respond in kind, when a smart ass denigrates me or mine I return
the "compliment".

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
You

Post by walksalone
see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not upset
me. Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed with
here. But told her she should have included the preacher that
started the shit. & I even agree with those that call me a bastard.
Legally, & by archaic definition, I am. Of course, they don't like
it when I ask them what their excuse is.

In a sense you knew who your parents were.

Which has nothing to do with the terms, ass hole & bastard. Your point of
confusion is yours.

No, but you were lucky in that. I have no known family.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your
religion, then you have to back them up using
outside-your-religion methods. In this case by providing the kind
of evidence for it that there is for the universe - because that's
your stupid question claimed the two were equivalent outside your
religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Noun: corollary
1. A practical consequence that follows naturally
2. (logic) an inference that follows directly from the proof of another
proposition
[WordWeb.info]

I used it as an analogy and in keeping with what is defined as a
mathematical concept.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/corollary?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corollary?s=t

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your gods.
Of which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them
parallel the gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the
last god of the Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate
the Hebrew version. In the case of the missing messiah, had he
existed, he would have been a failed messiah.

No, only one.

Really? I take it the knowledge of your myth & it's claimed authority are
somewhat below microscopic.
Hint, in spite of claims to the contrary, there is no evidence for a
historical jesus ben joseph. Given the era & location, there should have
been. Bit like the missing works of King David & King Solomon.
& before you try the old lack of evidence weasel out. Lack of evidence
when there should be evidence is evidence of lack.
As you don't know what a messiah was at that time, read & learn.
References on request after you pass the quiz.

I read some of this, but there is no way I'm going to take time
or the effort to respond to this colloquy. Most of it is without
references or from the obsoleted Old Testament. I have neither the
time nor the inclination to do so.
However, if you didn't copy and past, this took a huge amount of
your time. I appreciate that. And I will one day come back to this.

Post by walksalone
Prerequisites To Recognize the Messiah
The Tanach (composed of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim) is
transparent on the subject of the role of the messiah. It should be noted
that, although there are many sections throughout the Tanach that vividly
describe how the world will be forever transformed with the arrival of the
messiah, very few are about the messiah personally. The vast quantity of
messianic scripture in the Tanach (Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim) depicts the
state of perfection that the world will achieve at the end of days. It is
quite clear from the vantage point of the Tanach that the significance of
the messiah himself pales in comparison to the utopian age that his arrival
will usher in. In Jeremiah, chapter 33, verse 17, G-d says that the royal
House of David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel.
The reason Jews and Noahides don't accept the messiah of Christendom is
because Jesus did not fulfill any of the clear messianic prophecies
foretold in the Tanach. In addition, the Tanach never tells of believing in
the messiah because either the events leading to his advent will be so
undeniable, or his reign will be a historically verifiable reality and
self-evident to anyone. Because no person has ever fulfilled the prophecies
in the Tanach given of this future King, the Jewish people still await the
coming of the messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus, have
ultimately been rejected by the Jewish people simply because they did not
measure up to the prophecies.
Realizing that Jesus did not fulfill the requirements of the messiah as
outlined in the Tanach, Christians quickly developed the support theory
known as the "second coming." They believe that Jesus will return to the
earth to "judge mankind, and quicken the dead." However, this was a plainly
desperate attempt on the part of some Christian leaders to keep faith
alive. There is no mention of a second coming in the Tanach or the
Christian Bible. In fact, there is definitive evidence in the Christian
Gospels to the contrary. From the Christian Bible, we can conclude that
Jesus himself knew of no such returning, and in Mark 9:1, Jesus tells his
disciples "Verily I say to you that there be some of them who stand here,
which shall not taste of death until they have seen the kingdom of G-d come
with power." We know, of course, that no such kingdom of G-d on earth was
witnessed by any of those who knew Jesus personally, so that "false
messiah" (described in Deuteronomy 13:2-6) would certainly be an accurate
description of Jesus, and no second coming was ever planned by him.
The following is an overview of the most distinct messianic prophecies as
outlined in the Jewish scriptures -- which both Christians and Jews agree
Descendant of David
"See, a time is coming -- declares the Lord -- when I will raise up a true
branch of David's line. He shall reign as king and shall prosper, and he
shall do what is just and right in the land." -- Jeremiah 23:5 (See also
Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:21-28; Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 30:7-10; Jeremiah
33:14-16; Hosea 3:4-5)
Preceded by Elijah
"Lo, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before the coming of the awesome
[the messiah], fearful day of the Lord. He shall reconcile parents with
children and children with their parents, so that, when I come, I do not
strike the whole land with utter destruction." -- Malachi 3:23-24
World Peace
"And he [the messiah] shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many
people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more." -- Isaiah 2:4
"He [the messiah] will destroy death forever." -- Isaiah 25:8
"Then the inhabitants of the cities of Israel will go out and make fire and
feed them with the weapons -- shields and bucklers, bows and arrows, clubs
and spears; they shall use them as fuel for seven years." -- Ezekiel 39:9
Universal Knowledge of G-d
"For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters
cover the sea." -- Isaiah 11:9
"And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or shall one teach his brother,
saying, 'Know the Lord, for they shall all know Me, from their smallest to
their greatest' says the Lord." -- Jeremiah 31:33
"All who survive of all those nations that came up against Jerusalem shall
make a pilgrimage year by year to bow low to the King Lord of Hosts and to
observe the feasts." -- Zechariah 14:16
"And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be
one Lord, and His name one." -- Zechariah 14:9
"Thus said the Lord of Hosts: 'In those days, ten men from nations of every
tongue will take hold -- they will take hold of every Jew by a corner of
his cloak and say, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with
you'." -- Zechariah 8.23
Building of the Third Temple
"And I will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My temple
also shall be with them. Yes, I will be their G-d and they shall be My
people. And the heathen shall know that I the Lord do sanctify Israel, when
My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore." -- Ezekiel 37:26-
28 (See also Ezekiel 40-48; Isaiah 33:20)
Death Will Cease
"He [the messiah] will swallow up death forever." -- Isaiah 25:8
Resurrection of the Dead
"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.
Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust, for thy dew is as the dew of herbs,
and the earth shall cast out the dead." -- Isaiah 26:19
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." -- Daniel
12:2
"Therefore, prophecy and say to them, 'So says the Lord G-d: Lo! I open
your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves as My people, and
bring you home to the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the
Lord, when I open your graves and lead you up out of your graves as My
people'." -- Ezekiel 37:12-13
Ingathering of Israel
"I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather you from the west. I will
say to the north, 'Give up', and to the south, 'Keep not back, bring My
sons from far, and My daughter from the ends of the earth'." -- Isaiah
43:5-6. (See also Jeremiah 16:15; 23:3; Isaiah 11:12; Zechariah 10:6;
Ezekiel 37:21-22)
The Nations Will Help the Jews Materially
"Then you shall see and be radiant, and your heart shall fear and expand;
because the abundance of the sea shall be overturned upon you, the wealth
of the nations shall come to you." -- Isaiah 60:5
"Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to
you. Men shall bring you the wealth of the nations with their kings led in
procession. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall
perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste." -- Isaiah 60:10-12
"But you shall be called 'priests of the Lord', men shall say of you,
'ministers of our G-d'; you shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in
their riches you shall glory." -- Isaiah 61:6
Eternal Joy and Gladness Will Characterize the Jewish Nation
"And the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion in song;
everlasting joy shall be upon their head; they shall obtain joy and
gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee." -- Isaiah 51:11
The Jews Will Be Sought For Spiritual Guidance
"Thus says the Lord of hosts: 'In those days ten men out of all the
languages of the nations shall take hold and seize the robe of a Jew,
saying: 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you'." --
Zechariah 8:23
All Weapons Of War Will Be Destroyed
"Then those who dwell in the cities of Israel will go forth and set fire to
the weapons and burn them, shields and bucklers, bows and arrows,
handspikes and spears, and they will make fires of them for seven
years." -- Ezekiel 39:9
The Enemy Dead Will Be Buried
"For seven months the House of Israel will be burying them, in order to
cleanse the land." -- Ezekiel 39:12
The Egyptian River Will Run Dry
"And the Lord will utterly destroy the tongue of the sea of Egypt and wave
His hand over the river with His scorching wind, and smite it into seven
channels, and make men cross dryshod." -- Isaiah 11:15
Trees Will Yield New Fruit Monthly in Israel
"And on both sides of the bank of the stream, all trees for food will grow;
their leaves will not wither nor will their fruit fail, but they will bear
fresh fruit every month, because their waters flow from the Sanctuary;
their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine." -- Ezekiel
47:12
Each Tribe of Israel Will Receive It's Inheritance
"Thus says the Lord, G-d: 'These are the boundaries by which you shall
divide the land for inheritance among the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph
shall have two portions. And you shall divide equally that which I swore to
give your fathers, and this land shall fall to you as your
inheritance'." -- Ezekiel 47:13-14
All Warfare Will Cease
"And He shall judge among the nations and decide for many peoples; and they
shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning
hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they
learn war anymore." -- Isaiah 2:4
It is interesting to note that these Messianic prophecies foretell the
nations' subjugation to Israel. If Jesus was really the messiah and the
Jews persecuted and killed him, why is G-d going to reward them so greatly?
Partly for not yielding to centuries of Christian persecution.
Moreover, when looking back at all of these prophecies, we can clearly see
Jesus is not the messiah. Jesus fell short of fulfilling any of the major
messianic prophecies; he was never anointed as King, he never ruled Israel,
and the world was certainly not perfected in his time. In addition, he was
not preceded by the return of the prophet Elijah. To suggest Jesus is the
Jewish messiah is, in effect, saying that G-d was lying when he promised a
messiah from the house of David who would fulfill all of the prophecies.
Why was G-d able to create the earth in 7 days, but Jesus could not fulfill
these prophecies in an entire lifetime?
Now, you, as a truth-seeker, must thoroughly and honestly examine these
prophecies. Read the Tanach with an open heart and mind. Ask yourself if
Christianity has something to offer for you that Noahism or Judaism cannot.
Now the Jews did recognize a messiah. Care to name him?

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established
fact. It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

I can, & you are trying a red herring, among other logical errors.
there is no logical corollary as most atheists would use the terms.
However, logic does not have to be true, just logical. Nice dodge
when no one notices.

I suspect you missed the corollary as well.

You don't & didn't have one. It takes more than a declaration to make one.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
is known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are
welcome to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven

Chris is not postulating a deity, in this case one of humanity's gods
that it was so weak that it had to bribe a follower. The Howler.
The original god, el, was the predominate senior god of the region
from aprx. -600 to - 400 BCE. & then, the people took a shine to
ba'al. & then, once the priesthood had the backing of Korash, &
returned from Babylon, they had yahweh rammed up their ass's. After
they settled back down,. there were no more revealed gods until the
missing jesus ben joseph. Who would qualify as a failed messiah had
he existed.

One of the problems with the failed gods such as Ba'al, zeus, Ra etc
they had _no_ staying power.

I was right, you have damn little knowledge of history, or mythology. Even
today the Greek Pantheon is in business. Their cash flow is not equal to
xians, but they had been banned for century's. & worshipers killed
legally. Not any more.
You see, they were not replaced as such. That imply's a peaceful
conversion. It was by the sword, & that is not suspicion, it is evidence
based on church records a well as archaeology. When you work with
fanatics, there is no limitation on what you will do. That's history &
observation.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the

I take it you are not familiar with evidence & the rules of logic.
Don't worry, you are not alone.
You see, when you squall gawd, god, GOD, or any other synonym, &
claim it is real, you have made a positive claim. It is then up to
you to support that claim with evidence if you want to be taken
seriously by those that have studied the myth, or have a real
education. BTW, there are xians that have real educations. Those
I've met were always indoctrinated as children under the age of
eight. When they were most vulnerable.

Atheist don't indoctrinate children? Of course they do.

As in deliberate indoctrination via xianity. Never seen it. So your
verifiable reference will be, with references. Post them here or withdraw
your lie.
BTW, I raised mine with mythology. By the time they could read, they were
into it once I explained what the purpose of mythology was, & how very few
of them claimed to have a only true deity. Hell, N.Z. has one that only
the priesthood & king knew it's name. talk about bashful.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided.

Neither can be proven, therefore both are beliefs. That is neither

Assuming existence of your god, yes it could. True, no autographs, no
photos, but things that interact with our time space physical location
leave evidence. Take the parting of the Red Sea. yes, I know it never
happed for the exodus & moses are fiction according to the evidence.
When xians go to the location, in spite of Ron Wyatt, there is no evidence
of the violent motions of the waters, no footprints, no chariot tracks or
parts.
The evidence shows it to be a just so story. BTW, I've seen videos that
show how it could have happened. But again, no physical evidence.

Post by Aerion E.
can God existence be proven, neither can it's absence. So, both
are beliefs.

There is that three letter word again. Until you can define a word, it is
meaningless in a medium of this nature.
Try this for starters.
Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities of
the human species. [Incomplete]
Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a victim
of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these types of
gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are, lessor
gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less powerful than
others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the European
ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything from
Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red Hat, are
not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world,
they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most understand
the term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of humans
or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are entitled to
go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies
& of course, there is another, fatal to your argument for reasons you can't
accept, there is the problem of which god. Or shame on you, goddess.
A (Babylonia) Chaldean moon goddess. Her emblem is a disk with eight rays,
a number associated with the goddess of light.
AB (h1) Hebrew awb; a prim. word; father in a lit. and immed., or fig. and
remote application): - chief, (fore-) father ([-less]), * patrimony,
principal. Comp. names in "Abi-"
ABGAL Seven Sumerian wise men, the attending deities of the god Enki. They
emerged from the sweet-water Apsu and are portrayed as fish-men. In
Akkadian myth they are called Apkallu see below.
ABRAHAM
ABSU (Apsu, Abzu, Apzu) The "sweet water." The limitless space, out of
which the first waters precipitated (Ency Myth) This was where Ab, the
father of the waters and lord of wisdom lives. The husband of Tiamat,
father of the first level gods who evolved. The fresh underground water was
the home of Ea and of the Seven Sages. It is also the name of Ea's temple
in Eridu.
ABYSS [from Greek a not + byssos, bythos deep, depth] Bottomless, chaos,
space, the watery place where cosmos or orderly, adorned world evolved. It
gave birth to Ea, the All-wise, unknowable infinite deity. Chaldean
cosmogony Tiamat, the female principle, is the personification of chaos
(Heb. Tehowm). It was the place where all wisdom lived.. This is the void
and emptiness expressed in the Biblical creation, the Flood, Crossing the
Red Sea and in the "become emptiness" of the Hebrew people people when they
rejected Yahweh (Jeremiah 4
ABZU abzu wr. ab-su, ab-zu The abzu as Enki's shrine / temple in Eridu ;
mythical place where the life influencing powers reside and where their
results, as well as the means to influence their effects, originate;
incomprehensible, unfathomable, secret; a place producing raw materials.
ADAD See Hadad (Sumerian Ishkur, West Semitic Hadad, Adar, and Addu, also
Rimmon, Ramman, "Earth-shaker"). Storm-god, canal-controller, son of Anu.
God of lightning, rain, and fertility. In the Gilgamesh epic, the god of
winds, thunder, and storms. Symbols: bull and forked lightning; worshipped
in towns including Babylon and Ashur
Adad's father was the heaven god Anu, also called the son of Bel, Lord of
All Lands and god of the atmosphere. His consort was Shalash, which may be
a Hurrian name. The symbol of Adad was the cypress. In Babylonia, Assyria,
and Aleppo in Syria, he was also the god of oracles and divination.
See: An Assyrian governor standing before the deities Adad (centre) and
Ishtar (left), limestone relief from Babylon, 8th century BC; in the Museum
of Oriental Antiquities, Istanbul
ADAPA (Uan, Oannes) One of the sages and citizen of Eridu. Given super
intelligence by Ea (Sumerian: Enki), god of wisdom, became the hero of the
Sumerian version of the myth of the Fall of Man. In spite of his possession
of all wisdom he was denied immortality. One day, while he was fishing, the
south wind blew so violently that he was thrown into the sea. Lost his
temper and broke the wings of the south wind, which then ceased to blow.
Anu (Sumerian: An), the sky god, called him before his gates to be
punished, but Ea warned him not to touch the bread and water that would be
offered him. When Adapa came before Anu, the two heavenly doorkeepers
Tammuz and Ningishzida interceded for him and explained to Anu that as
Adapa had been endowed with all knowledge he needed only immortality to
become a god. Anu, relented and offered Adapa the bread and water of
eternal life, which he refused to take. Thus mankind became mortal
ADMINISTRATION
The civil-religious cult created the base upon which society rested. The
chief was the city ruler, or, when the country was united, the king. The
city ruler and the king were civil leaders but also charismatic figures who
impregnated god-given magic into their rule. This created peace and
fertility. In certain periods the king was deified; throughout the 3rd
millennium, he became, in ritual action, the god Dumuzi in the rite of the
sacred marriage and brought fertility for his land. Most of the rulers were
treated incarnations of the dying god Damu and invoked in the ritual
laments for him. As a vessel of sacred power the king was surrounded by
strict ritual to protect that power, and he had to undergo elaborate
rituals of purification if the power became threatened. As in Israel's
kingdom period, worship was the purvue of the king and his officials and
not the "congregation."
The individual temples were usually administered by officials called sangas
("bishops"), who headed staffs of accountants, overseers of agricultural
and industrial works on the temple estate, and gudus (priests), who looked
after the god as house servants.
Among the priestesses the highest-ranking was termed en (Akkadian entu).
They were usually princesses of royal blood and were considered the human
spouses of the gods they served, acting as brides in the rites of the
ritual marriage. Other levels of priestesses were orders of nuns. The best-
known are the servants of the sun god, who lived in a cloister (gagûm) in
Sippar. There were also priestesses devoted to sacred prostitutes under the
protection of the goddess Inanna (Ishtar).
ADONAI The Masoretes, who from about the 6th to the 10th century worked to
reproduce the original text of the Hebrew Bible, replaced the vowels of the
name YHWH with the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or Elohim. Thus,
the artificial name Jehovah (YeHoWaH) came into being.
'Adonai (Hebrew) [from 'adon lord] My Lords; through usage, Lord, a plural
of excellence. Originally a sort of appeal or prayer to the hierarchical
spiritual powers of the earth planetary chain, and more particularly of the
planetary spirit of the earth itself; later it became a mere substitute for
the unutterable name of God, usually for Tetragrammaton (YHVH).
"As the inner nature of YHVH is hidden; therefore He (YHVH) is only named
with the Name of the Shekhinah, Adonai, i.e., Lord; therefore the Rabbins
say (of the name YHVH); Not as I am written (i.e., YHVH) am I read. In this
world My Name is written YHVH and read Adonai, but in the world to come,
the same will be read as it is written, so that Mercy (represented by YHVH)
shall be from all sides" (Zohar iii 320a). Adonai is rendered Lord in the
Bible, although it means "my Lords"; whereas 'elohim is translated God in
the English Authorized Version.
AGADE See Akkad Below
AHIKAR Tale of Babylonian or Persian origin, about a wise and moral man
who supposedly served as one of the chief counselors of Sennacherib, king
of Assyria (704-681 BC). Like the biblical Job, Ahikar was a prototype of
the just man whose righteousness was sorely tested and ultimately rewarded
by God. Betrayed by his power-hungry adopted son, Ahikar was condemned to
death, suffered severely, but was finally restored to his former position.
According to the book of Ahikar, the cupbearer of the Assyrian king
Esarhaddon, was Tobit's nephew; he is a secondary personage in the plot,
and his own story is mentioned. Ahikar is the hero of a Near Eastern non-
Jewish work, The Story of Ahikar. The book exists in medieval translations,
the best of them in Syriac. The story was known in the Persian period in
the Jewish military colony in Elephantine Island in Egypt, a fact
demonstrated by the discovery of fragmentary Aramaic papyri of the work
dating from 450-410 BCE. Thus, the author of the book of Tobit probably
knew The Story of Ahikar, in which, as in the book of Tobit, the plot is a
pretext for the introduction of speeches and wise sayings. Some of Tobit's
sayings have close parallels in the words of the wise Ahikar.
AKITU The Babylonian creation epic (Enuma elish) "When on High") states
that at first there was only the male (Apsu) and female (Tiamat) gods of
the deep. They created a family of gods who made so much noise that Apsu
plotted to kill them. This upset Ea who easily destroyed Apsu. However,
because of her superior magical incantatiosn, Tiamat was too frightening
for Ea. Marduk agreed to destroy her if he was made supreme god. This
automatically transferred the role of Creator to him. In the Assyrian
version, Ashur is important. Tiamat, wanted to get even for Apsu's murder.
However, Marduk won the battle cut her in two and used her carcass to
create the universe. Out of half her body he fashioned the sky containing
the heavenly bodies to mark the periods of time, the other half was made
into the earth and mountains. In song and sermon Marduk was now praised.
The Enuma elish was read on the Akitu, or New Year festival, at Babylon, to
reestablish order, by performing sympathetic magic caused by reciting
Marduk's creation. The function of the Akitu is thus to regenerate society
for the next year. When Israel "worshipped like the nations" this festival
was repeated in Jerusalem.
AKKAD The first Babylonian city. Akkad was the northern (or northwestern)
division of ancient Babylonia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come
close. The first people were predominantly Semitic, and their language was
Akkadian. To the south of Akkad was Sumer, the southern (or southeastern)
part of ancient Babylonia. This was home of non-Semitic people known as
Sumerians.
Akkad was taken from the city of Agade, founded by the Semitic Sargon about
2300 BC. Sargon united the city-states and ruled much of Mesopotamia. After
the fall of Sargon's dynasty in about 2150 BC, the area was ruled by
Sumerians and Akkadians. Under the kings of Akkad, their Semitic language,
known as Akkadian, became a written language made with the cuneiform system
of writing.
AKKADIANS A non-Semitic race before the Semites in Babylonia. The name is
from Agade, the capital of Sargon I. They may have been emigrants from
India and were the Aryan educators of later Babylonians. Peace and
prosperity was interrupted by changes in the people who spread east, south
and west
AN (Sumerian) A sky god, the symbol, "Dingir," was the same as that for
heaven and for divinity showing his high but not superior role. He was
generally regarded as the child of Uras, or of Ansar and Kisar. In an
"evolutionary" principle for the "gods," he was a product of the "embryo"
heaven-earth before the world became visible.
His wife is Antum, or Ki. He is viewed as the 'father' of the all the gods.
An exercised great authority. There is agreement with the Bible that the
spoken command is 'the very foundation of heaven and earth.' In heaven, his
authority allowed him to 'raise up' other gods to positions of greater
power. Without losing authority he involved more active deities in support
of his authority.
ANATH SEE ISHTAR
ANNEDOTI See Oannes Even the name Annedoti is quite similar to the people
of Enki - the Anunnaki, from whence it was probably derived. The Greek term
may have originated with the Sumerians and was later carried over as a
description of a race that was both retilian and loathsome.
ANSHAR and KISHAR The male and female principles, the twin horizons of sky
and earth. Their parents were either Apsu (the watery deep beneath the
earth) and Tiamat (the personification of salt water) or Lahmu and Lahamu,
the first set of twins born to Apsu and Tiamat. Anshar and Kishar, in turn,
were the parents of Anu (An), the supreme heaven god. See Enuma Elish
ANTUM In Akkadian myth Anu's consort was Antum (Antu), but she is often
confused with Ishtar (Inanna), the goddess of love. She helped produce the
Anunnaki or the seven evil underworld demons. She is replaced literally or
figuratively by Inanna / Ishtar who is at times her daughter.
ANU Son of the first pair of gods, Anshar and Kishar. Consort was Antu
(Anatum) later replaced by Ishtar He was the son of Anshar and Kishar.
(Akkadian), Sumerian An, Mesopotamian sky god and a member of the triad of
deities completed by Bel (Sumerian: Enlil) and Ea (Enki). Like most sky
gods, Anu, although theoretically the highest god, played only a small role
in the mythology, hymns, and cults of Mesopotamia. He was the father of the
gods Enlil and Enki and a daughter Ninkhursag. He was also the father of
evil spirits and demons; Anu was also the god of kings and of the yearly
calendar. He was typically depicted in a headdress with horns, a sign of
strength. His city was Erech, (Later Uruk or Ur) king of angels and
spirits, ruler of destiny
ANUNNA Sumerian name for the sky and earth gods, the assembly of the high
gods, and especially for the deities of a local pantheon. Before they
destroyed the earth with a great flood, they warned Ziusudra, king of
Shurappak, of the deluge. He built an ark in which the seeds of mortals
were preserved during the seven days and seven nights the waters raged. The
name means "those of princely seed". They are similar to the Akkadian
Anunnaku.
ANUNNAKI (Anukki, Enunaki) The Akkadian name for a group of gods of the
underworld - chthonic and fertility. They are judges in the realm of the
dead. Their counterparts are the Igigi or good gods (although in some texts
the positions are reversed). The Anunnaku are the children of Anu and Ki
and are like the Apkallu and they are paired with an igigi. Below the
anunnaki were several classes of genii -- sadu, vadukku, ekimu, gallu --
some of which were represented as being good, some evil.
ANZU The Babylonian version of the Sumero-Akkadian Anzu. Doorkeeper of
Ellil, born in the mountain Hehe. One day, when Ellil was bathing, Anzu
stole the Tablets of Destiny and fled to the desert. With these tablets you
could rule the universe. Ea persuaded the mother-goddess Belet-Ili to give
birth to a divine hero to defeat Anzu. Belet-Ili produced Ninurta and sent
him into battle. After a huge battle, Ninurta pierced Anzu's lung with an
arrow, and recaptured the tablets.
While normally evil, he is kindly in the Sumerian epic of Lugalbanda. These
tablets were taken by Marduk from Kingu and gave all of the skills needed
for sucular and religious rule. The epic ends with praises for the son of
Ellil.
APKALLU Akkadian mythology, the seven (or sometimes eight) sages serving
the kings as ministers. Some were poets composing the epics of Erra and
Gilgamesh, others were ministers to the god Ea. The arts or skills were the
ME which existed before the flood. These included skills such as deviant
Adapa (U-an, called Oannes), U-an duga, E-me-duga, En-me-galama,
En-me-bulaga, An-Enlida, Utu-abzu.
Each is known by other names or epithets, and is paired with an
antediluvian king, hence their collective names "counselors", "muntalku".
They were credited with building walled cities. Responsible for technical
skills, they were also known as craftsmen, "ummianu.". Some of them were
traditionally poets composing the epics of Gilgamesh and Erra. They were
banished back to the Absu forever after angering Ea. After the flood,
certain great men of letters and exorcists were accorded sage-status,
although only as mortals. Some Deities other than Ea - Ishtar, Nabu, and
Marduk - also claimed to control the sages. Thesy are seen as fish-men or
with bird attributes appropriate to underworld creatures.
APOPIS also called Apep, Apepi, or Rerek, ancient Egyptian demon of chaos,
who had the form of a serpent and, as the foe of the sun god, Re,
represented all that was outside the ordered cosmos. Although many serpents
symbolized divinity and royalty, Apopis threatened the underworld and
symbolized evil. Each night Apopis encountered Re at a particular hour in
the sun god's ritual journey through the underworld in his divine bark.
Seth, who rode as guardian in the front of Re's bark, attacked him with a
spear and slew him, but the next night Apopis, who could not be finally
killed, was there again to attack Re. The Egyptians believed that they
could help maintain the order of the world and assist Re by performing
rituals against Apopis.
See Oannes for some links
APSU Akkadian god: the consort of Tiamat and the father of the gods Lahmu/
Lahamu and Anshar/Kishar. (Babylonian) Abzu (Sumerian). A primeval Sumero-
Akkadian god who personifies the primordial abyss of sweet waters
underneath the earth. He is the consort of Tiamat, the primordial abyss of
salt waters of Chaos.
In the Enuma Elish, the sweet water mingled with the bitter waters of the
sea and with a third watery element, perhaps cloud or Mummu, the first gods
were birthed. When the younger gods got too noisy, Apsu plotted with Mummu
to have them killed. However, Ea got wind of it and the waters of Apsu were
held immobile underground by a 'spell' death-like sleep, but it is also
said that Ea had Apsu killed.
AQHAT or Aqahat See DANIEL
ARURU (Mammi) A Babylonian goddess of creation. She created Enkidu from
clay in the image of Anu. The Great Mother goddess in Babylonian mythology.
See Ki/Ninhursag. Ninhursag's other names include: Dingirmakh ("Exalted
Deity"), Ninmakh ("Exalted Lady"), As "Dropper," the one who "loosens" the
scion in birth), and Nintur ("Lady Birth Giver"). Her husband is the god
Shulpae, and among their children were the sons Mululil and Ashshirgi and
the daughter Egime.
ASAG (KUR): Dragon of the Abyss or Abzu. Daemon of Disease. Asag was not
separated like Tiamat. Instead, he lived within the Abyss "after" creation
and held back the Primordial Waters from overflowing the Earth. He
kidnapped Ereshkigal, and Enlil went to rescue her. What we know is that
Enlil is the Lord of the Waters, and that he built his home on the Sea. On
the other hand, Ereshkigal herself is still the Queen of the Underworld.
Asag was not killed because another god decided to destroy him for some
reason. This was Ninurta (possibly a model for Marduk). See Demons.
ASALLUHE Sumerian deity and city god of Ku'ar, near Eridu in the
southeastern marshland region. Asalluhe was active with the god Enki
(Akkadian: Ea) in rituals of lustration magic and was considered his son.
He may have originally been a god of thundershowers, as his name, "Man-
Drenching Asal," suggests; he may corresponded to the Sumerian gods Ishkur
and Ninurta. In incantations Asalluhe was usually the god who first called
Enki's attention to existing evils because he flew around as a
thundercloud. He was later identified with Marduk of Babylon.
ASHERAH Ancient West Semitic goddess, consort of the supreme god. She was
probably "She Who Walks in the Sea," but she was also called "Holiness,"
and, occasionally, Elath, "the Goddess." According to the texts from Ugarit
(modern Ras Shamra, Syria), Asherah's consort was El, and by him she was
the mother of 70 gods. As mother goddess she was widely worshiped
throughout Syria and Palestine, although she was frequently paired with
Baal, who often took the place of El in worship. As Baal's consort, Asherah
was usually called Baalat.
Also a sacred wooden pole or image standing close to the massebah and altar
in early Shemitic sanctuaries, part of the equipment of the temple of
Jehovah in Jerusalem till the reformation of Josiah (2 Kings 23:6). The
plural, 'asherim, denotes statues, images, columns, or pillars; translated
in the Bible by "groves." Maachah, the grandmother of Asa, King of
Jerusalem, is accused of having made for herself such an idol, which was a
phallus. Called the Assyrian Tree of Life, "the original Asherah was a
pillar with seven branches on each side surmounted by a globular flower
with three projecting rays, and no phallic stone, as the Jews made of it,
but a metaphysical symbol. 'Merciful One, who dead to life raises!' was the
prayer uttered before the Asherah, on the banks of the Euphrates. See
Ezekiel 31. Assyria is the "tallest tree in Eden."
ASHUR (Assur) City god of Ashur and national god of Assyria. In the
beginning he may be a local deity of the city of Ashur. From about 1800 BC
onward identified with the Sumerian Enlil (Akkadian: Bel), while under the
Assyrian king Sargon II (reigned 721-705 BC), there is some identity of
Ashur with Anshar, the father of An (Akkadian: Anu) in the Enuma Elish.
Under Sargon's successor Sennacherib, deliberate and thorough attempts were
made to transfer to Ashur the primeval achievements of Marduk, as well as
the whole ritual of the New Year festival. Then, as now, the "gods" are
made in the image of the dominant city or nation.
ASHURBANIPAL
ATRAHASIS The Old Babylonian "Myth of Atrahasis" is a motif showing a
relationship with the account of the creation of man to relieve the gods of
toil in the "Enki and Ninmah" myth, and with a Sumerian account of the
Flood in the "Eridu Genesis." The Atrahasis myth, however, treats these
themes with noticeable originality and remarkable depth. It relates, first,
how the gods originally had to toil for a living, how they rebelled and
went on strike, how Enki suggested that one of their number--the god We
BABYLON (Babil) "Gate(s) of God", capital of the Babylonians, on the river
Euphrates. Its patron god was Marduk. Also known as Shuanna. It is said to
have been founded by the Assyrian Ninus or his wife Semiramis. The Greek
form of the Hebrew word bavel, which is closely allied and probably derived
from the Akkadian babilu or "gate of God." The connection between Akkad,
Calneh, Erech, and Babylon (Gen. 10:10) indicates a period at least as
early as 3000 B.C. Babylon may have been founded originally by the
Sumerians, and an early tablet recorded that Sargon of Akkad (c. 2400)
destroyed Babylon.
BABEL Hebrew baÇbel (confusion) from balal (overthrow). The inner meaning
of the Tower of Babel,as a device so that the "worshippers could move into
the presence of the gods" It is a house of initiation, a gate, portal,
opening, or entrance to the divine. The physical tower was both the
building to house and protect the initiation chambers, along with the
ceremonies that take place in them, and an architectural symbol to signify
a raising up towards heaven. The tower may have either a divine or evil
significance, either haughty pride and self-sufficiency or spiritual
aspiration.
BAU (Sumerian), also called NININSINA, Akkadian Gula, or Ninkarrak, in
Mesopotamian religion, city goddess of Urukug in the Lagash region and,
under the name Nininsina, the Queen of Isin, city goddess of Isin, south of
Nippur. Bau seems originally to have been goddess of the dog; as Nininsina
she was long represented with a dog's head, and the dog was her symbol.
Perhaps because the licking of sores by dogs was believed to have healing
value, she became a goddess of healing. She was a daughter of An, king of
the gods, and the wife of Pabilsag, a rain god who was also called Ninurta,
or Ningirsu.
BEER AND BARLEY Barley is still the primary ingredient of beer. It along
with rye supports ergot, a fungus. After eating flour milled from ergot-
infected rye, humans and livestock may develop ergotism, a condition
sometimes called St. Anthony's Fire. The symptoms may include convulsions,
miscarriages in females, and dry gangrene and may result in death. Ergot is
also the source of lysergic acid, from which the powerful hallucinogen
lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is easily synthesized. Mild beer or wine
naturally fermented was often "spiked" with contaminated beer. The
"exercises," then and now, were considered proof of the indwelling "gods."
The same effect can be procuded by revivalistic music causing "speaking in
tongues."
BEL (Akkadian), Sumerian Enlil, Mesopotamian god of the air and a member
of the triad of gods completed by Anu (Sumerian: An) and Ea (Enki). Enlil
meant Lord Wind: both the hurricane and the gentle winds of spring were
thought of
as the breath issuing from his mouth, and eventually as his word or
command. He was sometimes called Lord of the Air. The Hebrew ruwach as in
"the spirit hovered over the face of the waters" is often personified as a
third member of the god "family" and is assigned tasks quite similar to Bel
or Enlil.
Baal (Chaldean) [from Semitic ba`al chief, lord] Lord, considered as the
lord of the land, and his temple at Nippur was called E-kur (the mountain
house), just as Ea's was the watery house.
In Exodus he was named Ba`al-Tsephon, the god of the crypt. He was likewise
ned Seth or Sheth, signifying a pillar (phallus); and it was owing to these
associations that he was considered a hidden god. Among the Ammonites, a
people of East Palestine, he was known as Moloch (the king); at Tyre he was
called Melcarth. The worship of Ba`al was introduced into Israel under
Ahab, his wife being a Phoenician princess.
"Typhon, called Set, who was a great god in Egypt during the early
dynasties, is an aspect of Baal and Ammon as also of Siva, Jehovah and
other gods. Baal is the all-devouring Sun, in one sense, the fiery Moloch"
As to the leaping of the prophets of Ba`al, mentioned in the Bible (1 Kings
18:26), Blavatsky writes: "It was simply a characteristic of the Sabean
worship, for it denoted the motion of the planets round the sun. That the
dance was a Bacchic frenzy is apparent. Sistra were used on the occasion"
BELILI
BELIT (Akkadian), Sumerian Ninlil, Mesopotamian goddess, the consort of
the god Bel (Sumerian: Enlil) and a deity of destiny. She was worshiped
especially at Nippur and Shuruppak and was the mother of the moon god, Sin
(Sumerian: Nanna). In Assyrian documents Belit is sometimes identified with
Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna) of Nineveh and sometimes made the wife of either
Ashur, the national god of Assyria, or of Enlil (Bel), god of the
atmosphere. The Sumerian Ninlil was a grain goddess, known as the
Varicoloured Ear (of barley). She was the daughter of Haia, god of the
stores, and Ninshebargunu (or Nidaba). The myth recounting the rape of
Ninlil by her consort, the wind god Enlil, reflects the life cycle of the
grain.
BRAZEN Serpent When the Jews in the wilderness complained to Moses, "the
Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and
much people of Israel died" (Num 21:6); wherefore "Moses made a serpent of
brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent has
bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived" (21:9).
As the Hebrew words for serpent and brass are the same when the Massoretic
points are omitted (N H SH),has been used referring to the Evil One, called
by the later Jews the Deprived (Nahash), but the fiery serpents "were the
Seraphim, each one of which, as Isaiah shows (6:2), 'had six wingsf.'
Just as the serpent is connected with knowledge, wisdom, and magic, so
likewise has copper or brass since immemorial time in all mystic schools
been a metallic compound supposed to be under the particular governance of
the planet Venus, which is the ruler or controller of the human higher
manas -- manas being at once the savior as well as the tempter of mankind,
for it is in the mind where temptation and sin or evildoing ultimately
arise. See also SERPENT. Nahash and Lahash make a close connection between
the tempter in the garden of Eden, the offspring of Lamech (reincarnated as
Ea) and the musical enchanters of Mesopotamis. Theosophy
BULL OF HEAVEN Anu created this monster to kill Gilgamesh at the request
of Ishtar. It had the bad habit of throwing spit and "Bull excrement" in
the battle with Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Showing no mercy, Enkidu and
Gilgamesh kill it and offer it to the sun or Shamash.
BULL WORSHIP The bull has been worshiped as a symbol of fertility. He may
be white as seen in the Egyptian Apis, who in legend is Osiris "incarnate"
This was the worship by the Israelites at Mount Sinai where the golden calf
was worshipped with singing, dancing, instruments and sex. The sacred bulls
did not necessarily represent male animals, but were mystically considered
to be hermaphrodite or even sexless: thus the Egyptian bull, Apis, was a
hermaphrodite to show his magical character. Gender confusion was always a
primary ingredient to the priesthood which H. Bamford Parkes identifies as
the world's oldest profession.
See the worship in Egypt
BYTHUS, Bythos (Greek) The depth; chaos, the primeval deep, adopted by the
Gnostics. For example, with Valentinus it was the cosmic source whence
emanated two by two the series of aeons. Sometimes it was considered as one
member of a primordial cosmic mystic square -- sige (silence), bythos
(depth), nous (intellect), and aletheia (truth); sometimes bythos was
paired by Gnostics with sige as composing a primordial cosmic binary. See
also ABYSS. The worship of Jesus Christ was not to be in "place" or "time"
but in spirit (much like nous) and in truth (aletheia). Paul insisted that
women remain in silence for that short period for taking the Lord's Supper
and prayer. This extended to mose men who were nost inspired, which menta
most men.
CALAH Ashurnasirpal's most impressive monument was his own palace in
Kalakh, covering a space of 269,000 square feet (25,000 square metres).
Hundreds of large limestone slabs were used in murals in the staterooms and
living quarters. Most of the scenes were done in relief, but painted murals
also have been found. Most of them depict mythological themes and symbolic
fertility rites, with the king participating. Brutal war pictures were
aimed to discourage enemies. The chief god of Kalakh was Ninurta, god of
war and the hunt. The tower of the temple dedicated to Ninurta also served
as an astronomical observatory. Kalakh soon became the cultural centre of
the empire. Ashurnasirpal claimed to have entertained 69,574 guests at the
opening ceremonies of his palace
CHALDEA (Chaldaea, Assy Kaldu, Bab Kasdu, Heb Kasddim) Chaldea is first
mentioned in the annals of the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (reigned
884/883-859 BC), though earlier documents referred to the same area as the
"Sealand." In 850 Shalmaneser III of Assyria raided Chaldea and reached the
Persian Gulf, which he called the "Sea of Kaldu." On the accession of
Sargon II to the Assyrian throne (721), the Chaldean Marduk-apla-iddina II
(the biblical Merodach-baladan), ruler of Bit-Yakin (a district of
Chaldea), seized the Babylonian throne and, despite Assyrian opposition,
held it from 721 to 710. He finally fled, however, and Bit-Yakin was placed
under Assyrian control.
CHALDEAN Chaldees, inhabitants of Chaldea or lower Mesopotamia, where Ur
(Genesis 11:28) was the ancient city of the Sumerians. They invented
writing, astrology, and the magic arts in the fourth millennium BC. They
were highly in demand until Roman times for their knowledge of divining,
interpreting dreams and fortune-telling. They are implicated in 1
Corinthians 13 as Paul compared speaking in tongues to the pagan musical
magic made possible by the clanging sounds of brass or bronze. As long as
the Persian empire lasted there was always a distinction between the
Persian magi, who were credited with profound and extraordinary religious
knowledge, and the Babylonian magi, who were often considered to be
outright imposters.
COSMOS Man's view of the cosmos has influenced his understanding of what
are called angels and demons. The cosmos may be viewed as monistic, as in
Hinduism, in which the cosmos is regarded as wholly sacred or as
participating in a single divine principle (Brahman, or Being itself). The
cosmos may also be viewed as dualistic, as in Gnosticism (an esoteric
religious dualistic belief system, often regarded as a Christian heretical
movement, that flourished in the Greco-Roman world in the 1st and 2nd
centuries AD), in which the world of matter was generally regarded as evil
and the realm of the spirit as good. A third view of the cosmos, generally
found in the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Zoroastrianism,
Christianity, and Islam, centred on a tripartite universe: celestial,
terrestrial, and subterrestrial. This third view has influenced Western
man's concepts of angels and demons as well as his scientific and
metaphysical concepts.
DEMON OR Daemon It seems that in addition to the public and official cult
of the "twelve great gods" and their subordinate divinities, the Assyrians
had a more sacred and secret religion, a religion of mystery and magic and
sorcery. These "religious" texts, moreover, together with a mass of
talismanic inscriptions on cylinders and amulets, prove the presence of an
exceedingly rich demonology. Below the greater and lesser gods there was a
vast host of spirits, some of them good and beneficent and some of them
evil and hurtful. And these spirits were described and classified with an
exactness which leads some to liken the arrangement to that of the choirs
and orders of our own angelic hierarchy. The antiquity and importance of
this secret religion, with its magic and incantations of the good spirits
or evil demons, may be gathered from the fact that by order of King
Assurbanipal his scribes made several copies of a great magical work
according to a pattern which had been preserved from a remote antiquity in
the priestly school of Erech in Chaldea. This work consisted of three
books, the first of which is entirely consecrated to incantations (chanting
a powerful song), conjurations (to summon a god), and imprecations (A
curse) against the evil spirits. These cuneiform books, it must be
remembered, are really written on clay tablets. And each of the tablets of
these first books which has come down to us ends with the title, "Tablet
No. - of the Evil Spirits". The ideogram which is here rendered as kullulu
-- "accursed" or "evil" -- might also be read as limuttu -- "baneful".
Besides being known by the generic name of udukku -- "spirit" -- a demon is
called more distinctly ecimmu, or maskimmu. One special class of these
spirits was the sedu, or divine bull, which is represented in the well-
known figure of a man-headed bull so common on the Assyrian monuments. This
name, it may be remarked, is probably the source of the Hebrew word for
demon. The Assyrian sedu, it is true, was more commonly a beneficent or
tutelary (guardian) spirit. But this is hardly an obstacle to the
derivation, for the good spirits of one nation were often regarded as evil
by men of rival races. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
DAG, DAGAN, Dagon (Hebrew, Phoenician) [from dag fish + on diminutive; or
from dagan grain] Fish or a little fish; a Philistine god, at Ashod and
Gaza, mentioned several places in the Bible (e.g. Judges 16). He was more
than a local deity, however, as place-names called after him are
widespread. Some scholars assert there was an ancient Canaanite deity of
similar name, and also associate this Shemitic god with the Babylonian
Dagan. It is commonly believed that Dagon was represented as half-man half-
fish and identified with Oannes, though no such early representations bear
his name. Some scholars cite Philo Byblius as making Dagon the discoverer
of grain and the inventor of the plow, an earth god parallel with Bel.
DAMKINA (Chaldean, Babylonian) Consort of Enki, ruler of absu of Eridu.
Dannina "Stronghold", term for the underworld. Sometimes Davkina. Consort
of Ea or Hea, god of the watery regions, partaking of Ea's characteristics,
therefore called Damgal-nunna (great lady of the waters), likewise Nin-Ki
(lady of that which is below, i.e., the watery deeps or underworld). Mother
of Marduk (or Merodach or Bel).
DAMU Sumerian deity, city god of Girsu on the Euphrates River near Ur in
the southern orchards region. Damu, son of Enki, was a vegetation god,
especially of the vernal flowing of the sap of trees and plants. His name
means "the child," and his cult--apparently celebrated primarily by women--
centred on the lamentation and search for Damu, who had lain under the bark
of his nurse, the cedar tree, and had disappeared. The search finally ended
when the god reappeared out of the river.
The cult of Damu influenced and later blended with the similar cult of
Dumuzi the Shepherd, a Sumerian deity worshiped by the central grasslands
people. A different deity called Damu was a goddess of healing and the
daughter of Nininsina of Isin.
DANIEL or Danel
DAZIMUA: Married Ningishzid amother of the Eight children of Ki
DEEP (See Abyss, Bythos) The Hebrew word is "tehom" which is different from
the normal word for sea which is "yam". Genesis 1:2 also uses it: "The
earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the
deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." The
"on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the window
of the heavens were opened." Rain was often thought to be the water of the
deep coming through the sky ceiling of the firmament. The word "tehom" is
related to the Babylonian word TIAMAT.
DEMIGODS One of the orders of semi-divine instructors, spiritual beings in
human form. Herodotus, among other Greek writers, speaks of humanity being
ruled successively by gods, demigods, heroes, and men. We still get
confused.
DEMONS GALAS The demons of the underworld. In ancient Babylonia many demons
were mentioned on the clay tablets, e.g. Alu, who crushed men by falling on
top of them when they were asleep. The demoness Lamastu, pale-faced with
donkey's ears, bare-breasted and with poisonous claws, killed babies at
their mother's breast. Illnesses and misfortunes were personified as
demons, both make and female, with Akkadian or Sumerian names. She is a
model for Lilith.
Groups of demons are: Asakku (Sumerian Asag), seven created by Anu and
defeated by Ninurta, a victory also attributed to Nergal. Gallu, a term
which originally referred to police officers (!) Sebitti, "The Seven".
Individuals with Akkadian names are: Bel Uri "Lord of the Roof" Bennu
"Fits" Idiptu "Wind" Libu "Scab" Lamashtu, a female demon, a disease Mimma
lemnu "Something evil" Miqut "stroke" Muttabriqu "Flashes of lightning"
Pasittu "She who erases" (an epithet of Lamashtu) Ugallu (Lion demon)
Rabishu "The Croucher" Sarabda "Bailiff" Sidana "Staggers" Suruppu, a
disease brought on by flood waters Tirid "Expulsion" Umma "Feverhot" Umu, a
storm demon.
Individuals with Sumerian names are: Saghulhaza, "Upholder of evil" And the
doorkeepers of the Underworld: Engidudu (also an epithet of Erra),
Endushuba, Endukuga, Endashurimma, Ennugigi, Enuralla/Nerulla, Nerubanda.
Dilmun is the Sumerian name of an ancient independent kingdom that
flourished c. 2000 BC, often identified with al-Bahrain
Because Dilmun has no fresh sparkling water ENKI orders UTU, the sun god,
to fill it with fresh water brought up from the earth. Dilmun is thus
turned into a divine garden. In this garden 8 plants are created and grown
by NINHURSAG only to be eaten by ENKI. NINHURSAG becomes so angry that she
places the curse of death on ENKI whose eight organs then begin to fail.
NINHURSAG leaves Dilmun although the other gods eventually convince
NINHURSAG to return to cure ENKI. She does so by creating eight healing
gods including NINTI.
DIMME LAMASHTU
DINGIR The chief deity of the Akkadians; one of the forms of the creative
powers as recognized by the earlier Akkadians. Every one of these demiurgic
powers is the chief or first in his or her own field of activity in the
universe, so that in one mythology may be found several such chief or first
divinities, each being the chief or hierarch in his or her own hierarchy,
but all nevertheless subordinate to the karmic mandates of the inclusive,
all-enclosing, cosmic primordial elements. These chief divinities are the
cosmic elements originating in and from the primordial element, which
because of the extreme reverence in which it was held by archaic thought is
often not mentioned, it being part of the teaching of the sanctuary.
DRAGON Monster usually viewed as a huge, bat-winged, fire-breathing, scaly
lizard or snake with a barbed tail. These beasts are apt symbols of kings
such as that of Tyre and Babylon who, when evil, are under the influence of
Lucifer.
In the Middle East the snakes are large and deadly and therefore the
serpent or dragon was symbolic of the principle of evil. The Egyptian god
Apepi,was the serpent of the world of darkness. But the Greeks and Romans,
though accepting the Middle Eastern idea of the serpent as an evil power,
also thought the drakontes as beneficial--sharp-eyed dwellers in the inner
parts of the Earth.
The Chaldean dragon Tiamat had four legs, a scaly body, and wings, whereas
the biblical dragon of Revelation, "the old serpent," was many-headed like
the Greek Hydra. Because they not only possessed both protective and
terror-inspiring qualities but also had decorative effigies, dragons were
early used as warlike emblems.
DUMUZI "Son of the Abyss," the ever-dying, ever-reviving Sumerian
prototype of the resurrected savior, was a harvest god of ancient
Mesopotamia, Sumerian god of vegetation and the under-world. Also called
"the shepherd" and "lord of the sheepfolds." Dumuzi known from his horned
lunar crown, is the son-husband of the goddess Gula-Bau seen sitting in
front of the serpent in a relief "Goddess of the Tree of Life" ca. 2500
B.C. Dumuzi's mother was Ningizzida, an ancestor of Gilgamesh, consort of
Ianna (Ishtar). The Great Goddess (symbolized by Demeter) also correlates
to Dionysus-Bacchus-Zagreus (or in the older, Sumero-Babylonian myths,
Dumuzi-absu, Tammuz, the "child of the abyss," who was originally a tree
god and son of Ningishzida, he died because of Ishtar's love. Tammuz also
Thammuz is the tenth month of the year in the Jewish calendar [Hebrew
Tammuz, from Babylonian Duíuzu, the name of a god]. In Egypt, Tammuz was a
god of harvest (late summer month) of Mesopotamia, Akkad and Sumer.
Tammuz (Ezek. 8:14) is equivalent to Osiris (Hay-Tau) in Egypt and Adonis
[Greek Adonis, from Phoenician adon, lord]. Osiris is Dionysus in the Greek
tongue, and the Roman Bacchus. A cylinder seal from Erech, end of the
fourth century B.C., depicts the god Tammuz (a fertility god widely
worshipped in Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine) feeding the cattle of the
temple. Tammuz was killed by a wild boar while shepherding his flocks. His
wife rescued him from the underworld. His death was taken to represent the
onset of winter. The Adonis Cult (in Nega, Byblus -Syrian coast) parallels
Dumuzi, Tammuz, and Attis.
DUMUZI-AMASHUMGALANA Tammuz and Damu were joined to become a fertility god
who probably represented the power in the sap to rise in trees and plants
in spring. The relation of still other figures to Tammuz, such as Dumuzi-
Abzu--a goddess who appears to have been the power in the waters
underground (the Abzu) to bring new life to vegetation--is not entirely
clear. see marriage to Ishtar from above link
Sumerian deity especially popular in the southern orchard regions and later
in the central grassland area. He was the young bridegroom of the goddess
Inanna (Akkadian: Ishtar), a fertility figure sometimes called the Lady of
the Date Clusters. As such, he represented the power of growth and new life
in the date palm. In Erech, the marriage of Inanna, in her role as goddess
of the storehouse, to Dumuzi-Amaushumgalana was essentially a harvest
festival, symbolizing the security the community felt after laying in
provisions for the new year.
DUMUZI-ABZU Sumerian deity, city goddess of Kinirsha near Lagash in the
southeastern marshland region. She represented the power of fertility and
new life in the marshes. Dumuzi-Abzu corresponded to the Sumerian god
Dumuzi (see Tammuz) of the central herding area, and thus around Eridu she
was viewed as male and as son of Enki (Akkadian: Ea, also called the Lord
of Apsu).
EA (ENKI) (Akkadian), Sumerian Enki, Mesopotamian god of water and a
member of the triad of deities completed by Anu (Sumerian An) and Bel
(Enlil). From a local deity worshiped in the city of Eridu, Ea evolved into
a major god, Lord of Apsu (also spelled Abzu), the fresh waters beneath the
earth (although Enki means literally "lord of the earth"). In the Sumerian
myth, "Enki and the World Order," Enki is said to have fixed national
boundaries and assigned gods their roles. According to another Sumerian
myth Enki is the creator, having devised men as slaves to the gods. In his
original form, as Enki, he was associated with semen and amniotic fluid,
and therefore with fertility. He was commonly represented as a half-goat,
half-fish creature, from which the modern astrological figure for Capricorn
is derived. He is also identified with Oannes.
Ea governed the arts of sorcery and incantation. In some stories he was
also the form-giving god, and thus the patron of craftsmen and artists (see
KOSMOS below); he was known as the bearer of culture. In his role as
adviser to the king, Ea was a wise god although not a forceful one. In
Akkadian myth, as Ea's character evolves, he appears frequently as a clever
mediator who could be devious and cunning. He is also significant in
Akkadian mythology as the father of Marduk, the national god of Babylonia.
Also known as Nudimmud, a name associated with function as a creator-god.
Epithet: "Nussiku" translated here as far-sighted.
When the younger gods grew too noisy, Apsu and Mummu decided to murder
them. Ea, who knows all, discovered the plot and attacked Apsu with a
magical spell. Tiamat plotted revenge but again Ea found out but was too
fearful. His father, Anshar urged him on but Ea decided to negotiate.
However, when Tiamat refused, Ea's son, Marduk, decided to destroy her if
he could become the most high God. He succeeded and of course all earlier
gods were demoted so that he got all of the glory.
EA-EL Ea or Hea (Akkadian, Chaldean) [from house + water] One of the three
chief gods of the Chaldaeo- or Assyro-Babylonian celestial triad of Anu,
Bel, and Ea. In the division of the universe into heaven, earth, and water,
Ea is king of the watery deeps (Shar Apsi); also Lord of that which is
below (En-Ki).
Ea is seen as a man with the body of a fish, and is probably Oannes and
Dagon. Marduk are also aspects of this same deity. His consort is Damkina
(lady of that which is below) or Damgal-nunna (great lady of the waters).
EANNA or E-Anna "House of the Sky, name of the temple of Anu and Ishtar in
Uruk, also called "The Pure Treasury." Anu descended to Earth only on
special occasions, in time of crisis, or for ceremonial reasons. When on
Earth he would stay in the temple of Anu and Ishtar, the E-ANNA or "House
of An" or the "House of the Sky" or "the Pure Treasury" atop the ziggurat
in Uruk, his sacred city. The word ziggurat comes from the Babylonian
"zaquru" and means "to be high or raised up." It signifies the top of a
mountain or a staged tower and such a tower provided an artificial mountain
on the flat Mesopotamian plain.
EA-ENGURRA Temple of the god Ea in Eridu.
EIGHT CHILDREN OF KI Abu, Nintul, Ninsutu, Ninkasi, Nazi, Dazimua, Ninti,
Enshagag. The Goddess Uttu, in the paradise of Dilmun, made 8 plants sprout
from her union with Enki. He then proceeded to eat them all. Ki cursed him
for this and he became ill. He convinced her to remove her curse, and she
created eight gods of healing, one for each pain Enki was having, to cure
him. Each name of the gods is a pun for the body parts they healed.
EKUR "Mountain-house" The temple of the god Ellil in Nippur, where Ninurta
was born.
ENHEDUANNA
ELLIL (Illil, Sumerian Enlil) Sumerian god, leader of the younger
generation of Sumerian and Akkadian gods. Cult center Nippur. Temple called
Ekur. Spouse Mulittu; son Ninurta. Old interpretation of his name as "Lord
Wind/Air" uncertain. Epithet: "King of all populated lands." Symbol: A
horned crown on a shrine. Son of the supreme god Anu, whom he succeeded.
See also Anzu, Ninurta.
ENKI (EA) Enki, son of An and Nammu, was the god of the underground
freshwater ocean (the abzu", sometimes referred to as the apsu"). His name
can be taken to mean "Lord Earth," but "ki" can also refer to 'the below'
in the two-tiered cosmic structure, in opposition to "an": heaven. Enki is
also a god of wisdom, a faculty which included practical skills (such as
arts and crafts), intellectual faculties, the ability to "decree fates",
and the command of magical powers. In the Atrahasis myth, for example, it
was Enki's intercession which saved mankind from the flood and pestilence
ordered by Enlil. He is sometimes referred to as Nudimmud or Ninsiku. His
wife is Damgaknuna/Damkina. Among his children are Asarluhi, Enbilulu,
Adapa, and Nanse. His symbols include the goatfish, the tortoise, a ram-
headed staff, and a ship or similar vessel overflowing with water.
ENKIDU (Ea-bani): Hero and friend and fellow warrior with Gilgamesh.
Earlier, he is a wild man who lives with wild animals. He was tamed by a
harlot and taken to Uruk to oppose Gilgamesh. His name means "created by
Ea"
ENLIL See Bel He is the wind or storm god and Christian writers are prone
to equate the Holy Spirit as a "person" to Enlil as the chief administrator
of the other "gods." His chief, in turn, is Nusku and he is the leader of
the Anunnaki.
Enlil is one of the most important gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon.
Sometimes he is said to be the offspring of An, and brother of the birth-
goddess Aruru. He is also, however, sometimes described as the descendant
of Enki and Ninki "Lord" and "Lady Earth," not to be confused with the
deity Enki). Yet a third tradition attributes his birth to the primeval
water-goddess Nammu. His wife is Ninlil ( Among his prominent offspring are
Inanna, Adad, Nanna, Nergal, Ninurta, and Utu. The personality of Enlil is
very complex. It is not certain what the Sumerian element "lil" originally
stood for. It has had meanings as diverse as 'air,' and 'spirit.' He is the
lord who 'determines the fates,' a function he shares with the god Enki. It
was Enlil who was said to have separated the primordial heaven/earth, thus
bringing forth the created universe. On a cosmic level, while Enki's realm
was below (the abzu), and An ruled above (the heavens), Enlil's realm was
the earth and the spheres of the winds and weather above it. Enlil was
responsible for all aspects of life: fertility and prosperity, as well as
famine and catastrophe. His great cult center was the temple E-kur at
Nippur. He is sometimes also referred to as Nunamnir. Enlil, who saw Ninlil
bathing in a canal, raped and impregnated her. For his crime he was
banished to the Underworld.
ENMERKER A Sumerian hero and king of Erech, a city-state in southern
Mesopotamia, who is thought to have lived at the end of the 4th or
beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. Along with Lugalbanda and Gilgamesh,
Enmerkar is one of the three most significant figures in the surviving
Sumerian epics.
Although scholars once assumed that there was only one epic relating
Enmerkar's subjugation of a rival city, Aratta, it is now believed that two
separate epics tell this tale. One is called Enmerkar and the Lord of
Aratta. The longest Sumerian epic yet discovered, it is the source of
important information about the history and culture of the Sumero-Iranian
border area. According to this legend, Enmerkar, son of the sun god Utu,
was envious of Aratta's wealth of metal and stones, which he needed in
order to build various shrines, especially a temple for the god Enki in
Eridu. Enmerkar therefore requested his sister, the goddess Inanna, to aid
him in acquiring material and manpower from Aratta; she agreed and advised
him to send a threatening message to the lord of Aratta. The lord of
Aratta, however, demanded that Enmerkar first deliver large amounts of
grain to him. Though Enmerkar complied, the lord of Aratta refused to
complete his part of the agreement; threatening messages were again sent
out by both men, each claiming the aid and sanction of the goddess Inanna.
The text becomes fragmented at that point in the narrative, but in the end
Enmerkar was apparently victorious.
The other epic relating the defeat of Aratta is known as Enmerkar and
Ensuhkeshdanna. In this tale the ruler of Aratta, Ensuhkeshdanna (or
Ensukushsiranna), demanded that Enmerkar become his vassal. Enmerkar
refused and, declaring himself the favourite of the gods, commanded
Ensuhkeshdanna to submit to him. Although the members of Ensuhkeshdanna's
council advised him to comply with Enmerkar, he listened instead to a local
priest, who promised to make Erech subject to Aratta. When the priest
arrived in Erech, however, he was outwitted and killed by a wise old woman,
Sagburru, and the two sons of the goddess Nidaba. After he learned the fate
of his priest, Ensuhkeshdanna's will was broken and he yielded to
Enmerkar's demands.
A third epic, Lugalbanda and Enmerkar, tells of the heroic journey to
Aratta made by Lugalbanda in the service of Enmerkar. According to the
epic, Erech was under attack by Semitic nomads. In order to save his
domain, Enmerkar required the aid of Inanna, who was in Aratta. Enmerkar
requested volunteers to go to Inanna, but only Lugalbanda would agree to
undertake the dangerous mission. The epic concerns the events of
Lugalbanda's journey and the message given him from Inanna for Enmerkar.
Although obscure, Inanna's reply seems to indicate that Enmerkar was to
make special water vessels and was also to catch strange fish from a
certain river.
ENUMA ELISH
ENSUHKESHDANNA See Enmerker Above
ERECH Sumerian Uruk, Greek ORCHOË, modern Tall Al-warka', ancient
Mesopotamian city located northwest of Ur (Tall Al-Muqayyar) in
southeastern Iraq. According to legend it were built by the Gilgamesh.
The principal Sumerian divinity worshiped in ancient Erech appear to have
been Anu (An), a sky god, and the goddess Inanna ("Queen of the Sky"). One
of the chief landmarks of the city is the Anu ziggurat crowned by the
"White Temple."
Eriskegal, Ereshkigal (Allatu). Queen of the underworld (Kur), of death,
and enemy of Inanna. All underwold deities are called Chthonic Deities. She
is said to be the sister of Inanna, making her the daughter of Nanna. She
is defineitly not one of the Seven Chthonic Anunnaki, yet she is still an
Anunnaki. Most likely she is the Destructive Forces of Saturn as Inanna is
Venus.
She was sister of Ishtar, spouse of Nergal, mother of Ninazu. The
Babylonian Persephone, spouse of Nergal, the god of the dead in the
Underworld. As Mesopotamian goddess of the nether world, queen of the lower
regions, she is often praised in hymns. One day Nergal was sent to her from
heaven with an offering of food. They fell in love with each other, and
when he had to leave, she was in tears and threatened Anu, the supreme god,
that she would revive all the dead, over which she ruled, and send them
back to earth, "so that they will outnumber the living", unless Nergal was
sent back to her, for ever, as a husband. Her minister Namtar had to go to
heaven as her messenger, for Ereshkigal felt that she was already pregnant.
At last Nergal came storming down the stairs, broke down the seven gates
and burst into the goddess' palace straight into her passionate embrace,
"to wash away her tears."
ERIDU One of the oldest seats of religious culture in ancient Babylonia,
located a few miles SSW of Ur in Chaldea, and mentioned in ancient records
as the city of the deep. In it was a temple of Ea, god of the sea and of
wisdom. Rediscovered in 1854, it is now about 120 miles from the Persian
Gulf, though spoken of in old records as being on the shore; calculations
based on the rate of alluvial deposition places its date in the seventh
millennium BC. Sayce, by comparing the Akkadian calendar with the present
position of the vernal equinox, gives a date going back to 4700 BC
THE ERIDU GENESIS Sumerian epic primarily concerned with the creation of
the world, the building of cities, and the flood. According to the epic,
after the universe was created out of the primeval sea and the gods were
given birth, the deities in turn fashioned man from clay to cultivate the
ground, care for flocks, and perpetuate the worship of the gods.
Cities were soon built and kingship was instituted on Earth. For some
reason, however, the gods determined to destroy mankind with a flood. Enki
(Akkadian Ea), who did not agree with the decree, revealed it to Ziusudra
(Utnapishtim), a man well known for his humility and obedience. Ziusudra
did as Enki commanded him and built a huge boat, in which he successfully
rode out the flood. Afterward, he prostrated himself before the gods An
(Anu) and Enlil (Bel), and, as a reward for living a godly life, Ziusudra
was given immortality.
ERRA (Mythica) God of war, hunting, plagues. Etymology "Scorched earth"
probably incorrect. Assimilated with Nergal and Gerra. Temple Emeslam in
the city Kutha. Epithet Engidudu "Lord who prowls by night" (see demons).
See Nergal. Babylonian god of war, death, and other disasters. His greatest
ally was famine caused by drought. He may be identified with Nergal, the
god of death. He expressed death himself symbolically by his continuous
lethargy as he lay in a drunken stupor. War has always been the major cause
of death throughout history. Erra was supplicated to ward off pestilence
and other calamities. One of the earliest known epic poems to come to
light, written on clay tablets, is the Epic of Erra. At the opening of the
epic, Erra sits in his palace while his weapons, which are in reality minor
gods called the Sibitti, complain about his inaction. Erra persuades the
old king-god of Babylon to visit his old craftsmen in the land of Absu
beneath the earth. Erra is just on the point of destroying Babylonia when
old Ishum, minister of Marduk, warns him: "Those who make war are the
ignorant/War kills the priests and the sinless..." Although he has already
started devastating the country, Erra is pacified by the wise minister and
calls off the hounds of war. Marduk returns to peace. See also Sibitti.
ESAGILA Most important temple complex in ancient Babylon, dedicated to the
god Marduk, the tutelary deity of that city. The temple area was located
south of the huge ziggurat called Etemenanki; it measured 660 feet (200 m)
on its longest side, and its three vast courtyards were surrounded by
intricate chambers. The whole complex reflects centuries of building and
rebuilding by the Babylonian kings, especially Nebuchadrezzar II (reigned
604-562 BC). The tremendous wealth of Esagila was recorded by the Greek
historian Herodotus.
ETANA Son of Kish and twelfth king of Kish after the Flood, father of
Balih. Thirteenth god-king of the Sumerian dynasty ruling the city of Kish.
Though he was appointed by Anu and prayed daily to Shamash the sun-god, he
had no son. Shamash directed him to an eagle who had been snared by a
snake. Etana freed the eagle who, in gratitude, carried the king on his
back to heaven. There, Etana, in front of the throne of Ishtar, begged for
a son. She gave him the plant of birth, which he probably had to eat
together with his wife. We know from history that Etana had a son named
Balih. An incomplete epic about his exploits has been discovered.
ETANA MYTH In the beginning, according to the epic, there was no king on
the earth; the gods thus set out to find one and apparently chose Etana,
who proved to be an able ruler until he discovered that his wife, though
pregnant, was unable to give birth, and thus he had no heir to the throne.
The one known remedy was the birth plant, which Etana was required to bring
down personally from heaven. Etana, therefore, prayed to the god Shamash,
who heard his request and directed him to a mountain where a maimed eagle,
languishing in a pit (into which it had been thrown as punishment for
breaking a sacred pact), would help him obtain the special plant. Etana
rescued the eagle, and as a reward it carried him high up into the sky.
According to one fragment, Etana reached heaven and bell before the gods.
There the text breaks off. According to another fragment, however, Etana
either became dizzy or lost his nerve before reaching heaven and crashed to
the ground. If, as many scholars believe, Etana was successful, the myth
may have been used to support early dynastic claims.
ETEMENANKI The Esagila was the seven-storied temple of Marduk which was
the "House of the Platform of heaven and earth." This was the ancient and
modern "Tower of Babel" where the slave-enriched population were convinced
that they could musically ascend the steps and possibly come into the
presence of a god. Then, as now, they believed that the temple at the top
was the platform upon which the gods landed. From Esagila northward passed
the paved Processional Way, its walls decorated with enamelled lions.
Passing through the Ishtar Gate, adorned with enamelled bulls and dragons,
it led to the Akitu House, a small temple outside the city, visited by
Marduk at the New Year festival. West of the Ishtar Gate, one of eight
fortified gates, were two palace complexes that covered about 40 acres with
their fortifications.
FLOOD Tablet XI of the epic of Gilgamesh describes the great flood epic, as
George Smith and Friedrich Delitzsch discovered around the turn of the
century, is about a thousand years older than the biblical tale of Noah in
Genesis 6. The Babylonian epic introduces the immortal sage called
Utanapishtim (in Sumerian called Ziusudra). The gods decided one day to
drown all human beings because they were noisy. The god Ea however,
secretly descended to his favorite - Uta-Napishtim - and told him to build
"Dismantle your house, build a boat, leave your possessions, look for your
living ones to save them, out the seeds of all that lives in your boat!" -
a remarkably practical piece of advice, such as one needs when disaster is
immanent! Uta-Napishtim did as he was advised, adding gold and silver to
his cargo. For six days and seven nights the storm blew. After that, the
wind and sea became calm once more. The flood then receded. Silence
reigned. All humanity had returned to clay. Uta-Napishtim the sent out a
dove followed by a swallow and a raven. The first two returned but the
raven did not. The flood had by then diminished and land become visible. In
the Sumerian version all the windstorms (spirits), exceedingly powerful,
attacked as one At the same time the floods swept over the cult-centers For
seven days and nights the boat was tossed about... Ziusudra (Zisutra) who
has built his boat with instructions from the god of wisdom, Enki, "Opens a
window in his boat...[until] Utu the sun-god sends his rays of light into
the boat." Ziusudra then worshipped Utu.
GALAS, THE: The demons of the underworld. Gallu In Chaldean theology, a
class of spirits beneath the angels of earth
GESHTINANNA, GESTINNANA (Demi-god) (Sumerian) Sister of Dumuzi, Divine
poetress, singer, and interpreter of dreams. The dying Dumuzi, tortured by
nightmares, brought the dreams to his sister for interpretation. Gestinanna
realized her brother was under attack by demons. She tells him this and
advises him to flee. Dumuzi flees, swearing Gestinanna to secrecy as to
where he is going into hiding. The demons attacked Gestinanna to force her
to reveal her brother's whereabouts, but she remained silent. The demons,
however, soon found Dumuzi, hiding in the form of a gazelle in his sister's
sheepfold. He was carried off to the underworld by them; Gestinanna then
set out to rescue him. They were eventually reunited after many adventures.
The goddess then persuaded the underworld divinities to grant Dumuzi half
her own life; thus each was allowed to live on earth six months of each
year. Her sister in the netherworld was Ereshkigal.
GILGAMESH King of Uruk, son of Lugalbanda and Ninsun in the Epic. Name may
mean "The old man is a young man" in Sumerian. Listed with gods in very
early texts. Late epithet: "King of Earth"
GUDEA general background)
GUGALANA The Bull of Heaven husband of Ereshkigal's
GULU As Ninmah (See Ninkhursag) alias Nintu, Ki, Ninki, Ninmah, Ninlil,
Innini, Bau, Gula, Ninkarrak, Gam-Tum-Dug, Belit-Illu, Belitis, was one of
four main Sumerian gods (See Damkina). Damkina or Damgalnunna; alias Ninka,
goddess wife of Ea -- Sumerian god of sweet waters. As Ninlil wife of
Enlil; as Ninki wife of Enki (Ea).
HADAD Also spelled HAD, HADDA, OR HADDU, the Old Testament Rimmon, West
Semitic god of storms, thunder, and rain. His attributes were identical
with those of Adad of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. He was the chief baal
("lord") of the West Semites (including both sedentary and nomadic
Aramaeans) in north Syria, along the Phoenician coast, and along the
Euphrates River. As Baal-Hadad he was represented as a bearded deity, often
holding a club and thunderbolt and wearing a horned headdress. The bull was
the symbolic animal of Hadad, as of the Hittite deity Teshub, who was
identical with him.
HAMMURABI King of Babylon 1848-1806 BC.
HESOID Theogony: Deals with the origin of the gods and is the fullest
record of the Greek myths which have parallels in Babylonia.
HULLUPU TREE After the heavens had been separated from the earth and as
Enki was attacked, a huluppu (tree) had been planted on the banks of the
Euphrates. Then the South Wind plucked it up. Inanna roving around in fear
found the tree and took it to Erech. As it grew, the snake set up a nest in
the roots, the bird reared its young and Lilith built her house. Everyone
laughed at Inanna's weeping. Later, Gilgamesh struck the serpent, the Anzu-
Bird flew away and Lilith smashed her home and fled into the wild. From the
trunk of the tree Gilgamesh carved a throne for his sister.
HUMBABA (Humwawa) Guardian of the Pine forest, fire breathing servant of
the god Wer, depicted with a face lined like coiled intestines, ancestor of
the Greek Gorgon. His voice is the Abubu-weapon.
Gilgamesh, also of that dynasty, figures as the hero of a variety of short
tales; some, such as "Gilgamesh and Huwawa" and
In tablet 3-5 Enkidu and a friend of Gilgamesh set out together against
Huwawa or Humbaba, the guardian of a remote cedar forest. There is not
record of the outcome. Clay mask of Humbaba, the guardian of the ceadar
trees of the Gods; defeated by Gilgamesh
IGIGI (ee gee' gee) Sumerian term for the great gods of the younger
generation, sky-gods headed by Ellil, often paired with the Anunnaki.
Early deities who guide and control every aspect of nature. Either they
were not given much promenance later, or they simply were never given much
attention. Chances are that these are Angels were the gods are Archangels.
Collective name for the great gods of heaven associated with blood, madness
and revenge.
INANNA (Inannu) Sumerian earth-goddess, sister of Ereshkigal. She loved
Dumuzi. Babylonian mother-goddess, "mistress of heaven." See Ishtar
(Babylonian) .
Nanna's daughter, and goddess of love and war. Inanna also visits Kur,
which results in a myth similar to Greek seasonal story of Persephone. She
sets out to witness the funeral rites of her sister-in-law Ereshkigal's
husband Gugalana, the Bull of Heaven. She takes precaution before setting
out, by telling her servant Ninshubur to seek assistance from Enlil, Nanna,
or Enki at their shrines, should she not return. Inanna knocks on the outer
gates of Kur and the gatekeeper, Neti, questions her. He consults with
queen Ereshkigal and then allows Inanna to pass through the seven gates of
the underworld. After each gate, she is required to remove adornments and
articles of clothing, until after the seventh gate, she is naked. The
Annuna pass judgment against her and Ereshkigal killed her and hung her on
the wall.
The goddess Inanna was the most important female deity of ancient
Mesopotamia. The etymology of her name is uncertain; but by the end of the
third millennium B.C. it was taken to derive from nin.an.na : "Lady of
Heaven." Also known as Innin, her epithets reflect her broad role in the
pantheon: Ninmesarra - "Queen of all the Me," a title making her one of the
most influential deities in the world of gods and men; Nu-ugiganna - "the
Hierodule of Heaven," a projection of her erotic functions to the cosmic
scale; and Usunzianna - "Exalted Cow of Heaven," she who provides life and
sustenance to the land. In this aspect, it was Inanna who yearly reunited
symbolically with her consort Dumuzi to restore life and fertility in the
land.
This cycle, known as the Sacred Marriage, was a common theme in songs sung
in her praise. Inanna represented the force of sexual reproduction and the
power of the passions so incited. This passion finds its compliment in her
martial character, 'the heroic champion, the destroyer of foreign lands,
foremost in battle.' She was the daughter of the moon-god Nanna (though
some traditions held her to be the daughter of An). Her sister was the
netherworld goddess Ereskigal. Inanna's beast was the lion. Her usual
symbol was the star or star disk (though it may also have been the
rosette).
IMDUGUD See NINURTA
ISHKUR Married goddess Shala Sumerian god of the rain and thunderstorms of
spring. He was the city god of Bit Khakhuru. He is similar to Ninhar
(Ningubla) and was imagined in the form of a great bull and the son of
Nanna (Akkadian Sin), the moon god. When he is portrayed in human shape, he
often holds his symbol, the lightning fork. Ishkur's wife was the goddess
Shala. In his role as god of rain and thunder, Ishkur corresponded to the
other Sumerian deities Asalluhe and Ninurta. He was identified by the
Akkadians with their god of thunderstorms, Adad.
ISHTAR (Akkadian), Sumerian Inanna, in Mesopotamian religion, goddess of
war and sexual love. Ishtar is the Akkadian counterpart of the West Semitic
goddess Astarte. Inanna, an important goddess in the Sumerian pantheon,
came to be identified with Ishtar, but it is uncertain whether Inanna is
also of Semitic origin or whether, as is more likely, her similarity to
Ishtar caused the two to be identified. In the figure of Inanna several
traditions seem to have been combined: she is sometimes the daughter of the
sky god An, sometimes his wife; in other myths she is the daughter of
Nanna, god of the moon, or of the wind, Enlil. In her earliest
manifestations she was associated with the storehouse and thus personified
as the goddess of dates, wool, meat, and grain; the storehouse gates were
her emblem. She was also the goddess of rain and thunderstorms--leading to
her association with An, the sky god--and was often pictured with the lion,
whose roar resembled thunder. The power attributed to her in war may have
arisen from her connection with storms. Inanna was also a fertility figure,
and, as goddess of the storehouse and the bride of the god Dumuzi-
Amaushumgalana, who represented the growth and fecundity of the date palm,
she was characterized as young, beautiful, and impulsive--never as helpmate
or mother. She is sometimes referred to as the Lady of the Date Clusters.
Ishtar's primary legacy from the Sumerian tradition is the role of
fertility figure; she evolved, however, into a more complex character,
surrounded in myth by death and disaster, a goddess of contradictory
connotations and forces: fire and fire-quenching, rejoicing and tears, fair
play and enmity. The Akkadian Ishtar is also, to a greater extent, an
astral deity, associated with the planet Venus: with Shamash, sun god, and
Sin, moon god, she forms a secondary astral triad. In this manifestation
her symbol is a star with 6, 8, or 16 rays within a circle.
As goddess of Venus, delighting in bodily love, Ishtar was the protectress
of prostitutes and the patroness of the alehouse. Part of her cult worship
probably included temple prostitution, and her cult centre, Erech, was a
city filled with courtesans and harlots. Her popularity was universal in
the ancient Middle East, and in many centres of worship she probably
subsumed numerous local goddesses.
In later myth she was known as Queen of the Universe, taking on the powers
of An, Enlil, and Enki.
She appears at times as Anu' second consort. Ishtar, with Shamash and Sin
(the life-force, the sun, and the moon), formed an important triad of
divinities. In astronomy Ishtar was a name of the planet Venus -- the
double aspect of the goddess being made to correspond to the morning and
evening star. (Lucifer)
(Chaldean) Ancient Babylonian deity, eldest of heaven and earth, daughter
of Anu (the lord of the heavens) and Antum. She is the sister of Ereshkigal
and has to face her in the underworld. This visit is conntected with
Tammuz. Her worship was fervently pursued by the multitude both in
Babylonia and Assyria, although she was known under various names in
different localities -- Anunit, Nina, Nanna, Innanna, Atar -- even when
represented as the consort of Marduk (Babylonia) and of Assur (Assyria). In
popular conception, she was the bounteous nature goddess, queen of beauty
and joyousness, equivalent to Aphrodite or Venus, however, rather than
Ceres, although synthesizing certain attributes of both these goddesses.
Her other aspect is as the grim, stern harvester, withdrawing the life-
forces so that everything during this period shall have sleep and rest.
This aspect was stressed by the warlike Assyrians, who represented her as
armed with bow and arrows, and hence she becomes their chief goddess of
battles; whereas the Babylonians stressed the mother and child idea. Her
symbol was an eight-rayed star.
KI / Ninhursag (Sumerian) (Aruru), Mammi -Babylonian) goddess of earth. Ki
is likely to be the original name of the earth goddess, whose name more
often appears as Ninhursag (queen of the mountains), Ninmah (the exalted
lady), or Nintu (the lady who gave birth). It seems likely that she and An
were the progenitors of most of the gods. She is the mother goddess and
assists in the creation of man.
There advised Enki as he shaped several forms of man from the heart of the
clay over the Abzu. In Dilmun, she bore eight new trees from Enki. When he
then ate her children, she cursed him with eight wounds. After being
persuaded by Enlil to undo her curse, she bore Enki eight new children
which undid the wounds of the first ones. Most often she is considered
Enlil's sister, but in some traditions she is his spouse instead.
KINGS (Sumerian)
KINGU The dragon of chaos. See Below
KISH First to establish the kingship after the flood according to the
Sumerian king list. East of Babylon, connected to it by canal. Cult center
of Ishtar (temple E-hursag-kalama) and Zababa (temple E-mete-ursag). A
Babylonian city. See Etana.
KISHAR "Whole earth" Sumerian god of old generation, paired with Anshar.
She is the offspring of Tiamat and Apsu and the mother of Anu.
KOSMOS Pythagoreanism Speculation on number and proportion led to an
intuitive feeling of the harmonia ("fitting together") of the kosmos ("the
beautiful order of things"); and the application of the tetraktys to the
theory of music (see below Music) revealed a hidden order in the range of
sound. Pythagoras may have referred, vaguely, to the "music of the
heavens," which he alone seemed able to hear; and later Pythagoreans seem
to have assumed that the distances of the heavenly bodies from the Earth
somehow correspond to musical intervals--a theory that, under the influence
of Platonic conceptions, resulted in the famous idea of the "harmony of the
spheres." Though number to the early Pythagoreans was still a kind of
cosmic matter, like the water or air proposed by the Ionians, their stress
upon numerical proportions, harmony, and order comprised a decisive step
toward a metaphysic in which form is the basic reality. See Apopis.
Chaldean is a synonym in the Bible for soothsayers or enchanters who always
used music to deceive people. Judas, for instance, carried the Glosokomon
or the bag for carrying the mouthpieces of wind instruments. It is made up
of "speaking in tongues" and "of the Kosmos."
KOTHAR Also called KHASIS, OR KHAYIN, ancient West Semitic god of crafts,
equivalent of the Greek god Hephaestus. Kothar was responsible for
supplying the gods with weapons and for building and furnishing their
palaces. During the earlier part of the 2nd millennium BC, Kothar's forge
was believed to be on the biblical Caphtor (probably Crete), though later,
during the period of Egyptian domination of Syria and Palestine, he was
identified with the Egyptian god Ptah, patron of craftsmen, and his forge
was thus located at Memphis in Egypt. According to Phoenician tradition,
Kothar was also the patron of magic and inventor of magical incantations;
in addition, he was believed to have been the first poet. SEE Aqhat Epic.
KUR The Underworld. (See Asag). Kur is the name of the area which either
was contained by or contained the Abzu. Enki also struggled with Kur as
mentioned in the opening to "Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Underworld" and
presumably was victorious and thereby able to claim the title "Lord of
Kur" (the realm). Kramer suggests that Kur was a dragon-like creature,
calling to mind Tiamat and Leviathan. The texts suggests that Enki's
struggle may have been with instruments of the land of kur - its stones or
its creatures hurling stones. (See also Apsu and Tiamat.)
LAGASH The city was founded in the prehistoric Ubaid Period (c. 5200-c.
3500 BC) and was still occupied as late as the Parthian era (247 BC-ad
224). In the Early Dynastic Period the rulers of Lagash called themselves
"king" (lugal), though the city itself never was included within the
official Sumerian canon of kingship. Among the most famous Lagash monuments
of that period is the Stele of the Vultures, erected to celebrate the
victory of King Eannatum over the neighbouring state of Umma. Another is
the engraved silver vase of King Entemena, a successor of Eannatum. Control
of Lagash finally fell to Sargon of Akkad (reigned c. 2334-2279 BC), but
about 150 years later Lagash enjoyed a revival.
It prospered most brilliantly under Gudea, who was probably a governor
rather than an independent king and was nominally subject to the Guti, a
warlike people who controlled much of Babylonia from about 2230 to about
2130.
Lagash was endowed with many temples, including the Eninnu, "House of the
Fifty," a seat of the high god Enlil. Architecturally the most remarkable
structure was a weir and regulator, once doubtless possessing sluice gates,
which conserved the area's water supply in reservoirs.
LAHMU AND LAHAMU in Mesopotamian mythology, twin deities, the first gods
to be born from the chaos that was created by the merging of Apsu (the
watery deep beneath the earth) and Tiamat (the personification of the salt
waters); this is described in the Babylonian mythological text Enuma elish
(c. 12th century BC). Mummu is the womb for this "evolution of the gods."
Usually, Lahmu and Lahamu represent silt, but in some texts they seem to
take the form of serpents, and, because the wavy line of a gliding snake is
similar to the ripple of water, some scholars believe that Lahmu and Lahamu
may have been only synonyms of Tiamat. Lahmu and Lahamu were rather vague
deities who do not seem to have played any significant part in subsequent
myths, although they may have been the parents of Anshar and Kishar.
LAMU: He and his wife Lahamu are said to be the silt created by the
junction of the primeval Waters, the rivers and sea. They are the Children
of Apsu and Tiamat. (see Lahamu).
LAHAMU: Wife/sister of Lamu.
LAMASHTU Demoness who steals babies from their mothers. A source for much
of the Hebrew Lilith. (Akkadian), Sumerian Dimme, in Mesopotamian religion,
the most terrible of all female demons, daughter of the sky god Anu
(Sumerian: An). A wicked female who slew children, drank the blood of men,
and ate their flesh, she had seven names and was often described in
incantations as the "seven witches." Lamashtu accomplished a variety of
evil deeds: she disturbed sleep and brought nightmares; she killed foliage
and infested rivers and streams; she bound the muscles of men, caused
pregnant women to miscarry, and brought disease and sickness. Lamashtu was
often portrayed on amulets as a lion- or bird-headed female figure kneeling
on an ass; she held a double-headed serpent in each hand and suckled a dog
at her right breast and a pig or another dog at her left breast.
LARSA One of the ancient capital cities of Babylonia, located about 20
miles (32 km) southeast of Uruk (Erech; Arabic Tall al-Warka'), in southern
Iraq. Larsa was probably founded in prehistoric times, but the most
prosperous period of the city coincided with an independent dynasty
inaugurated by a king named Naplanum (c. 2025-c. 2005 BC).
LEVIATHAN liweyathan (Hebrew) Hebrew LIVYATAN, in Jewish mythology, a
primordial sea serpent. Its source is in prebiblical Mesopotamian myth,
especially that of the sea monster in the Ugaritic myth of Baal (see Yamm).
In the Old Testament, Leviathan appears in Psalms 74:14 as a multiheaded
sea serpent that is killed by God and given as food to the Hebrews in the
wilderness. In Isaiah 27:1, Leviathan is a serpent and a symbol of Israel's
enemies, who will be slain by God. In Job 41, it is a sea monster and a
symbol of God's power of creation.
Foldings, turnings, windings, hence whatever is infolded or wound.
Mystically time as the great serpent of cyclic or circling time, likewise
space and the various phenomena that happen in space such as the turnings
and windings of forces as manifested by electricity in lightning or
thunderbolt. Ancient Hebrew Biblical esotericism made of Leviathan a great
sea monster, with particular reference to the waters of space. In its
exalted sense it means the cycling and everlasting motion of divinity in
duration and in abstract space; its concrete or lowest aspect signifies the
apparently unregulated, winding, turbulent forces of the material worlds --
also inimical forces which seem antagonistic to the spiritual and
intellectual balance of him who strives upwards. One significance was that
of a great serpent or crocodile -- it is sometimes compared to the Hindu
Makara; another is "Deity in its double manifestation of good and evil"
(Theosophy)
LILITH (Hebrew) Isaiah 34:16b Female demon of Jewish folklore; her name
and personality are derived from the class of Mesopotamian demons called
lilû (feminine: lilitu, from layil night ). In rabbinic literature Lilith
is variously depicted as the mother of Adam's demonic offspring following
his separation from Eve or as his first wife, who left him because of their
incompatibility. Three angels tried in vain to force her return; the evil
she threatened, especially against children, was said to be counteracted by
the wearing of an amulet bearing the names of the angels. A cult associated
with Lilith survived among some Jews as late as the 7th century AD. ( In
Isaiah 14:12 Heylel (h1966) hay-lale'; from 1984 (in the sense of
brightness); the morning-star: - lucifer.) Represented by the king of
Babylon and of Tyre called "the harp-playing" prostitute who used musical
priestesses to seduce travelers out of their wealth.
Babylo-Assyrian Lilit or Lilu. In Rabbinical writings Lilith is the first
consort or wife of the mindless Adam, and it was from the snares of Eve-
Lilith that the second Eve, the woman, become his savior.
"The numberless traditions about Satyrs are no fables, but represent an
extinct race of animal men. The animal 'Eves' were their foremothers, and
the human 'Adams' their forefathers; hence the Kabalistic allegory of
Lilith or Lilatu, Adam's first wife, whom the Talmud describes as a
charming woman, with long wavy hair, i.e., -- a female hairy animal of a
character now unknown, still a female animal, who in the Kabalistic and
Talmudic allegories is called the female reflection of Samael, Samael-
Lilith, or man-animal united, a being called Hayoh Bishah, the Beast or
Evil Beast. (Zohar, ii, 255, 259). It is from this unnatural union that the
present apes descended" (Theosophy view)
LUCIFER (Latin) Light-bringer [Hebrew heylel, from halal) the planet
Venus, the morning star. Lucifer is light bringer to earth, not only
physically as the brightest of the planets, but in a mystical sense also.
In mysticism he is the chief of those minor powers or logoi who are said to
rebel against high heaven and to be cast down to the bottomless pit -- the
so-called war in heaven and the fall of the angels.
LUGALBANDA (Mesop. hero) Lugal-gabajal Father of Gilgamesh, king of Uruk,
son of Emerkar, deified hero of several Sumerian stories. Consort of the
goddess Ninsun, native of Kullab. Ancestor of Gilgamesh.
Dumuzi (not Dumuzi the shepherd) was a human offspring as The Wild Bull.
His mother was Ninsum the "Lady Wild Cow." Her husband was Lugalbanda.
MARDUK The son of Ea and Damkina and in Mesopotamian religion, the chief
god of the city of Babylon and the national god of Babylonia; as such he
was eventually called simply Bel, or Lord. Originally he seems to have been
a god of thunderstorms. A poem, known as Enuma elish and dating from the
reign of Nebuchadrezzar I (1124-03 BC), relates Marduk's rise to such
preeminence that he was the god of 50 names, each one that of a deity or of
a divine attribute. After conquering the monster of primeval chaos, Tiamat,
he became "lord of the gods of heaven and earth." All nature, including
man, owed its existence to him; the destiny of kingdoms and subjects was in
his hands.
Marduk's chief temples at Babylon were the Esagila and the Etemenanki, a
ziggurat with a shrine of Marduk on the top. In Esagila the poem Enuma
elish was recited every year at the New Year festival. The goddess named
most often as the consort of Marduk was Zarpanit, or Zarbanit (She of the
City Zarpan). (See Akitu.)
MARTU Of the kings after Shar-kali-sharri (c. 2217-c. 2193), only the
names and a few brief inscriptions have survived. Quarrels arose over the
succession, and the dynasty went under, although modern scholars know as
little about the individual stages of this decline as about the rise of
Akkad. Two factors contributed to its downfall: the invasion of the nomadic
Amurrus (Amorites), called Martu by the Sumerians,
from the northwest, and the infiltration of the Gutians, who came,
apparently, from the region between the Tigris and the Zagros Mountains to
the east
MASHU, Mount See First Adam and Eve for a description of the Supernatural
Mountain and Second Adam and Eve
ME Remember that when Jacob tricked Esau out of his father's blessing Esau
had no tribal authority as first born. The recitation of the words by his
father gave power which we cannot understand. In a similar way, in Sumer,
the ME were words, incantantations or skills such as music or perverted sex
required to pass on the "spirit of" arts and sciences to keep civilization
going. All of these ME were collected in Ekur but then given to Enki to
protect and hand out as "gifts of the spirit." Eridu, where he was
worshipped, was to be the central sanctuary of these gifts. However, Inanna
complained and got Enki drunk and gained 94 of the Me and removes them to
her center at Erich. When Enki sobered up he tried to recover them.
MESLAMTAEA One of the three underwold gods. These are not part of the
Seven Dreaded Anunnaki, as they are children of Enlil and Ninlil. (See
Ninazu). In Mesopotamian religion, city god of Cuthah in Akkad. His temple
in Cuthah was called Emeslam, or Meslam ("Luxuriant Mesu Tree"). His name,
which means "He Who Issues from Meslam," perhaps indicates that he was
originally a tree god, which would agree with his general chthonian, or
underworld, character. He was the son of Enlil (Akkadian: Bel), god of the
atmosphere, and of Ninlil (Belit), goddess of grain, and he appears in
hymns as a warrior similar to the war god Ninurta. Meslamtaea's weapons,
however, sometimes seem to be turned against his own people and their
herds, when he kills them in great plagues. He seems to have been closely
related to or identical with the god Nergal, and, as such, he was ruler of
the netherworld and the spouse of its queen, Ereshkigal; this position,
however, may not have been original with the god. The Assyrians are treated
as fir trees in the garden of Eden whose head reached into the sky.
to take care of the gods' material needs. They therefore provided the gods
with houses (the temples) that were richly supplied with lands, which
people cultivated for them. In the temple the god was present in--but not
bounded by--a statue made of precious wood overlaid with gold. For this
statue the temple kitchen staff prepared daily meals from produce grown or
raised on the temple's fields, in its orchards, in its sheepfolds, cattle
pens, and game preserves, brought in by its fishermen, or delivered by
farmers owing it as a temple tax. The statue was also clad in costly
raiment, bathed, and escorted to bed in the bedchamber of the god, often on
top of the temple tower, or ziggurat. To see to all of this the god had
priests trained as cooks, bakers, waiters, and bathers, or as encomiasts
(singers of praise) and musicians to make the god's meals festive, or as
elegists to soothe him in times of stress and grief. Diversions from the
daily routine were the great monthly festivals and also a number of special
occasions.
See the story of David and Saul
Such special occasions might be a sudden need to go through the elaborate
ritual for purifying the king when he was threatened by the evils implied
in an eclipse of the Moon, or in extreme cases there might be a call for
the ritual installation of a substitute king to take upon himself the
dangers threatening, and various other nonperiodic rituals. When Israel
demanded to live like the nations David's counting of the warriors with the
goal of enslaving them in a peace-time army, he had to perform similar
rituals to purify the temple. When the temple became totally polluted with
Assyrian idols and worship Hezekiah had to purify them with animal
sacrifices and musical instruments. As usual, this was not a ritual for the
common citizens.
Partly regular, partly impromptu, were the occasions for audiences with the
god in which the king or other worshipers presented their petitions and
prayers accompanied by appropriate offerings. These were mostly edibles,
but not infrequently the costly containers in which they were presented,
stone vases, golden boat-shaped vessels, etc., testified to the ardour of
the givers. Appropriate gifts other than edibles were also acceptable--
among them cylinder seals for the god's use, superhuman in size, and
weapons for him, such as maceheads, also outsize.
MOABITE-STONE King Omri of Israel (reigned c. 884-c. 872 BC), who is
mentioned in 1 Kings 16:23-28, reconquered Moabite lands that had been lost
since Solomon's death in 922 BC, when Israel split into two kingdoms.
Omri's reconquest is known from the Moabite Stone, a stela that the Moabite
king Mesha erected about 40 years later in the city of Dibon (modern
Dhiban, Jordan).
MUMMU -Tiamat The Sumerian goddess of the primeval ocean also called the
deep and the consort of APSU. Mummu means "mold" or "womb."
APSU needs a vizier named MUMMU as an aid in carrying out his forming
(creating) commands. Thus TIAMAT represents or is the personification of
the deep without the molding life-giving abilities. MUMMU-TIAMAT seems to
be the equivalent of the Canaanite ASHERAH.
MUSARUS See Oannes
MUSHUSSU (Offsite Mushussu) The Snake Dragon "Red/furious snake" A dragon
or monster made of many animals. Symbol of Marduk. Previously read
"sirrus." "Mushussu has been in the mountain for over two millennia, and
perhaps longer. Why he came here is unknown. What is known is that he seeks
to free someone from the 'heart' of the volcano. Mushussu has never shown
the capacity for speaking Greek or any other language known to the
characters, instead speaking an alien language quite outside the
character's experience (ancient Babylonian)."
MUSIC From Greek mousike (techne) the art of the Muses] The music of the
Greeks did not signify merely the harmony of sounds, but actually imbodied
the idea of inner harmony of the spirit, the becoming at one with the
spirit of the Muses, so that the soul responded in harmonic rhythm to the
beat of universal harmony. Music with the Greeks, therefore, included,
besides vocal and instrumental music, choral dancing, rhythmic motions, and
various modes of harmony expressed in action.
Music, in all its various branches is represented as having been taught to
man by his divine and divine-human ancestors, such as Isis-Osiris, Thoth,
Edris (in the Koran), etc. It is one of the elements of the power known as
mantrikasakti. Music was represented as one of four divisions of
mathematics, the others being arithmetic, astronomy, and geometry. The
music of sound arouses in us a power which needs to be controlled, as it
can carry us to heights from which we may fall. If regarded as a sensual
indulgence, even though a refined one, its true import is not realized.
MUSIC OF THE SPHERES Plato declared that rhythmic and melodic complexities
were to be avoided because they led to depression and disorder. Music
echoes divine harmony; rhythm and melody imitate the movements of heavenly
bodies, thus delineating the music of the spheres and reflecting the moral
order of the universe. Earthly music, however, is suspect; Plato distrusted
its emotional power
An extremely archaic teaching repeated by Pythagoras, who travelled in
Babylonia, and therefore in the West commonly associated with his doctrine,
for he taught that the world had been called forth out of Chaos by sound or
harmony, and that the universe is constructed on harmonic proportions. He
further taught that the planets were arranged in relation to each other and
to the Sun in the progression of a musical scale
NABU Hebrew NEBO, major god in the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. He was
patron of the art of writing and a god of vegetation. Nabu's symbols were
the clay tablet and the stylus, the instruments held to be proper to him
who inscribed the fates assigned to men by the gods. In the Old Testament,
the worship of Nebo is denounced by Isaiah (46:1).
Samsuditana, the last king of the 1st dynasty of Babylon (reigned 1625-1595
BC), introduced a statue of Nabu into Esagila, the temple of Marduk, who
was the city god of Babylon. Not until the 1st millennium BC, however, did
the relationship between Marduk and Nabu and their relative positions in
theology and popular devotion become clear. Marduk, the father of Nabu,
took precedence over him, at least theoretically, in Babylonia. But in
popular devotion it was Nabu, the son, who knows all and sees all, who was
chief, especially during the centuries immediately preceding the fall of
Babylon. He had a chapel named Ezida in his father's temple Esagila, where
at the New Year feast he was installed alongside Marduk. In his own holy
city, Borsippa, he was supreme.
Goddesses associated with Nabu were Nana, a Sumerian deity; the Assyrian
Nissaba; and the Akkadian Tashmetum, queen of Borsippa, stepdaughter of
Marduk, and, as her abstract Akkadian name indicates, Lady of Hearing and
of Favour. She was rarely invoked apart from her husband, Nabu, whose name
means "speaking." Thus, while Nabu speaks, Nana listens.
NAMMU Water was so close that the early Babylonians believed that the earth
floated on water. In a process of evolution, Nammu split the earth from the
heavens. The sky was active and destructive and was called An, the sky god.
All life evolves out of the earth and brings forth mountains or Ki. An and
Ki in turn produced Enlil or atmosphere the noisy "child" in between. Enlil
broke the sky and rain fell.
Nammu's sign was usually written with the sign "en-gur;" the same sign used
to denote the abzu: the underground sweet waters which brought life to the
land. It was from her ancient waters that Enlil was said, in some
traditions, to have been brought forth. She was also said to be the mother
of Enki (Ea) (as well as the mother of the 'Great Gods' in general).
NAM-SHUB
NAMTAR (Namtara) When men grew two numerous and too noisy, at first Enlil
had Namtar, the god of death, cause a plague to diminish mankind's numbers,
but the wise Atrahasis, at the advice of Enki, had man concentrate all
worship and offerings on Namtar. Namtar, embarrassed at hurting people who
showed such love and affection for him, stayed his hand.
Namtar was the "decider of fate" vizier(CHIEF MINISTER) of Ereshkigal,
demon god of the underworld. God of the plague and other disease and fear,
in the land of the dead. She could set loose 60 diseases
NANNAR. The Sumerian moon-god of the city of Ur. Also called Sin
(Babylonia) and the son of Ninlil. The moon travels through the sky in a
boat.
NANNA-SIN Nanna-Suen (Sumerian) The god of the moon, and the father of Utu
and Inanna. Nanna: is another name for the moon god Sin, and was located at
Ur.
He is the product of Enlil's rape of Ninlil. Nanna was the tutelary deity
of Ur, appointed as king of that city by An and Enlil. He established Ur-
Nammu as his mortal representative, establishing the third Ur dynasty.
Nanna was married to Ningal and they produced Inanna and Utu. He rests in
the Underworld every month, and there decrees the fate of the dead. He
averts a flood of his city by visiting Enlil in Nippur on a boat loaded
with gifts and pleading with him. He refuses to send aid to Inanna when she
is trapped in the underworld.
A third myth built over the motif of journeying to the netherworld is the
myth of "The Engendering of the Moongod and his Brothers," which tells how
Enlil (Lord Wind), when still a youngster, came upon young Ninlil (goddess
of grain) as she--eager to be with child and disobeying her mother--was
bathing in a canal where he would see her. He lay with her in spite of her
pretending to protest and thus engendered the moon god Suen. For this
offense Enlil was banished from Nippur and took the road to the
netherworld. Ninlil, carrying his child, followed him. On the way Enlil
took the shape first of the Nippur gatekeeper, then of the man of the river
of the netherworld, and lastly of the ferryman of the river of the
netherworld. In each such disguise Enlil persuaded Ninlil to let him lie
with her to engender a son who might take Suen's place in the netherworld
and leave him free for the world above. Thus three further deities, all
underworld figures, were engendered: Meslamtaea (He Who Comes Out of the
Meslam Temple), Ninazu (Water Sprinkler [?]), and Ennugi (the God Who
Returns Not). The myth ends with a paean to Enlil as a source of abundance
and to his divine word, which always comes true.
Nanna-Suen's journey to Nibru
NANSHE Also spelled NANSE, OR NAZI, in Mesopotamian religion, Sumerian
city goddess of Nina (modern Surghul, Iraq) in the southeastern part of the
Lagash region of Mesopotamia. According to tradition, Nanshe's father Enki
(Akkadian: Ea) organized the universe and placed her in charge of fish and
fishing. Nanshe was also described as a divine soothsayer and dream
Ishtar), Nanshe was, nevertheless, important in her own geographic area,
and many rulers of Lagash record that they were chosen by her.
NERGAL (arrow shooting god of II Kings 17:30), fire-god, identified with
Mars or fire-star. a Babylonian god and king of the Underworld "Lord of the
great dwelling." When ejected from heaven he invaded the underworld with
fourteen demons. His wife was Ereshkigal (possibly Gulu). During the great
flood he tore away the mast of the ship in which Utanapishtim (the
Babylonian Noah) escaped and was saved along with his family and specimens
of all manner of animals. Nergal is also the god of plague with Namtar
(evil god, negative aspect of fate, disease bringer), his symbols are a
sword and a lion's head. From the contract tablets found by Rassam at Tel-
Ibrahim it appears that the ancient name of Cuthah was Gudua or Kuta. Itís
ruins were 3,000 feet in circumference and 280 feet high. In it was a
sanctuary dedicated to Ibrahim (Abraham). Both the city and its great
temple, the later dedicated to Nergal, appear to date back to Sumerian
times. Nergal (Heb. nereghal, a Babylonian deity of destruction and
disaster, associated with the planet Mars (god of war and agriculture)
Also pronounced Erakal, "Lord of Erkalla (the great city)" Chief god of the
Underworld, consort of Ereshkigal (and of Mammetum; see Ninhursag).
NIMROD (Hebrew) The traditional founder of the kingdom of Babylon, known
in Babylonia as Izdubar or Gilgamesh. According to the Bible, the son of
Cush; in legend a mighty hunter (Genesis 10:9). The name Nimrod has not
been found prior to the period of the Israelites (500 BC).
The only other references to Nimrod in the Old Testament are Mic. 5:6,
where Assyria is called the land of Nimrod, and I Chron. 1:10. The
beginning of his kingdom is said in Genesis to be Babel, Erech, and Akkad
in the land of Shinar. Nimrod is said to have built Nineveh, Calah (modern
Nimrud), Rehoboth-Ir, and Resen.
NIBRU
NINAZU God of Eshnunna. Temple called E-sikil and E-kurmah. Son of
Ereshkigal, father of Ningishzida. Replaced by Tishpak as patron of
Eshnunna. Babylonian god of magic incantations.
Sumerian deity, the city god of Enegir, which was located on the Euphrates
River between Larsa and Ur in the southern orchard region. Ninazu was also
the city god of Eshnunna (modern Tall al-Asmar in eastern Iraq). Ninazu,
whose name means "water knower," was primarily an underworld deity,
although the exact nature of his character or functions is not clear. In
Enegir he was considered the son of Ereshkigal, goddess of the netherworld;
according to another tradition, however, he was the son of Enlil (Akkadian
Bel) and Ninlil (Belit). His spouse was Ningirda, a daughter of Enki (Ea).
NINGAL Consort of Nanna Sin. She was the mother of Shamash. The third
"song" relates that the goddess Ningal hears the pleas of the people of Ur,
but she is not able to dissuade the gods Anu and Enlil from their decision
to destroy the city, and the remaining "songs" relate the devastating
results of Ur's defeat in battle. The last stanza ends with a plea to
Nanna, the husband of Ningal, that the city may once more rise up and that
the people of Ur may again present their offerings to him.
NINGIRSU (Sumerian), also called NININSINA, Akkadian Gula, or Ninkarrak,
in Mesopotamian religion, city goddess of Urukug in the Lagash region and,
under the name Nininsina, the Queen of Isin, city goddess of Isin, south of
Nippur. Bau seems originally to have been goddess of the dog; as Nininsina
she was long represented with a dog's head, and the dog was her emblem.
Perhaps because the licking of sores by dogs was supposed to have curative
value, she became a goddess of healing. She was a daughter of An, king of
the gods, and the wife of Pabilsag, a rain god who was also called Ninurta,
or Ningirsu.
NINGISHZIDA Sumerian deity, city god of Gishbanda, near Ur in the southern
orchard region. Although Ningishzida was a power of the netherworld, where
he held the office of throne bearer, he seems to have originally been a
tree god, for his name apparently means "Lord Productive Tree." In
particular, he probably was god of the winding tree roots, since he
originally was represented in serpent shape. When pictured in human form,
two serpent heads grow from his shoulders in addition to the human head,
and he rides on a dragon. He was a son of Ninazu and Ningirda and was the
husband of Ninazimua ("Lady Flawlessly Grown Branch").Along with Tammuz, a
guard of the gate to Heaven.
NINHAR Also NINGUBLA, in Mesopotamian religion, Sumerian deity, city god
of Kiabrig, near Ur in the southern herding region. Ninhar was god of the
thunder and rainstorms that made the desert green with pasturage in the
spring; as such he was represented in the form of a roaring bull. He was
the son of Nanna (Akkadian Sin) and Ningal and the husband of Ninigara
("Lady of Butter and Cream"), goddess of the dairy.
NINHURSAG See Ki. Also spelled NINHURSAGA (Sumerian), Akkadian Belit-ili,
in Mesopotamian religion, city goddess of Adab and of Kish in the northern
herding regions; she was the goddess of the stony, rocky ground, the
hursag. In particular, she had the power in the foothills and desert to
produce wildlife. Especially prominent among her offspring were the onagers
(wild asses) of the western desert. As the sorrowing mother animal she
appears in a lament for her son, a young colt, but as goddess of birth she
is not only the goddess of animal birth but the Mother of All Children, a
mother-goddess figure. Her other names include: Dingirmakh ("Exalted
Deity"), Ninmakh ("Exalted Lady"), Aruru ("Dropper," i.e., the one who
"loosens" the scion in birth), and Nintur ("Lady Birth Giver"). Her husband
is the god Shulpae, and among their children were the sons Mululil and
Ashshirgi and the daughter Egime. Mululil seems to have been a dying god,
like Dumuzi, whose death was lamented in yearly rites.
(Mammu, Aruru):"Mountain-lady" also known as Ninmah "supreme lady" Nintu
"birth lady?" Mamma, Mammi, Mammitum "Mommy", Belet-Ili "mistress of the
gods" Aruru (meaning unknown) Epithets: sassuru, "womb-goddess"; tabsut ili
" midwife of the gods"; qurqurrat ili "smelter of the gods" "mother of the
gods" and "mother of all children" Spouse of Shulpae and then of Nergal.
Shrine at Kesh in central Mesopotamia, still not identified. A goddess in
Sumerian and Mesopotamian mythology, the earth-mother. She was the wife of
the water-god Enki.
Also known as Ninmah, she was given the title Ninhursag - "Lady of the
Hursag (The stoney foothills)" by her son Ninurta in the myth Lugal-e. She
was an ancient Sumerian form of the mother-goddess, known as 'mother of the
gods,' and 'mother of all children.' It was
Ninhursag who was said to have been midwife to Nammu at the creation of
man. She represents the innert procreative power of the mother which,
though powerful, requires the union of the male force to be brought to its
full potential. This was not to diminish her role, but simply a recognition
that neither the female nor the male alone was a fully procreative force.
Her major cult center was probably at Kish.
NINIB (Babylonian) A Chaldean deity originally with solar attributes,
especially prominent at Shirgulla, where he was closely associated with Bel
and regarded as his son. In hymns he is described as a healing god who
releases men from illness. But he was also classed as a god of war, and
represented as armed for the chase. The aspect stressed was the sun at the
morning and the springtime season, showering beneficence upon mankind. In
theogony, Ninib was regent of the planet Saturn, and the animal symbol
connected with him was the swine.
NINKASA Beer
NINLIL (Akkadian Belit) Enlil's wife. This Goddess followed Enlil to the
underworld after he had been banished there by the Anunnaki for raping her.
At this point she was pregnant with Nanna (from the rape). In the
underworld she gave birth to the Three Underworld Deities and gave birth to
Nanna after she made it back out.
The Sumerian goddess of sailors. She was seduced by the sky-god Enlil, who
was condemned by the gods for this sin to live in Hades. However, Ninlil
loved him and insisted on following him to the underworld. The gods decided
that she had to postpone her departure until she had given birth because
her child must not be born under the earth, as it was to be Nanna the moon-
god. When Nanna was born and rose into the sky, Ninlil descended to join
her husband and had three more children by him. Ninlil is sometimes
identified with the goddess Ishtar, (Babylonian Mullitu, Mylitta)
NINMAH SEE NINHURSAG
NINSUN Sumerian city goddess of Kullab in the southern herding region. As
Ninsun's name, "Lady Wild Cow," indicates, she was originally represented
in cow form and was considered the divine power behind, as well as the
embodiment of, all the qualities the herdsman wished for in his cows: she
was the "flawless cow" and a "mother of good offspring that loves the
offspring." She was, however, also represented in human form and could give
birth to human offspring. She is also goddess of the city of Uruk, mother
of Gilgamesh.
The Wild Bull Dumuzi (as distinct from Dumuzi the Shepherd) was
traditionally her son, whom she lamented in the yearly ritual marking his
death. In her role as a mother figure, her other Sumerian counterparts
include Ninhursag (Akkadian: Belit-ili) and Ninlil (Belit). Ninsun's
husband was the legendary hero Lugalbanda.
Ninurta was the son of Enlil (Akkadian: Bel) and Ninlil (Belit) and was
married to Bau, in Nippur called Ninnibru, Queen of Nippur. A major
festival of his, the Gudsisu Festival, marked in Nippur the beginning of
the plowing season.
Hero of the Gods. God of the Stormy South Winds. Possible pre-cursur to
Marduk. This god owned a weapon that was alive. This weapon, Sharur, for
some reason, convenced Nunurta to destroy Asag. This he did. However, once
Asag was gone, the Waters rose up and engulfed the Earth. Nothing could
grow. So, Nunurta built a stone wall over Asag's body that stopped and held
back the Waters. Then he took the Waters that had already engulfed the land
and dumped them into the Euphrates. This caused the overflow of the
Euphrates, and the land became abundant
Also called Ningirsu, in Mesopotamian religion, city god of Girsu (Tal'ah,
or Telloh) in the Lagash region. Ninurta was the farmer's version of the
god of the thunder and rainstorms of the spring. He was also the power in
the floods of spring and was god of the plow and of plowing. Ninurta's
earliest name was Imdugud (now also read as Anzu), which means "rain
cloud," and his earliest form was that of the thundercloud envisaged as an
enormous black bird floating on outstretched wings roaring its thunder cry
from a lion's head. With the growing tendency toward anthropomorphism, the
old form and name were gradually disassociated from the god as merely his
emblems; enmity toward the older inacceptable shape eventually made it
evil, an ancient enemy of the god.
Ninurta (Nergal, Orion) in the Epic of Gilgamesh helps to flood the earth
by throwing down the dykes and breaking dams. Here Gula helped breathe life
into mankind. Ninurta and Gulu's wedding feast was celebrated on New Year's
day. The goddess Gulu, (the earth-goddess, mother goddess; also Ninmah,
goddess of the underworld) sits below ground with her dog, where the cosmic
serpent begins to rise. She is the patroness of herbs, healing, life, as
her flowered garment shows. Hands lifted in prayer, she sits with her dog,
defender of homes, while before her a Scorpion Archer mounts guard at the
uttermost bound of the earth (cosmic sea), to defend against demonic powers
and protect the rising and setting sun.
NINUS In Greek mythology, king of Assyria and the eponymous founder of the
city of Nineveh, which itself is sometimes called Ninus. He was said to
have been the son of Belos, or Bel, and to have conquered in 17 years all
of western Asia with the help of Ariaeus, king of Arabia. During the siege
of Bactra he met Semiramis, the wife of one of his officers, Onnes; he then
took her from Onnes and married her. The fruit of the marriage was Ninyas--
i.e., the Ninevite.
NIPPUR In Sumerian mythology Nippur was the home of Enlil, the storm god
and representation of force and the god who carried out the decrees of the
assembly of gods that met at Nippur. Enlil, according to one account,
created man at Nippur. Although a king's armies might subjugate the
country, the transference to that king of Enlil's divine power to rule had
to be sought and sanctioned. The necessity of this confirmation made the
city and Enlil's sanctuary there especially sacred, regardless of which
dynasty ruled Mesopotamia. Ur-Nammu (reigned 2112-2095 Bc), first king of
the 3rd dynasty of Ur, laid out Enlil's sanctuary, the Ekur, in its present
form. A ziggurat and a temple were built in an open courtyard surrounded by
walls.
NUSKU A fire god invoked, with two others, against black magic. God of
light Mesopotamian religion, Sumero-Akkadian god of light and fire. His
father was Sin (Sumerian: Nanna), the moon god. Semitic texts describe
Nusku as the king of the night, who illuminates the darkness and repels the
demons of the dark. On Babylonian boundary stones he is identified by a
lamp. He is visible at the new moon and thus is called its son. The last
day of the month is sacred to him, so that he is a lunar deity. He figures
much in incantations and rituals as the fire. He is Ellil's servant.
OANNES Mesopotamian amphibious being who taught mankind wisdom. Oannes, as
described by the Babylonian priest Berosus, had the form of a fish but with
the head of a man under his fish's head and under his fish's tail the feet
of a man. In the daytime he came up to the seashore of the Persian Gulf and
instructed mankind in writing, the arts, and the sciences. Oannes was
probably the emissary of Ea, god of the freshwater deep and of wisdom.
The 'fish' is an old and very suggestive symbol in the Mystery-language, as
is also 'water.' Ea or Hea was the god of the sea and Wisdom, and the sea
serpent was one of his emblems, his priests being 'serpents' or Initiates.
Thus one sees why Occultism places Oannes and the other Annedoti in the
group of those ancient 'adepts' who were called 'marine' or 'water
dragons' -- Nagas.
The Indian "Naga" is similar to that of many ancient nations. Click for
some pictures and collected quotations.
Serpent worship was and is popular among more primitive people. Click for
an index of articles and pictures.
Berossus describes Oannes as follows: "At Babylon there was (in these
times) a great resort of people of various nations, who inhabited Chaldaea,
and lived in a lawless manner like the beasts of the field. In the first
year there appeared, from that part of the Erythraean sea which borders
upon Babylonia, and animal destitute of reason [sic] by name Oannes, whose
whole body (according to the account of Apollodorus) was that of a fish;
that under the fish's head he had another head, with feet also below,
similar to those of a man, subjoined to the fish's tail. His voice too, and
language, was articulate and human; and a representation of him is
preserved even to this day. (From Ancient Fragments, by Isaac Preston
Cory.)
Apollodorus referred to Oannes and the Annedoti as "Musarus." The word
"musarus" means "an abomination" in Greek just as "annedoti" means "the
repulsive ones." In other words, the creatures credited with founding
civilization were frankly described by the ancient Babylonian people, who
revered them, as "repulsive abominations."
If the tradition had been invented, a more normal attitude would be to
glorify these creatures as splendid gods and heroes. Yet the fact that they
chose to describe their ancestors this way argues for the authenticity of
the account. It was the Babylonian tradition that they owed their knowledge
to creatures who came up from the sea who were disgusting and loathsome to
gaze upon.
PABILSAG God of Larak, a city of importance before the flood. Bau seems
originally to have been goddess of the dog; as Nininsina she was long
represented with a dog's head, and the dog was her emblem. Perhaps because
the licking of sores by dogs was supposed to have curative value, she
became a goddess of healing. She was a daughter of An, king of the gods,
and the wife of Pabilsag, a rain god who was also called Ninurta, or
Ningirsu.
PAPSUKKEL The chief minister of the Sumerian gods of heaven, especially of
Ea, and messenger of the gods.
PHILO
PUKKU AND MIKKU After Gilgamesh made a dangerous journey (Tablets IX and
X) in search of Utnapishtim, the survivor of the Babylonian flood, in order
to learn from him how to escape death. He finally reached Utnapishtim, who
told him the story of the flood and showed him where to find a plant that
would renew youth (Tablet XI). But after Gilgamesh obtained the plant, it
was seized by a serpent, and Gilgamesh unhappily returned to Uruk. An
appendage to the epic, Tablet XII, related the loss of objects called pukku
and mikku (perhaps "drum" and "drumstick") given to Gilgamesh by Ishtar.
The epic ends with the return of the spirit of Enkidu, who promised to
recover the objects and then gave a grim report on the underworld. .
QINGU or Kingu A form of this motif is found in Enuma elish, in which Enki
(Ea) alone fashioned man out of the blood of the slain rebel leader Kingu.
Qingu was Tiamat's chosen battle leader. Holder of the Tablet of Destinies.
She gave him the Tablets of Destiny, and set him as the leader of the
"demonic" army of ugly monsters she had created for the purpose of
attacking Ea and the other younger gods to avenge the death of Apsu. After
Marduk won the battle, he enslaved the rebel gods for a time, until he
finally took pity on their cries of burden. He asked them who their leader
had been, so that he might suffer in their place. The gods readily handed
Kingu over to Marduk. Kingu was slain, and his blood was used by Enki (Ea)
to make man. Man was then used to work so that the the gods were set free.
The tablets were laws or words of Anu. When the law is willed the real
world was affected.
RIMMON "Earth-shaker," fierce, severe, name of Adad. See Hadad Above
(Zechariah 12:11)
RESHEP Syrian War-god, with the head of a gazelle. (from Hebrew reshef,
"the burner," or "the ravager"), ancient West Semitic god of the plague and
of the underworld, the companion of Anath, and the equivalent of the
Babylonian god Nergal. He was also a war god and was thus represented as a
bearded man, brandishing an ax, holding a shield, and wearing a tall,
pointed headdress with a goat's or gazelle's head on his forehead. Resheph
was worshiped especially at Ras Shamra, Byblos, and Arsuf (later Apollonia,
near modern Tel Aviv-Yafo). Under the title Mikal (or Mekal), he was also
worshiped at Beth-shean in eastern Palestine and at Ialium in Cyprus.
Resheph was usually believed to be related to Mot, the god of sterility and
death, but he also seems to have been a god of well-being, plenty, and
fertility, and in that respect he may have been a form of the god Baal.
SABBATH
SAMMU-RAMAT Greek SEMIRAMIS, Assyrian queen who became a legendary
heroine.
Sammu-ramat was the mother of the Assyrian king Adad-nirari III (reigned
810-783 BC). Her stela (memorial stone shaft) has been found at Ashur,
while an inscription at Calah (Nimrud) shows her to have been dominant
there after the death of her husband, Shamshi-Adad V (823-811 BC). Sammu-
ramat was mentioned by Herodotus, and the later historian Diodorus Siculus
elaborated a whole legend about her. According to him, she was born of a
goddess, and, after being married to an Assyrian officer, she captivated
the king Ninus by her beauty and valour and became his wife. Soon
afterward, when Ninus died, Sammu-ramat assumed power and reigned for many
years. In that time she built Babylon and turned to the conquest of distant
lands.
SARPANITUM: Marduk's consort.
SARGON 23rd century BC byname SARGON OF AKKAD (Agade), ancient
Mesopotamian ruler (reigned c. 2334-2279 BC), one of the earliest of the
world's great empire builders, conquering all of southern Mesopotamia as
well as parts of Syria, Anatolia, and Elam (western Iran). He established
the region's first Semitic dynasty and was considered the founder of the
Mesopotamian military tradition.
SERPENT The mythological predecessor of the Serpent is the Sumerian god
Enki, "Lord Earth," the Babylonian Ea, the god who rules the Earth and with
it the lives of all creatures. The ancient Semites associated the serpent
with the Moon-god, perhaps for its power to rejuvenate itself.
One of the most fundamental and prolific symbols of the mystery-language.
Its most basic meaning is of the eternal, alternating, cyclic motion during
cosmic manifestation. For motion, which to the physicist and the
philosopher alike seems an abstraction, is for the ancient wisdom a
primordial principle or axiom, of the same order as space and time,
existing per se. Never does motion cease utterly even during kosmic
pralaya. And motion is essentially circular: where physics would derive
circular motion from a composition of rectilinear motions, the opposite
procedure would be that of the ancient wisdom. This circular motion,
compounding itself into spirals, helixes, and vortices, is the builder of
worlds, bringing together the scattered elements of chaos; motion per se is
essential cosmic intelligence. This circular motion, returning upon itself
like a serpent swallowing its tail, represents the cycles of time. This
conscious energy in spirals whirls through all the planes of cosmos as
fohat and his innumerable sons -- the cosmic energies and forces,
fundamentally intelligent, operating in every scale or grade of matter. The
caduceus of Hermes, twin serpents wound about a staff, represents
cosmically the mighty drama of evolution, in its twin aspects, the staff or
tree standing for the structural aspect, the serpent for the fohatic forces
that animate the structure. (vortex)
The serpent is characteristically a dual symbol. In the beginnings of
creation two poles were emanated, spirit and matter; and forthwith began
interaction between the downward forces of the one and the upward forces of
the other. Hermes, Mercury, intelligence, may represent a sage or a thief;
the serpentine wisdom may work in every plane of materiality. The perverse
will of man may turn natural forces to evil purposes, and thus we speak of
the good serpent and the bad, of Agathodaemon and Kakodaemon, of Ophis and
Ophiomorphos. A serpent can be a sage or a sorcerer.
The dragon is the eternally vigilant one, guardian of the sacred treasures;
but he is the ruthless destroyer of him who attempts to gain by force the
riches to which he has not won a title. To gain knowledge, we must know how
to tame the serpent which rules the nether worlds, as the Christ refuses to
make obeisance to Satan.
The seven sacred planets, or again the seven human principles, form a
serpent, often collocated with the sun and moon as making a triad. One form
of this spiraling conscious energy, when manifesting in man, is kundalini-
sakti, the serpentine power, which in the ordinary person today lies
relatively sleeping and performing merely automatic vital functions; but
when aroused can ether waft to sublime heights of vision and power or blast
like a lightning-stroke.
The power which a serpent has of casting its old skin is analogous to what
the earth does at the commencement of each round, and to the clothing of
the human jiva with a new body when it enters the womb. Again, the astral
light is called a serpent; its lowest strata are dangerous and deceptive,
while it extends through all planes up to the highest akasa, the vehicle of
divine wisdom.
See Oannes for some links
SHAMASH (Akkadian), Sumerian (Utu) Hebrew Shemesh, in Mesopotamian
Nanna), and Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna), the goddess of Venus, was part of an
astral triad of divinities.
Shamash was the son of Sin and Ningal. The sun and moon were part of the
seven "planets" or roving stars which were personified and diefied.
The wandering planets of Enoch
As a the solar deity Sin exercised the power of light over darkness and
evil. In this capacity he became known as the god of justice and equity and
was the judge of both gods and men. (According to legend, the Babylonian
king Hammurabi received his code of laws from Shamash.) At night, Shamash
became judge of the underworld.
He was not only the god of justice but also governor of the whole universe;
in this aspect he was pictured seated on a throne, holding in his hand the
symbols of justice and righteousness, a staff and a ring. Also associated
with Shamash is the notched dagger. The god is often pictured with a disk
that symbolized the Sun.
Shulgi, the son of Ur-Nammu, the founder of the Third Dynasty of Ur, is one
of the more renowned kings of Sumer, whose reign endured for almost half a
century. He was military commander, temple builder, patron of the arts and
athlete
Shulgi, too, called himself king of the four quarters of the earth.
Although he resided in Ur, another important centre was in Nippur, whence--
according to the prevailing ideology-- Enlil, the chief god in the Sumerian
state pantheon, had bestowed on Shulgi the royal dignity. Shulgi and his
successors enjoyed divine honours, as Naram-Sin of Akkad had before them;
by now, however, the process of deification had taken on clearer outlines
in that sacrifices were offered and chapels built to the king and his
throne, while the royal determinative turned up in personal names. Along
with an Utu-hegal ("The Sun God Is Exuberance") there appears a Shulgi-
hegal ("Shulgi Is Exuberance"),
SHULPAE Major Sumerian god with demonic and many other powers. Consort of
Ninhursag. Identified with planet Jupiter. Husband of Ninhursag, and among
their children were the sons Mululil and Ashshirgi and the daughter Egime.
Mululil seems to have been a dying god, like Dumuzi, whose death was
lamented in yearly rites.
Shuruppak was celebrated in Sumerian legend as the place of the flood,
which destroyed all humanity except one survivor, Ziusudra. He had been
commanded by a protecting god to build an ark, in which he rode out the
disaster, afterward re-creating man and living things upon the earth, and
was himself endowed with eternal life. Ziusudra corresponds with
Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh epic and with the biblical Noah.
SIDURI In the Gilgamesh epic, the aging folk hero, haunted by the prospect
of his own death, sets off to visit Utnapishtim, who, with his wife, was
the only mortal to have achieved immortality. He meets Siduri, the wine
maiden, who exhorts him to make the most of the present for "the life which
thou seekest thou wilt not find." There was no judgment after death, a
common fate awaiting the good and the bad alike. Death was conceived of in
terms of appalling grimness, unrelieved by any hope of salvation through
human effort or divine compassion. The dead were, in fact, among the most
dreaded beings in early Mesopotamian demonology. In a myth called "The
Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld," the fertility goddess decides to
visit kur-nu-gi-a ("the land of no return"), where the dead "live in
darkness, eat clay, and are clothed like birds with wings." She threatens
the doorkeeper: "If thou openest not that I may enter I will smash the
doorpost and unhinge the gate. I will lead up the dead, that they may eat
the living." Given this background, it is not surprising that offerings to
the dead were made in a spirit of fear; if not propitiated they would
return and cause all kinds of damage.
SIN Moon God. Born of Enlil and Ninlil. S=Nanna. (Akkadian), Sumerian
Nanna, in Mesopotamian religion, the god of the moon. Sin was the father of
the sun god, Shamash (Sumerian: Utu), and, in some myths, of Ishtar
(Sumerian: Inanna), goddess of Venus, and with them formed an astral triad
of deities.
(The city of Ur, of the same region, was the chief centre of the worship of
Nanna.) The crescent, Nanna's emblem, was sometimes represented by the
horns of a great bull. Nanna bestowed fertility and prosperity on the
cowherds, governing the rise of the waters, the growth of reeds, the
increase of the herd, and therefore the quantity of dairy products
produced. His consort, Ningal, was a reed goddess. Each spring, Nanna's
worshipers reenacted his mythological visit to his father, Enlil, at Nippur
with a ritual journey, carrying with them the first dairy products of the
year. Gradually Nanna became more human: from being depicted as a bull or
boat, because of his crescent emblem, he came to be represented as a
cowherd or boatman.
SINUHE Middle Kingdom Egyptian official of the 12th dynasty (1938-1756 BC)
who fled Egypt to settle in Syria. His biography yields information about
political and social conditions of the time.
Sinuhe was an official of the harem maintained for Amenemhet I by his
queen. While on an expedition to Libya he learned of the king's
assassination (1908 BC) and fled, either from fright or because of his
complicity. He intended to travel southward but was blown to the north
while crossing the Nile, and he passed into Palestine. After much wandering
in Palestine and Lebanon, he was invited to settle with a chieftain of
southern Syria, who adopted him and married him to his eldest daughter. In
that land Sinuhe raised a family and became a veritable patriarch. He
defended his father-in-law's territory and entertained emissaries traveling
to and from Egypt.
The pharaoh Sesostris I invited Sinuhe to return to Egypt, and Sinuhe
eagerly accepted. The king forgave him his real or imagined crimes and
welcomed him with rich gifts; thereafter Sinuhe remarried in his homeland,
while the pharaoh ordered a fine tomb built for him.
SIPPAR
TAMMUZ () get bible ezekiel 8:14 Akkadian Dumuzi, god of fertility
embodying the powers for new life in nature in the spring. The name Tammuz
seems to have been derived from the Akkadian form Tammuzi, based on early
Sumerian Damuzid, The Flawless Young. The later standard Sumerian form,
Dumu-zid, in turn became Dumuzi in Akkadian. The earliest known mention of
Tammuz is in texts dating to the early part of the Early Dynastic III
period (c. 2600-c. 2334 BC), but his cult probably was much older.
As shown by his most common epithet Sipad (Shepherd), Tammuz was
essentially a pastoral deity. His father Enki is rarely mentioned, and his
mother, the goddess Duttur, was a personification of the ewe. His own name,
Dumu-zid, and two variant designations for him, Ama-ga (Mother Milk) and U-
lu-lu (Multiplier of Pasture), suggest that he actually was the power for
everything that a shepherd might wish for: grass to come up in the desert,
healthy lambs to be born, and milk to be plentiful in the mother animals.
The cult of Tammuz centred around two yearly festivals, one celebrating his
marriage to the goddess Inanna, the other lamenting his death at the hands
of demons from the netherworld. During the 3rd dynasty of Ur (c. 2112-c.
2004 BC) in the city of Umma (modern Tell Jokha), the marriage of the god
was dramatically celebrated in February-March, Umma's Month of the Festival
of Tammuz. During the Isin-Larsa period (c. 2004-c. 1792 BC), the texts
relate that in the marriage rite the king actually took on the identity of
the god and thus, by consummating the marriage with a priestess incarnating
the goddess, magically fertilized and fecundated all of nature for the
year.
Among the texts dealing with the god is "Dumuzi's Dream," a myth telling
how Tammuz had a dream presaging his death and how the dream came true in
spite of all his efforts to escape. A closely similar tale forms the second
half of the Sumerian myth "The Descent of Inanna," in which Inanna
(Akkadian Ishtar) sends Tammuz as her substitute to the netherworld. His
sister, Geshtinanna, eventually finds him, and the myth ends with Inanna
decreeing that Tammuz and his sister may alternate in the netherworld, each
spending half of the year
TAMMUZ Tamaz (Dumuzi) [tä´muz] The Jews took over the name of the deity
and in the Old Testament we find: "Behold there sat women weeping for
Tammuz" (Ezek 8:14) -- in Hebrew tammuz. "The women of Israel held annual
lamentations over Adonis (that beautiful youth being identical with
Tammuz).
The feast held in his honour was solstitial, and began with the new moon,
in the month of Tammuz (July), taking place chiefly at Byblos in Phoenicia;
but it was also celebrated as late as the fourth century of our era at
Bethlehem, . . . Indeed, in the Mysteries of Tammuz or Adonis a whole week
was spent in lamentations and mourning. The funereal processions were
succeeded by a fast, and later by rejoicings; for after the fast Adoni-
Tammuz was regarded as raised from the dead, and wild orgies of joy, of
eating and drinking, as now in Easter week, went on uninterruptedly for
several days"
All the great ancient initiations comprised a purification or preparation
(katharsis) (BM), a trance followed by a dying, and a later resurrection of
the initiant or neophyte as a fully born initiate, adept, or new man.
THE CULT OF TAMMUZ Centred around two yearly festivals, one celebrating
his marriage to the goddess Inanna, the other lamenting his death at the
hands of demons from the netherworld. During the 3rd dynasty of Ur (c.
2112-c. 2004 BC) in the city of Umma (modern Tell Jokha), the marriage of
the god was dramatically celebrated in February-March, Umma's Month of the
Festival of Tammuz.
Modern, musical rituals to move the "worshippers into the presence of the
gods" have their bitter roots in ancient pagan rituals. For instance, when
the king was married he took on the identity of the god. When the marriage
was consumated with a priestesses who was a goddess-incarnate, the entire
kingdom was impregnated with fertility for the year.
This ritual was celebrated by the women in the Jerusalem while the males
held their early sun-rise ceremonies bowing to the east. (Ezekiel 8)
TIAMAT (also pronounced Tiwawat and Tamtu, probably pronounced Tethys in
Ionian Greek; also known as Ayabba chiefly in West Semitic.): "Sea", salt
water personified as a primeval goddess. Mother of the first generation of
gods in the Enuma. Spouse of Absu. Epitomizes chaos. She is the mother of
Lahmu, Lahamu, Anshar, and Kish.
This is the main goddess of the Primordial Waters, the origonal holder of
the Tablets of Destiny, and she symbolised the Salt waters of the Persian
Gulf. She was defeated by Marduk. Note: Tiamat, as a god-form, does still
exist. She can be likened to the Abyss itself (like Asag of Summeria).
She is the universe's wish to return to Chaos Tismat (Chaldean) Chaldean
serpent, slain by Bel, the chief deity. The tale is repeated in the later
Babylonian account, with the exception that Marduk or Merodach (producer of
the world) replaces Bel. The mythologic serpent, described as the
imbodiment of evil both physical and moral, was enormous (300 miles long),
it moved in undulations 6 miles in height. When Marduk finally slew Tiamat
he split the monster into two halves, using one as a covering of the
heavens, so that the upper waters would not come down. Tiamat is cognate
with the Babylonian tiamtu, tamtu, "the ocean," rendered Thalatth by
Berosus in his Chaldean cosmogony. There is here likewise the reference to
the waters of wisdom, the divine wisdom and the lower wisdom of
manifestation. Marduk then took Qingu, Tiamat's commander, spilled his
blood and made mankind
TOBIT
TOWER OF BABEL (babel, gate of God), In biblical literature, structure
built in the land of Shinar (Babylonia) some time after the Deluge. The
story of its construction, given in Genesis 11:1-9, appears to be an
attempt to explain the existence of diverse human languages. According to
Genesis, the Babylonians wanted to make a name for themselves by building a
mighty city and a tower "with its top in the heavens." God disrupted the
work by so confusing the language of the workers that they could no longer
understand one another. The city was never completed, and the people were
dispersed over the face of the earth. In Babylonianit was called Bab-ilu
("Gate of God"), Hebrew form Babel, or Bavel. The similarity in
pronunciation of Babel and balal ("to confuse") led to the play on words in
Genesis 11:9: "Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord
confused the language of all the earth."
UMMANU The Seven Sages, who wrote the great epic poems such as those of
Erra and Gilgamesh. "Ammenon, another of the forms into which Enmenluanna
was corrupted, is in Akkadian ummanu, 'artificer,' 'artisan,' which, when
translated into Hebrew, becomes Kenan and in an abbreviated form, Cain."
(George Barton). In the Apocalyptic literature Jubal, Jabal, Tubal-Cain and
Naamah are all summed up under the name Genun.
Pilikam, the next name, means in Sumerian "with intelligence to build." In
Babylonian Semitic it would be literally Ina-uzni-eresu, or, rendered in
one word, ummanu, "artificer." The Hebrew translation of this is Kenan,
which means "artificer." Melamkish gives us the Hebrew Lamech by the simple
elision of the first and last consonants. Langdon makes the suggestion that
Lamech is the Sumerian, LUMHA, an epithet of the Babylonian god Ea as the
patron of music. (Barton, George, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 323)
No. 4 on the list, Ammenon is the Babylonian Ummanu, meaning "artificer,"
and is the equivalent of Kenan (Cainan) which means "smith." Constance
[Genun is "Jubal" in the musical sense and Kenan in the "smith" sense]
UNDERWORLD Known as "The Earth, Ersetum (Hebrew Erech) The Stronghold
Daninna Arali Kutha (city where Nergal was patron god) Meslam (Nergal's
temple in Kutha) The Lower Regions saplatu The Great Place kigallu, gingal
The Land of No Return Kurnugi The Great City Erkalla Great gate called
Belet-Seri. Judges: The Anunnaki gods, and Gilgamesh.
Literally, the ritual celebrants went through the gates of the seven
temples of Ishtar. In myth, Ishtar went through seven gates at which she
had to leave off some item of worth. By the time she arrived she was naked.
In order to return after being resurrected, she passed through the seven
gates and picked up her property.
Unug?
UR City port on the Euphrates near the Arabian gulf. Patron god: Sin.
Temple E-kishnugal, holy sea of the royal Entu-priestess. Ur 'ur
(Chaldean?) Light, city of light; a town famous in ancient times as one of
the chief seats of lunar worship in Babylonia, being an important center of
the worship of the masculine god of the moon. It was commonly called among
the Chaldeans 'ur khasdim (Ur of the Chaldeans). See Lucifer
The meaning of city of light is not merely that it was a town which revered
the light of the moon, but refers to ceremonials of occult instruction and
initiation which evidently were conducted in this ancient place. Ur is
supposed to be the capital of the Sumerian civilization, situated on the
south bank of the Euphrates near the Persian Gulf. More than 5,000 years
ago it had reached a highly advanced cultural and commercial prominence.
UTU-HEGAL, Utu-Hegal (Utu-khegal) The 3rd dynasty of Ur: Utu-hegal of Uruk
is given credit for having overthrown Gutian rule by vanquishing their king
Tiriqan along with two generals. Utu-hegal calls himself lord of the four
quarters of the earth in an inscription, but this title, adopted from
Akkad, is more likely to signify political aspiration than actual rule.
Utu-hegal was a brother of the Ur-Nammu who founded the 3rd dynasty of Ur
("3rd" because it is the third time that Ur is listed in the Sumerian king
list). Under Ur-Nammu and his successors Shulgi, Amar-Su'ena, Shu-Sin, and
Ibbi-Sin, this dynasty lasted for a century (c. 2112-c. 2004). Ur-Nammu was
at first "governor" of the city of Ur under Utu-hegal.
UR-NAMMU [ur-näm´OO] From Infoplease 2060 B.C., king of the ancient city of
Ur, sometimes called Zur-Nammu or Ur-Engur. He founded a new Sumerian
dynasty, the third dynasty of Ur, that lasted a century. Ur-Nammu was the
promulgator of the oldest code of law yet known, older by about three
centuries than the code of Hammurabi. It consists of a prologue and seven
laws; the prologue describes Ur-Nammu as a divinely appointed king who
established justice throughout the land. This code is of great importance
to the study of biblical law, which it predates by about five centuries.
The two most famous monuments of Ur-Nammu's reign are the great ziggurat
(temple) at Ur and his stele, of which fragments remain.
URUK
UTNAPISHTIM The Babylonian Noah, the name means "he found life" i.e.
became immortal. He is the hero of the great flood in the epic of
Gilgamesh. He was the son of Ubaratutu of Shuruppak. He was warned by Ea to
build a boat to escape the flood. He saved his wealth as well as his
animals. Ea advised Enlil that he could control the population better with
wild animals, famine and plages. As a result, Enlil makes Utnapishtim
immortal.
In the ancient Middle Eastern worldview, gods could become mortal, and men
could become gods. Utnapishtim, the hero of the Babylonian Flood story, was
"Hitherto Utnapishtim has been but human; henceforth Utnapishtim and his
wife shall be like us gods" (Gilgamesh epic). In the Hebrew Bible, God so
loved Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11) that he carried them
to heaven as immortals.
UTTU Sumerian goddess of the earth and plants, daughter of Enki, and
Ninkurra. Enki wanted to marry her, and Uttu demanded a present of
cucumbers, apples and grapes. Enki created the desired fruits, then ate
them, as he was a god of both creation and destruction.
UTU see Shamash The Sumerian sun-god, created by Enlil and Ninlil. Nergal
was the underworld personification of the sun-god Utu, more specifically
relating to the dark winter months when the sun was thought to have
descended to the great below. As a result, Nergal represented the more
negative aspects of the solar deity: pestilence, famine, disease. These
traits gave rise to an outwardly marshal character: a warrior god whose
wrath at time appears indiscriminate (see, for example "Erra and Ishum").
Born of Enlil and Ninlil, he was usually regarded as the husband of the
underworld goddess Ereskigal Among his symbology is the scimitar, and the
single or double-headed lion-sceptre. His main cult center was the temple
Utu was the Sumerian sun-god, who rose each morning from the 'interior of
heaven,' and crossed the sky before finally reentering through the bolts in
the west. He represents the brilliant light of the sun, which returns each
day to illuminate the life of mankind, as well as giving beneficial warmth,
allowing the growth of plant and animal life. He was regarded as a god of
truth, justice, and right. Together with the storm-god Adad, he was often
invoked in extispacy rituals. He was the son of Nanna, the moon-god, and
twin brother of the goddess Inanna. His main cult center was at Larsa, in
temple E-Babbar (White House). His symbol was the pruning-saw.
Remember that Inanna got Enki drunk and took the MES which included the
secret uses of music. From her Utu got the secret and became the "the god
of music and song" and the inventor of the flute and the lyre.
UTU-HEGAL, Utu-Hegal (Utu-khegal) The 3rd dynasty of Ur: Utu-hegal of Uruk
is given credit for having overthrown Gutian rule by vanquishing their king
Tiriqan along with two generals. Utu-hegal calls himself lord of the four
quarters of the earth in an inscription, but this title, adopted from
Akkad, is more likely to signify political aspiration than actual rule.
Utu-hegal was a brother of the Ur-Nammu who founded the 3rd dynasty of Ur
("3rd" because it is the third time that Ur is listed in the Sumerian king
list). Under Ur-Nammu and his successors Shulgi, Amar-Su'ena, Shu-Sin, and
Ibbi-Sin, this dynasty lasted for a century (c. 2112-c. 2004). Ur-Nammu was
at first "governor" of the city of Ur under Utu-hegal.
UTU-HEJAL Utu-hegal of Uruk is given credit for having overthrown Gutian
rule by vanquishing their king Tiriqan along with two generals. Utu-hegal
calls himself lord of the four quarters of the earth in an inscription, but
this title, adopted from Akkad, is more likely to signify political
aspiration than actual rule. Utu-hegal was a brother of the Ur-Nammu
UTU-HEGAL, Utu-Hegal (Utu-khegal) The 3rd dynasty of Ur: Utu-hegal of Uruk
is given credit for having overthrown Gutian rule by vanquishing their king
Tiriqan along with two generals. Utu-hegal calls himself lord of the four
quarters of the earth in an inscription, but this title, adopted from
Akkad, is more likely to signify political aspiration than actual rule.
Utu-hegal was a brother of the Ur-Nammu who founded the 3rd dynasty of Ur
("3rd" because it is the third time that Ur is listed in the Sumerian king
list). Under Ur-Nammu and his successors Shulgi, Amar-Su'ena, Shu-Sin, and
Ibbi-Sin, this dynasty lasted for a century (c. 2112-c. 2004). Ur-Nammu was
at first "governor" of the city of Ur under Utu-hegal.
YAH Yaho 'yahu, yeho (Hebrew) Yah is an abbreviation of Jehovah, but
equally well Jehovah could be said to be merely an enlargement of the
original form Yah. The Zohar says that the 'Elohim used this word to form
the world.
"To screen the real mystery name of ain-soph -- the Boundless and Endless
No-Thing -- the Kabalists have brought forward the compound attribute-
appellation of one of the personal creative Elohim, whose name was Yah and
Jah, the letters i or j or y being interchangeable, or Jah-Hovah, i.e.,
male and female; Jah-Eve an hermaphrodite, or the first form of humanity,
the original Adam of Earth, not even Adam-Kadmon, whose 'mind-born son' is
the earthly Jah-Hovah, mystically. And knowing this, the crafty Rabbin-
Kabalist has made of it a name so secret, that he could not divulge it
later on without exposing the whole scheme; and thus he was obliged to make
it sacred" (Theosophy on the Ancient Near East)
ZARPANIT Marduk's chief temples at Babylon were the Esagila and the
Etemenanki, a ziggurat with a shrine of Marduk on the top. In Esagila the
poem Enuma elish was recited every year at the New Year festival. The
goddess named most often as the consort of Marduk was Zarpanit, or Zarbanit
(She of the City Zarpan). (See Akitu.)
ZISUTRA Sumerian Priest-King of the great flood. See Atrahasis.
ZIUSUDRA (Sumerian) Role in eridue Genesis Shuruppak was celebrated in
Sumerian legend as the scene of the Deluge, which destroyed all humanity
except one survivor, Ziusudra. He had been commanded by a protecting god to
build an ark, in which he rode out the disaster, afterward re-creating man
and living things upon the earth, and was himself endowed with eternal
life. Ziusudra corresponds with Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh epic and with
the biblical Noah.
ZU (Imdugud) This is probably the earliest dragon legend - from about 7000
years ago. In Babylonian mythology, a bird-god who was an enemy of the
gods. One day Zu stole the tablets of destiny. The gods were dismayed
because no one was prepared to recover these vital records of the future.
Finally, King Lugalbanda, father of Gilgamesh, as able to retrieve the
tablets after slaying Zu. In Assyrian myths it is Marduk who crushed Zu's
skull. In another myth it seems that it was Ninurta who overcame Zu.
Perhaps Zu was the ancestral bull.
As you can see, this is a small regional list.

Post by Aerion E.
Then the evidence needs

Post by walksalone
examined. Your claim indicated that you believe in Na'pi. Who is
the creator, just not a god.

Atheism, by it's very nature is a position not supported by facts.

All it is is a lack of belief in any god. Just as you are atheist to
venus.

Post by Aerion E.
Furthermore, it is not inactive, they try to dictate through courts

That's not atheism. That is individuals, that may or may not be atheist,
or organizations with the same characteristics that are defending the
constitution from xians. Xians play by the same rules everyone else plays
by, they don't have the problem.

Post by Aerion E.
of law the dis-establishment of religious symbols, values, morals etc.
With nothing.

Inasmuch as morals are a societal item, which ones are those. That I can't
force you to not buy grocery's on a sunday. How about no beer/alcoholic
beverages on a sunday. The blue laws are still on the books. But there is
no law in the US that says xianity must be given special treatment. &
yes,. that is in spite of xians voiced opinions.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
It also indicates you believe in that world renown creator, Bumba.
After all, you have yet to show neither one exists. Side note,
should a god exist, there is no reason to assume that other gods
don't exist.

Here again staying power.

The only power xianity has is by coercion & propaganda.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if
it were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't
have that also presume it is.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god
as there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith,

Which means it should be kept in your pants in mixed or polite company.

I subscribe to alt.talk creationism. The question is how do you come
into the discussion? Are you crossposting?

No, I am not cross posting. I am responding to an intruder that is cross
posting. As I said, I subscribe to only two groups. Only one is in the
newsgroups line in the headers. If you don't want to see anymore
disagreements with your corrupted world view, remove the alt.atheism from
your newsgroups line. & learn to pay attention to that line in the future.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
not evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's
your view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours?
I've pointed out several times, that you are entitled to _your_
belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Special pleading anyone? Not every one accepts your standard of
reasoning or evidence. Most I know here have higher & more rigid
standards.

If you don't have proof, whether you like it or not, all you have is
belief!

Nope, atheism, as you should know, is no more than the concept of no gods.
It is inactive till someone tries to drop a load on the new carpet by
pretending their gods are real. Until then, it is a nonevent. So you see,
you have shown atheists to be superior to you in at least one aspect. &
that's not counting knowledge of the xian myth. We don't waste skull sweat
on claims that are less real than Alice In Wonderland.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a

Appeal to numbers as well as unfounded authority. You seem to
believe that just because a majority think that the Lower Slobovia
Jock Straps are the worlds best girl's Crazy Eight playing team,
everyone else believes that to be true. I don't.

Post by Aerion E.
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,

Nope, though there are anti-atheists in this world. You see, it
matters not to me what magic tooth fairy that you call yours.

I have been the tooth fairy to mine, so I have proof there is no other

IOW, you usurped the rights & duty's of a deity. I'm not sure how the
tooth fairy & the God of Hangovers are going to take to that. OK, so she
is a hired hand, but she does work for the real tooth fairy. Sir Pratchet
said so. In print.

Post by Aerion E.
real tooth proof. IOW only my dime ever is found under the pillow of
my kids. :)

So you believe, but to use your logic, you have no concrete evidence. She,
who is never to be named, could substitute one of her dimes for yours, &
let you take the tooth. With goddesses & gods, there are no rules.

Post by Aerion E.
That is, until you

Post by walksalone
try to make it mandatory on every one, included in public law, or
imposed on others in any way, shape or form. IO spent twenty years
defending the US Constitution. That means for twenty years I also
defended your right to believe in any magic fairy you want, not have
to. I could care less. AAMOF< I've a small library where religious
types have a chance of obtaining writings that support their view.
Hell, I've even got the Encyclopedia of Apologetics, & I've read it.

Good. If the overwhelming majority want a U.S. Flag on millitary
cemetery and a small minority don't because they are offended, who
should have the right upheld. Replace the flag with a cross.

Your arrogance is noted. The thing with national cemetery's is, they are
to honor all the dead. Not just the majority. If you want a picture of
minerva on a headstone, it would be a right you have earned. You don't
like it, in this case, go suck an egg & may they decide to tell the truth
about xianity when you die. & replace the cross with a portrait of Alfred
E. Neuman. With his motto. At least yours would stand out & you would be
getting the attention you crave.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
are the minority, as such you are the outside.

That's a bit arrogant. Xianity, including Catholics, are the
majority. Excluding Catholics, last I read, are number three. Now
considering they follow revealed gods, I can stand to be in the group
that thinks. Even if it is a minority.

">
Your "non-thinking" people don't build skyscrapers, rockets to the

As usual, you are long on assertions, implied & otherwise. In this case,
that you know & can show that no atheist did any of the above, or
following. It takes but one example, famous or otherwise, to put that lie
to rest.

Post by Aerion E.
moon, write books design build computers or design ships etc. These
are the thinking people most of whom are religious. What have your

Indeed, when a society has been as indoctrinated by a myth as this one, the
majority of that generation will be religious. But you said most, does
that mean you admit atheists could have been involved. BTW, Isaac Asminov
shows there is no heaven of hell. He never wrote a book on either one.
But he did write books on the Hebrew Bible & Greek Testament.

Post by Aerion E.
thinking people contributed to society that wasn't determent and
destructive? I can name a few, destruction of morality which brings
illegimate offspring, wellfare, murders, cheating, hatred etc.

You just described the general population of the bible belt. IIRC,
Mississippi has the highest rate of teen pregnancy, & yet they are one of
the most fanatical xian populated states. As to ethics, societal more,
etc. Individuals that must have your myth to be decent I want to have
keep that belief. Otherwise the violent crime rate will go through the
universe.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
<snip more of the same>

<further nonsense>

Yes, you did have further nonsense, so for any reduction of that, thanks.
walksalone who has wondered, do bleaters try & snow us under by the sheer
volume of the nonsense they post. Seems to be the case this time.
Fundamentalism means never having to say I'm wrong.
Author unkown to me.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
could overcome that.

Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
anyone. You have free agency.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
,SNip>
I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party newsgroup.

And yet, I am reading this tripe in the atheist news group where it is OT,
as well as unwelcome due to the average bleaters conduct.

That's odd. I subscribe to alt.talk.creationism yet I'm reading
your words. Also I respond on the same site. How do you explain
that?

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are
welcome to it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there
would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it
will rise in the east & I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you

What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
your gods are real.

NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
upon evidence.
The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we

Post by walksalone
take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as such.
Another lesson from the US Military.

Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.

Why? What is it, precisely, that convinced you?

[Aerion E.]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
could overcome that.

Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
anyone. You have free agency.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
,SNip>
I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party newsgroup.

And yet, I am reading this tripe in the atheist news group where it is OT,
as well as unwelcome due to the average bleaters conduct.

That's odd. I subscribe to alt.talk.creationism yet I'm reading
your words. Also I respond on the same site. How do you explain
that?

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are
welcome to it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there
would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it
will rise in the east & I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you

What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
your gods are real.

NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
upon evidence.
The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we

Post by walksalone
take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as such.
Another lesson from the US Military.

Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.

Why? What is it, precisely, that convinced you?

I cannot explain what convinced me in a sentence or two.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
could overcome that.

Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
anyone. You have free agency.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
,SNip>
I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party newsgroup.

And yet, I am reading this tripe in the atheist news group where it is OT,
as well as unwelcome due to the average bleaters conduct.

That's odd. I subscribe to alt.talk.creationism yet I'm reading
your words. Also I respond on the same site. How do you explain
that?

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are
welcome to it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there
would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it
will rise in the east & I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you

What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
your gods are real.

NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
upon evidence.
The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we

Post by walksalone
take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as such.
Another lesson from the US Military.

Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.

Why? What is it, precisely, that convinced you?

I cannot explain what convinced me in a sentence or two.

Try. Try 5 sentences or 6.

[b***@m.nu]

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:07:30 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
could overcome that.

Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
anyone. You have free agency.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
,SNip>
I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party newsgroup.

And yet, I am reading this tripe in the atheist news group where it is OT,
as well as unwelcome due to the average bleaters conduct.

That's odd. I subscribe to alt.talk.creationism yet I'm reading
your words. Also I respond on the same site. How do you explain
that?

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are
welcome to it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof
that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there
would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it
will rise in the east & I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you

What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
your gods are real.

NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
upon evidence.
The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we

Post by walksalone
take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as such.
Another lesson from the US Military.

Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.

Why? What is it, precisely, that convinced you?

I cannot explain what convinced me in a sentence or two.

Try. Try 5 sentences or 6.

Oh Oh wait let me help. I can do it in one word....

Stupidity, Desperation, Gullibility,

sorry that was three, but hey whos counting

[Alex W.]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
could overcome that.

Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
anyone. You have free agency.

If your god is omniscient, we cannot have free agency.

If we do have free agency, your god cannot punish us for exercising it.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not a
belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe that
the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, & there
would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence, that it
will rise in the east & I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you

What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
your gods are real.

NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
upon evidence.

If it is based in faith, you have no evidence or logic beyond the power
of persuasion inherent in your person. Given your behaviour and your
attitude, those powers are pretty miniscule....

Post by Aerion E.
The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we

Post by walksalone
take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as such.
Another lesson from the US Military.

Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.

That IS a claim.

[Aerion E.]

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere as
much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
could overcome that.

Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
anyone. You have free agency.

If your god is omniscient, we cannot have free agency.
If we do have free agency, your god cannot punish us for exercising it.

Yes, where our free agency begins is where God's omniscience ends.
As far as exercising free agency, there has to be restrictions such as
stealing, cheating, murder, bearing false witnessing and lying. Free
agency doesn't provide us cover to commit such as this.
<snip>

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
your gods are real.

NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
upon evidence.

If it is based in faith, you have no evidence or logic beyond the power
of persuasion inherent in your person. Given your behaviour and your
attitude, those powers are pretty miniscule....

I'm not trying to convince you to believe as I do. The fact is I don't
know you and furthermore, I don't care for you, so why should I care
and be concerned about you? Just so you know.

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.
The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we

Post by walksalone
take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as such.
Another lesson from the US Military.

Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.

That IS a claim.

No, it's a personal view.

[Alex W.]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is
a stupid question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day?
Nowhere as
much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's [real true
believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no longer
be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural entity with god
like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might kick in but a real god
could overcome that.

Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
anyone. You have free agency.

If your god is omniscient, we cannot have free agency.
If we do have free agency, your god cannot punish us for exercising it.

Yes, where our free agency begins is where God's omniscience ends.

Sorry, but omniscience does not work that way. An omniscient deity is
literally all-knowing. Not "all-knowing but only up to a certain
point". Not "i know everything that was, is, and will be ... except for
this bit here, and that bit over there, and some bits over yonder".
Omniscience is by its definition an absolute.

Post by Aerion E.
As far as exercising free agency, there has to be restrictions such as
stealing, cheating, murder, bearing false witnessing and lying. Free
agency doesn't provide us cover to commit such as this.

None of these have much to do with your god. They are the cornerstones
of human morality whatever one's deity or ideology. But your god tells
you the believer that I, exercising my free agency to not believe in his
existence, will be punished with everlasting damnation and hellfire.

Post by Aerion E.
<snip>

Post by Alex W.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive claim,
your gods are real.

NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
upon evidence.

If it is based in faith, you have no evidence or logic beyond the power
of persuasion inherent in your person. Given your behaviour and your
attitude, those powers are pretty miniscule....

I'm not trying to convince you to believe as I do. The fact is I don't
know you and furthermore, I don't care for you, so why should I care
and be concerned about you? Just so you know.

Actually, if you read your scripture you should know better. It is your
duty to care for your fellow man. And no, that does not just mean the
shlub warming a barstool next to you. Matthew 22:39 and Leviticus
19:18, if you wish to refresh your memory.

[walksalone]

snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
Not really, it's the inquiring mind syndrome.

Not if they are atheist. They desperately want to cling to their
atheism.

As desperately as you want to cling to your gods of the day? Nowhere
as much really. I suspect a common trait among atheists that RTB's
[real true believers] can not match.
Should there be evidence for any god, an atheist could admit it & no
longer be atheist to that god[dess], demon, or other supernatural
entity with god like powers. Of course, the alien syndrome might
kick in but a real god could overcome that.

Should God want to do so, but it obvious God doesn't push himself on
anyone. You have free agency.

So, you can read your gods minds. Even the archaic Hebrews could not do
that. Or at least, the Hebrew Bible says that.
No one has free agency. We do get choices, but free agency is an
apologetic ploy of believers of the revealed god of the desert. Do you
have free agency to avoid painful death? Say cancer? No you don't. You
may seek medical help, which was not provided by any god, including the
Greek God of medicine. Or any other one.
Can you prevent a miscarriage, aka holy abortion? I doubt it. At least
not without the help of medicine & the research it has done on the
problem.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
,SNip>
I subscribe to two groups. As a creationist I subscribe to a
creationism, newsgroup as a democrat, I subscribe to a party
newsgroup.

And yet, I am reading this tripe in the atheist news group where it
is OT, as well as unwelcome due to the average bleaters conduct.

That's odd. I subscribe to alt.talk.creationism yet I'm reading
your words. Also I respond on the same site. How do you explain
that?

Because you are the one composting. When you or I respond to a message,
it is sent to all groups in the newsgroups bloc, line, or however they
are displayed on your system.

snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete
proof that there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Atheism is a belief. Well shinola & dog snot. No, atheism is not
a belief. Beliefs are active mental activities. I do not believe
that the sun will rise in the magnetic north tomorrow morning, &
there would be any life on earth. I believe, based on evidence,
that it will rise in the east & I will still be alive.

If you don't have absolute proof that God does not exist, then all you

What ignorance combined with arrogance. You presented a positive
claim, your gods are real.

NO! I've said God is real to _me_. Also, I've pointed out every time I
broached the subject I explain that religion is faith based, not based
upon evidence.

When in a discussion, you say a rattlesnake is in your lap, no one will
believe you for practical reasons. But, say god, & you make a
declaration. One you expect to be taken seriously. Almost like you
didn't realise how ignorant that makes anyone sound. It's not that you
should not have beliefs that differ, or coincide with others, but you can
keep it in your pants.
And the sad part to me, you are subconsciously unwilling to actually
study your beliefs, let alone question them.
Example, I had a neighbor that was raises xian. he was in his 50's or
later. He no longer believed, but the indoctrination still kicked in.
We found out when he asked to borrow a book. The Bible Unearthed. Has
nothing to do with the god question & isn't concerned with it. It took
him at least six months to read the book. Seems he would get started, &
never later than 20 minutes, would put it down, without marking the page,
& go do something that did not need done. Even his kids noticed it.

Post by Aerion E.
The burden of proof is yours by your demand that we

Post by walksalone
take it seriously. & no, demands do not always have to be stated as
such. Another lesson from the US Military.

Had I claimed that God does exist, then you would be right. But I
can say only that I have strong faith that God is real.

It's an implication. After all, there are gods you don't believe exist.
But your god, well it must be real for you would not willingly believe a
lie. Sorry, human nature has just bit you in the ass. You are starting
from an undeclared position. Just like I do when my daughters get
involved. I know they are the most beautiful women in the world has no
practical difference from I believe they are the most beautiful women in
the world. & they are.
Did you notice, I didn't qualify my belief? Ever wonder why.

snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
It's not a concern until someone like you shows up, declares they
know more than others, in your case, there are gods even though you
don't know that, for it's not a matter of concern. Bit like your
atheism where Anat is concerned. & the nice thing, you don't have to
use those exact words. Your conduct & attempts to get others to do
your work tell on you. Hum, this trend towards the deception of
themselves & others may explain politics around the world.

I neither need or want others to do 'work' for me.

You can avoid it for yourself, but when you show up in any atheist
newsgroup, well, it's already been done. & for you, it's onna the
pagoda.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
There is no evidence you will be alive tomorrow, but I hope you are
right.

Consider xianity is a death cult, like Judaism & Islam, Why would you
want others to suffer just because you are required to.

This is utter insanity, I'm _not_ required to suffer, nor do I want
others to suffer.

Good, glad there is some part of the myth you don't willingly accept. I
take it you don't accept the hell of the early church, as described in
Revelation? Or is your version just as impossible. That is the absence
of a god that is everywhere. hell, he is nosier than Santa if you buy
into the myth.

You don't get it both ways, Nor are you allowed to change the meaning of
the text. But if the text is not reinterpreted, then people with morals
would never buy it today.

& yes, you are required to suffer in this life so you earn the privilege
of entering a eternal torture. That of standing around all day braying
praises to a god you probably wouldn't be able to see. All that radiance
you see.
Then of course, you may be, according to Revelation, denied access. It's
reservations only. 144,000 Jewish male virgins.

Post by Aerion E.
I have noted that it was Christians who took me in, fed clothed and
raised me. They cared for me. There were no atheist who offered to do
the same.

& so, you give them your loyalty. Well that makes sense. & as far as
atheists not taking you in. Maybe they were not allowed. When I adopted
my three step kids, one of the questions the person sent to check me out
was, was I a atheist or did I act like one. Now there was a church at
the crossroads, & I never went. I would have not have known that if my
neighbors hadn't told me. Hopefully it is different in other states, &
no longer the case in Alabama. But even today, there have been reports
of atheists & homosexual/lesbian couples being given a hard time trying
to adapt war orphans, or kids in the US.
So you see, the law may have been the reason no atheist couple could take
you in. Or, like me, you were hard on the eyes.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no
truth, hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

That was nice, but you should not paint others with your tar brush.

I didn't apply this to others (plural) just one.

When you denigrate any member of a group, you denigrate the others by
implication. That's from the tribal side of humanity.

I respond in kind, when a smart ass denigrates me or mine I return
the "compliment".

Ah, I understand. It's that turn the other cheek syndrome.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
You

Post by walksalone
see, unlike many theists I have encountered, the truth does not
upset me. Bit like when a cashier called me an ass hole, I agreed
with here. But told her she should have included the preacher that
started the shit. & I even agree with those that call me a
bastard. Legally, & by archaic definition, I am. Of course, they
don't like it when I ask them what their excuse is.

In a sense you knew who your parents were.

Which has nothing to do with the terms, ass hole & bastard. Your
point of confusion is yours.

No, but you were lucky in that. I have no known family.

It could be worse. You may have known your family, & that was not good.
My case, all early memories, say before the first grade, of my mother are
blocked out. Even hynotists can't dig it up. And according to one
hypnotist, he is glad. He said, & i believe him, I was getting so
aggitated he wa afraid for his own safety. & yet, I get accused of being
a decent person by several that one would not expect that from. Hell,
I've even been acused of being a xian. talk about hurt feelings.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your
religion, then you have to back them up using
outside-your-religion methods. In this case by providing the kind
of evidence for it that there is for the universe - because
that's your stupid question claimed the two were equivalent
outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Noun: corollary
1. A practical consequence that follows naturally
2. (logic) an inference that follows directly from the proof of
another proposition
[WordWeb.info]

I used it as an analogy and in keeping with what is defined as a
mathematical concept.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/corollary?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corollary?s=t

So it is no longer a corollary? Good, you are learning. Backpedaling,
but learning. Or, maybe that is what you were told the error was. Xian
apologetics as well known for twisting words & redefining them.
But, if it was an analogy, then it was so subtle only you saw it. BTW,
you might want to look at that word, analogy::))) Break it down to it's
components & it's the study of ass holes.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
The problem you are embracing is, you have no evidence for your gods.
Of which there are no less than four. The oddity, none of them
parallel the gods they were copied from. In the case of satan, the
last god of the Hebrews, & the holy spirit, none remain or imitate
the Hebrew version. In the case of the missing messiah, had he
existed, he would have been a failed messiah.

No, only one.

Really? I take it the knowledge of your myth & it's claimed
authority are somewhat below microscopic.
Hint, in spite of claims to the contrary, there is no evidence for a
historical jesus ben joseph. Given the era & location, there should
have been. Bit like the missing works of King David & King Solomon.
& before you try the old lack of evidence weasel out. Lack of
evidence when there should be evidence is evidence of lack.
As you don't know what a messiah was at that time, read & learn.
References on request after you pass the quiz.

I read some of this, but there is no way I'm going to take time
or the effort to respond to this colloquy. Most of it is without
references or from the obsoleted Old Testament. I have neither the
time nor the inclination to do so.

Of course your're not going to examine anything that may show your faith
to be, shall we say, misplaced. After all, you know you are right.
Well, you think you do, & for you that's good enough. & as long as you
are not pedaling the error in the atheist group, it's more than good
enough for me.

Post by Aerion E.
However, if you didn't copy and past, this took a huge amount of
your time. I appreciate that. And I will one day come back to this.

I keep it on file. Feel free to ask for information of that nature.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
Prerequisites To Recognize the Messiah
The Tanach (composed of the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim) is
transparent on the subject of the role of the messiah. It should be
noted that, although there are many sections throughout the Tanach
that vividly describe how the world will be forever transformed with
the arrival of the messiah, very few are about the messiah
personally. The vast quantity of messianic scripture in the Tanach
(Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim) depicts the state of perfection that
the world will achieve at the end of days. It is quite clear from the
vantage point of the Tanach that the significance of the messiah
himself pales in comparison to the utopian age that his arrival will
usher in. In Jeremiah, chapter 33, verse 17, G-d says that the royal
House of David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel.
The reason Jews and Noahides don't accept the messiah of Christendom
is because Jesus did not fulfill any of the clear messianic
prophecies foretold in the Tanach. In addition, the Tanach never
tells of believing in the messiah because either the events leading
to his advent will be so undeniable, or his reign will be a
historically verifiable reality and self-evident to anyone. Because
no person has ever fulfilled the prophecies in the Tanach given of
this future King, the Jewish people still await the coming of the
messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus, have
ultimately been rejected by the Jewish people simply because they did
not measure up to the prophecies.

Snip, those poor electrons need a break.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
All Warfare Will Cease
"And He shall judge among the nations and decide for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears
into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war anymore." -- Isaiah 2:4

That right there tells me there has been no messiah as claimed by the
xians.

snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone
Now the Jews did recognize a messiah. Care to name him?

snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
Atheist don't indoctrinate children? Of course they do.

As in deliberate indoctrination via xianity. Never seen it. So your
verifiable reference will be, with references. Post them here or
withdraw your lie.

snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.

Post by walksalone

Post by Aerion E.
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not
be a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

No, it is waiting for evidence to be provided.

Neither can be proven, therefore both are beliefs. That is neither

Assuming existence of your god, yes it could. True, no autographs,
no photos, but things that interact with our time space physical
location leave evidence. Take the parting of the Red Sea. yes, I
know it never happed for the exodus & moses are fiction according to
the evidence. When xians go to the location, in spite of Ron Wyatt,
there is no evidence of the violent motions of the waters, no
footprints, no chariot tracks or parts.
The evidence shows it to be a just so story. BTW, I've seen videos
that show how it could have happened. But again, no physical
evidence.

Post by Aerion E.
can God existence be proven, neither can it's absence. So, both
are beliefs.

There is that three letter word again. Until you can define a word,
it is meaningless in a medium of this nature.
Try this for starters.
Requirements or attributes of the gods, goddesses & other divinities
of the human species. [Incomplete]
Anthropomorphic
A: Must be supernatural [applies to every divinity declared]
B: May or may not be able to have a visible body [Zeus & the Greek
pantheon as an example]
C: May or may not interfere in human activity or destiny.
D: May or may not be good, evil, or apathetic where humans are
concerned.
E: May or may not be a divine through their own will, may be a victim
of apotheosis [the Chinese pantheon is a good example of these types
of gods.]
Demons: Now there is a thought, Demons as gods. Indeed, they are,
lessor gods to be sure, but more powerful than some gods, less
powerful than others.
Dwarves &/or Elves: Though two distinct races, dwarves are found in
worldwide mythology as well as European. Elves, tend to be Nordic &
Germanic in origin.
Fates: They are common to the classical myths as well as the European
ones.
Fairies, or the wee folk: A class of gods that include everything
from Brownies to Knockers & beyond. Some are good, & some like Red
Hat, are not.
Giants: though supernatural as understood in the myths of the world,
they are not necessary known to have god like powers as most
understand the term.
Gods & goddesses: I hope this class does not need more explanation.
Spirits: are all supernatural, even those that are the spirits of
humans or animals that have not went on to where good spirits are
entitled to go.
Animistic, all living creatures, including plant life
Astral/solar All heavenly bodies

Sincere & heart felt snip.

Thank gosh that is over for now. Now I can attend to something
important. making a cup pa coffee.


walksalone who suspects that the OP is hooked for life. I can only hope
he keeps his apparent decent streak & never degrades to fundy level.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian




10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by
other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of
yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people
evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical
claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a
Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed
to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah
slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women,
children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about
gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the
Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got
killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in
the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you
find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen
sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the
exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in
all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering.
And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have
failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor
speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove"
Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered
prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you
think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do
about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call
yourself a Christian.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no creator"

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

<
I gave reference.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because science isn't about beliefs.

This was about Einstein, the man.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.

Because he was committed to a static universe.
But once the

Post by Christopher A. Lee
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been the
biggest mistake of his life.

This is true.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".
But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

So fucking what?

[Aerion E.]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no creator"

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

<
I gave reference.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because science isn't about beliefs.

This was about Einstein, the man.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.

Because he was committed to a static universe.
But once the

Post by Christopher A. Lee
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been the
biggest mistake of his life.

This is true.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".
But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

So fucking what?

It makes you a freak!

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no creator"

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

<
I gave reference.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because science isn't about beliefs.

This was about Einstein, the man.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.

Because he was committed to a static universe.
But once the

Post by Christopher A. Lee
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been the
biggest mistake of his life.

This is true.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times,
there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".
But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

So fucking what?

It makes you a freak!

How does it make me a freak?

Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".

[Aerion E.]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no creator"

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

<
I gave reference.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because science isn't about beliefs.

This was about Einstein, the man.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.

Because he was committed to a static universe.
But once the

Post by Christopher A. Lee
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been the
biggest mistake of his life.

This is true.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times,
there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to time a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".
But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

So fucking what?

It makes you a freak!

How does it make me a freak?
Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".

It's a mind thing.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no creator"

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific
acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

<
I gave reference.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because science isn't about beliefs.

This was about Einstein, the man.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.

Because he was committed to a static universe.
But once the

Post by Christopher A. Lee
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been the
biggest mistake of his life.

This is true.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every
spot
in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times,
there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time
a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".
But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

So fucking what?

It makes you a freak!

How does it make me a freak?
Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".

It's a mind thing.

Why do you think that's an answer to my question?

Please try again.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 17:39:02 -0800, Jeanne Douglas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.
The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

The binary thinking, paranoid religious fanatic imagines that if
you're not "for" his religion, you're against it.

And like most religious fanatics he imagines the number of people who
believe something, somehow makes it true.

So when a majority of people believed the Earth was flat, it really
was - then one day it sprung into a sphere when enough people stopped
believing that.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
So fucking what?

It makes you a freak!

How does it make me a freak?
Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".

It's a mind thing.

Why do you think that's an answer to my question?
Please try again.

They would save themselves a heck of a lot of acrimony and
embarrassment if they learned to think outside their religion.

[Aerion E.]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no creator"

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific
acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the time he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

<
I gave reference.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because science isn't about beliefs.

This was about Einstein, the man.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.

Because he was committed to a static universe.
But once the

Post by Christopher A. Lee
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been the
biggest mistake of his life.

This is true.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every
spot
in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times,
there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time
a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question about one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you bring it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God as a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".
But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism or alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

So fucking what?

It makes you a freak!

How does it make me a freak?
Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".

It's a mind thing.

Why do you think that's an answer to my question?

It's a mindset that is alien or grossly "out of step" with the
overwhelming majority of humanity. But why did you jump in
uninvited to this discussion. Get lost!

Post by Jeanne Douglas
Please try again.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann
Bondi
and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble?
Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no creator"

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding
universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific
acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the
time
he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

<
I gave reference.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because science isn't about beliefs.

This was about Einstein, the man.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.

Because he was committed to a static universe.
But once the

Post by Christopher A. Lee
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been
the
biggest mistake of his life.

This is true.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every
spot
in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different
from
the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all
times,
there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a
philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory
gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he
called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the
expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time
a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question
about
one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you
bring
it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
as
a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".
But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism
or
alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because
nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it
was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I
have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

So fucking what?

It makes you a freak!

How does it make me a freak?
Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".

It's a mind thing.

Why do you think that's an answer to my question?

It's a mindset that is alien or grossly "out of step" with the
overwhelming majority of humanity.

How is not being the same as everyone else being a "freak"?

Post by Aerion E.
But why did you jump in
uninvited to this discussion. Get lost!

This is posted in alt.atheism. I am a member of alt.atheism. That means
I was most definitely invited to the discussion. If you wish to have a
private conversation, you have to do it in email.

[Aerion E.]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
<snip>

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann
Bondi
and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble?
Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" - science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no creator"

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding
universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific
acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the
time
he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

<
I gave reference.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because science isn't about beliefs.

This was about Einstein, the man.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.

Because he was committed to a static universe.
But once the

Post by Christopher A. Lee
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had been
the
biggest mistake of his life.

This is true.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was confirmed, it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every
spot
in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different
from
the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all
times,
there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a
philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory
gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he
called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the
expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time
a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question
about
one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you
bring
it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything needs a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
as
a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are welcome to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".
But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

Post by Christopher A. Lee
world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism
or
alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because
nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit it
was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I
have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in, but I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

So fucking what?

It makes you a freak!

How does it make me a freak?
Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".

It's a mind thing.

Why do you think that's an answer to my question?

It's a mindset that is alien or grossly "out of step" with the
overwhelming majority of humanity.

How is not being the same as everyone else being a "freak"?

Post by Aerion E.
But why did you jump in
uninvited to this discussion. Get lost!

This is posted in alt.atheism. I am a member of alt.atheism. That means
I was most definitely invited to the discussion. If you wish to have a
private conversation, you have to do it in email.

All right, but how is it that I'm not reading it alt.atheism, but
instead on alt.talk creationism?

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 00:00:27 -0400, "Aerion E."

<snip>

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

Baseless assertion which rests on nothing more than a religious
belief.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman
So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann
Bondi
and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory

Of course it's a distortion - what reason would there have been
to
propose an expanding universe before Hubble and the others?

Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble?
Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a
distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

This is a lie on your part.
There was no reason to assume the universe was anything but steady,
imbecile.

You are misunderstanding something. Before Hubble the consensus among
most scientists was the POV that the universe was steady. I have
never
challenged this. So, what point are you trying to make here?

It wasn't even a theory.

It was called a theory by the University or Oregon and PBS
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html

But in any case, they did not "assume there was no creator" -
science
and scientists didn't even give a thought to a creator.
Because science doesn't work that way.

Nor did I claim otherwise.

"If at one time science accepted the idea that the
Universe
was
eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed no
creator"

After the word "thus", is my conclusion.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble.
Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding
universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific
acceptance.

Steady state wasn't even a theory until after an expanding universe
was proposed.

You are wrong about this. The the steady state theory was the
prevailing
theory before Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe.

You are wrong about this. The universe was just the universe. There
was no reason to assume it was expanding. Steady might be a
consequence of this, but it wasn't a theory.
Let alone because it didn't require a creator.
Because science doesn't even give a creator a thought
For it to do that, there would have to be some kind of scientific
reason to posit one.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Nobody even gave a thought to it.

Even Einstein believed the universe was in a static state at the
time
he
advanced his General Theory of Relativity.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

Sigh. You're reading too much into it.

<
I gave reference.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Because science isn't about beliefs.

This was about Einstein, the man.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He didn't "believe" it was in a static state - he couldn't bring
himself to accept the idea that it was expanding.

Because he was committed to a static universe.
But once the

Post by Christopher A. Lee
evidence started rolling in, he accepted it, saying it had
been
the
biggest mistake of his life.

This is true.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
There was disagreement for a while, after Lemaitre had
extrapolated
the expanding universe backwards because until it was
confirmed,
it
was still just a well-supported hypothesis.

Yes, Mr. Lee I totally agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every
spot
in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at
large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different
from
the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all
times,
there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a
philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory
gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".

Wrong.

You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by
Einstein's
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on
Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it
was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he
called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the
expansion
a "big bang".

However, at that time, steady state wasn't even a theory - there
was
no reason to assume anything else.

It was called a theory.

Show me where it was called that prior to the discovery that the
universe was expanding?

I provided references above. You said I was "reading too much into it".
But if you are saying that the Steady State was not at the level of a
theory, but rather it was a hypothesis, I would agree.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Hoyle was a hold-out who had no real reason to dismiss the big
bang,
and having painted himself into a corner came up with all sorts
of
rationalisation like continuous creation to rationalise it.

True, he suggested that an atoms pops into existence from time to
time
a
cubic mile of space.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this has nothing do with your remarkably stupid question
about
one
particular god that only about a quarter to a third of the
world's
population believe, and which is utterly irrelevant where you
bring
it
up.

I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a
stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

It is a perfect logical response to idiots who say everything
needs
a
creator, and is hardly stupid.

That the key word "everything". No theist, I know of thinks of God
as
a
_thing_. So, we would all agree that every thing has a creator.

Weasel words.

A true statement. No Christian considers God a "thing".

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Mitch just applied basic, obvious logic to the same unsolicited
nonsense Andrew has been posting in the atheist group for years.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Because if everything does, then so does this hypothetical god.

To you God is hypothetical, that's your belief. And you are
welcome
to
it.

No, liar - that is not "my belief".
Look up the word "hypothetical".

I know what the word means. Unless you have absolute concrete proof that
there is no God, then what you have is a belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And it remains hypothetical until one of you in-your-face morons
demonstrates it.

When you _close_ your eyes to the truth, of course, you cannot see it.
You're reminiscent of the three "wise" monkeys except: See no truth,
hear no truth, speak no truth. I changed evil to truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
In the real world, no matter how many of you believe it, it remains
no more than just a religious belief.

I've never claimed to to be anything other than a religious belief.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you are stupid enough to make claims for it outside your religion,
then you have to back them up using outside-your-religion methods. In
this case by providing the kind of evidence for it that there is for
the universe - because that's your stupid question claimed the two
were equivalent outside your religion.

What I wrote applies to both inside and outside my religion.
It was a corollary. Which showed that if it could apply
outside religion, it could also apply within.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Is this really so hard to understand?
On the other hand, your question was remarkably stupid because you
brought up some imaginary magical superbeing as fact,

Fact? No. it's a belief, not a fact.

Then don't ask stupid questions that presume it's a fact, like...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?".
But thank you for admitting just how stupid your question was.

It was in answer to a stupid question asked asked by someone other
than you. Then answer was _NOT_ addressed to you. So, how and why
was it any business of yours. You jumped into this discussion,
_uninvited_ and pretend to somehow it involved you: it did not.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman
in the real

world - when you should first have demonstrated it or at least
justified it scientifically because that is the methodology used in
the real world.

I don't need to justify anything, nor am I challenging you.

You do when you make a comparison that presumes your hypothetical god
is as real as the universe, outside your religion.

I can see, touch, smell the universe, since it's matter, so this is
real, however, I cannot see, touch of smell non=material therefore,
I cannot know the non-material is as _real_ as the material.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
If you invoke it in the scientifdfic arena,

Scientific arena? I didn't recognize either alt talk creationism
or
alt
atheism a scientific arena.

Duh. It's the method used to understand the real world. In this
case,
the field is cosmology including the expansion from the big bang.

Nobody, claims that the belief in God is a scientific established
fact.
It's a religious belief.

Was it some other equally dishonest Liar For God who asked...
"If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator, then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?"
Hint: this presumes your hypothetical god is as real as the universe.

No, I can't help it if you cannot comprehend the logical corollary,
which applies equality to both the religious world as well as the
secular world. It's beyond you.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Aerion E.
you fisrt have to justify

Post by Christopher A. Lee
it scientifically - which even you know you can't do because
nothing
whatsoever remotely suggests one, and the only reason to posit
it
was
being taught it inchildhood..

Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having
lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I
was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me.
I
have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

And the brainwashing you received, is the only reason to posit a
god.

What brainwashing? The orphanage was _not_ forced to take me in,
but
I
don't know what would have happened to me without them. They had a 30
minute religious program two times a week, in the chapel, but no one
forced me to attend. And I often didn't, because I wanted to sleep
in.
But I had to get up in time to attend public school.

I didn't say it was forced to take you in.

Nor did I acouse of saying it.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
But being taught to believe as a child, is the _only_ reason to do so.

Post by Mitchell Holman

But it takes a frikking moron to treat it as real outside his
religion, and to ask ridiculous questions which equate it to what
is
known objectively.

To me, my faith _is_ real. You have your opinion and you are welcome
to entertain it. I'm not questioning your belief.

WHAT FUCKING BELIEF?

It's a belief unless you can prove it. And so far you have not proven
that there is no God, until you do it's a belief. Belief is the
absence of proof. If you had proof there is no God, it would not be
a belief. Otherwise it's belief!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And keep your faith where it belongs, ie inside your religion. That
way you won't ever have to put up or shut up.
Just like most theists, you have no understanding for the world and
people outside your religion, so you talked about your god as if it
were real outside it and invent beliefs people outside it don't have
that also presume it is.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Like I said, provide as much evidence for your hypothetical god as
there is for the universe - then you might have a point.

How many times do I have to point out that it's based upon faith, not
evidence. You think I believe in a hypothetical god that's your
view about me and my belief. Why is it a concern of yours? I've
pointed
out several times, that you are entitled to _your_ belief.

Look up "hypothetical", imbecile.
How many times do I have to point out THAT IF YOU HADN'T TALKED AT
PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION AS IF IT WERE REAL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN TOLD TO PROVE IT.
And what "my belief"?

It is your belief absence of proof!

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine theists' claims made outside their religion, are
exempt from the rules of the outside world?

The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

So fucking what?

It makes you a freak!

How does it make me a freak?
Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".

It's a mind thing.

Why do you think that's an answer to my question?

It's a mindset that is alien or grossly "out of step" with the
overwhelming majority of humanity.

How is not being the same as everyone else being a "freak"?

Post by Aerion E.
But why did you jump in
uninvited to this discussion. Get lost!

This is posted in alt.atheism. I am a member of alt.atheism. That means
I was most definitely invited to the discussion. If you wish to have a
private conversation, you have to do it in email.

All right, but how is it that I'm not reading it alt.atheism, but
instead on alt.talk creationism?

Because it's cross-posted. Are you actually stupid?

[walksalone]

snip

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Aerion E.
The majority of people on this planet are religious, thus it's a
religious world, You as a member of the anti-religious group,
are the minority, as such you are the outside.
<snip more of the same>

So fucking what?

It makes you a freak!

How does it make me a freak?
Perhaps you should give us YOUR definition of "freak".

It's a mind thing.

Why do you think that's an answer to my question?

It's a mindset that is alien or grossly "out of step" with the
overwhelming majority of humanity. But why did you jump in
uninvited to this discussion. Get lost!

Oh boy. You just screwed the pooch. Jeanne is a long time member of the
group. Not to mention, xians are supposed to be civil to others. No
matter how they act according to the Greek testaments. It's an extension
of that turn the other cheek thing.

Now as a member of the group, she has every right to join a conversation.
No usenet message is private. that's what email is for.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Jeanne Douglas
Please try again.

No, you need to try again, starting with an apology & them actually
reading the information provided at:

http://netghost.narod.ru/gff/graphics/book/appa_03.htm
http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Now this is not a moderated group, but civility is considered good form.
Especially if you wish to be taken seriously.

So loosen up your jock strap & return to the real world of usenet.

walksalone who does wish he could say he was startled by the outburst.
But in truth I can't willingly tell a lie. So no, I am not.

Scriptures: The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished
from the false and profane writings on which all other
faiths are based.
Ambrose Bierce

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Aerion E.
Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

Einstein said a lot about it, he actually incorrectly said it was not
expanding

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific acceptance.

oh so wrong

Post by Aerion E.
You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's

you need to learn what falsified means, first

Post by Aerion E.
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian

you seem to9 be confusing steady state theory with a static universe,
VERY BIG DIFFERENCE

Post by Aerion E.
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

you can read all you want and then plagiarize it without posting your
source <which BTW when you don't post your source your words are
meaningless. Also as I was saying that you can read all you want but
if you do not fully comprehend what you are reading then you go and
post dumb ass shit like you just did

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Your POV <sic> is conflicted with real life, because you believe in
fairies... Did you fully understand what I just said... let me say it
again, YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRIES, how fucked up is that?

Post by Aerion E.
Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

boo fucking hoo..... Everyone has got a sob story It has no bearing on
this topic, Noone is going to feel sorry for you

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?

The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
recorded in New Testament.

You do realize that everytime you play the fairy card you are just
hurting your argument worse and worse

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
being so stupid.

I don't need to prove God to anyone. Either you believe in God or you
don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
God. So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.

so since you habe a belief in the fairy folk, tell me how is harry
potter doing? and are you friends with tinkerbell? Because if you
believe in one then you must believe in them all, so let me hear you
say that you dont believe that all the characters in the lord of the
rings are not real..

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
don't have.

Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.

What do you not understand about your POV <sic> not having any meaning
whatsoever in the real world, in the world of matter and energy? your
POV holds no weight except in the imagination, so it is only relevant
to you and those you have forced your beliefs onto

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
outside your religion.

Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an

no belief in a god <any god> is a theist belief. belief that there are
some humans that are "closer" to this imaginary god and blindly
following them, listening to them, giving them your time and money -
is a religous belief.

obviously you have not realized in all of your years that you are a
sucker

Post by Aerion E.
atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
your atheism.

Please dont ever defend atheism, because eventually you will reach
into your pocket and pull out your fairy card as though it actually
means something to anyone besides you

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

I am confused are you saying that you believe that the steady state is
a proven and correct theroy??

If not, then what does it have to do with the price of tea in china.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
with saying God had no beginning?

ya see this is actually where the steady state theroy is more like the
god theroy, they are both incorrect.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.

but there isnt, and there never will be so there is no use in saying
IF IF IF, ya know I could say if you had half a brain you would not be
supporting fairy tales. Did you ever think if that? I mean someone
with at least a quater of a brain would have considered that, but I
guess it means that you do not have that much

[Aerion E.]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.

No distortion. In fact three scientist, Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold advanced the Steady State Universe. Their theory
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

I am confused are you saying that you believe that the steady state is
a proven and correct theroy??

No, I'm not!

Post by b***@m.nu
If not, then what does it have to do with the price of tea in china.

Nothing about the tea in China, but there is a corollary between
an eternal universe that needed no creator and the eternal god that
needed no creator. Before Hubble and the Big Bang falsified it, the
universe was widely held by scientists, including A. Einstein to be
eternal without a beginning or an end.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
with saying God had no beginning?

ya see this is actually where the steady state theroy is more like the
god theroy, they are both incorrect.

There was no problem with the steady state universe being accepted
as eternal by scientists. The God theory is not scientific nor is
it falsifiable. Either you believe in God or you don't.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.

but there isnt, and there never will be so there is no use in saying
IF IF IF, ya know I could say if you had half a brain you would not be
supporting fairy tales. Did you ever think if that? I mean someone
with at least a quater of a brain would have considered that, but I
guess it means that you do not have that much

Why do you feel the need to insult me? You have no cause to do so.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

I am confused are you saying that you believe that the steady state is
a proven and correct theroy??

No, I'm not!

Post by b***@m.nu
If not, then what does it have to do with the price of tea in china.

Nothing about the tea in China, but there is a corollary between

I guess you are not famaliar with that saying...point is you dont know
what you are talking about so what you said means nothing to everyone

Post by Aerion E.
an eternal universe that needed no creator and the eternal god that

the universe is not eternal

Post by Aerion E.
needed no creator. Before Hubble and the Big Bang falsified it, the
universe was widely held by scientists, including A. Einstein to be
eternal without a beginning or an end.

No I do not think that is true at all
maybe perhaps from 1917 to 1926 but it has never actually been
confirmed that he ever thought it was eternal. Einstein was agnostic
perhaps even atheist so he would not have said anything about a
universe having a creator or being eternal

Post by Aerion E.

Post by b***@m.nu
ya see this is actually where the steady state theroy is more like the
god theroy, they are both incorrect.

There was no problem with the steady state universe being accepted
as eternal by scientists. The God theory is not scientific nor is
it falsifiable. Either you believe in God or you don't.

you still have steady state confused with static or even cosmological
constant

Post by Aerion E.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.

but there isnt, and there never will be so there is no use in saying
IF IF IF, ya know I could say if you had half a brain you would not be
supporting fairy tales. Did you ever think if that? I mean someone
with at least a quater of a brain would have considered that, but I
guess it means that you do not have that much

Why do you feel the need to insult me? You have no cause to do so.

I insult because it is not a matter of you being intelligent or if you
are or are not well read, it is not even a matter of ignorance, You
just simply REFUSE to see the paint on the wall even though it is neon
pink. you have to ask youself WHY THE HELL DO YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRIES?

I mean are you so scared that when you die you wont go to heaven? I
mean alot of people fear death but it is utterly pointless, dude when
you die you are DEAD.... there is no heaven or hell.... I mean do you
think the egyptian mummies will one day come back to life? Do you
think the Norse worshiped thunder because it sounded pretty? They even
personified it into a god. So tell me is Thor real? If you were to go
back to that time and speak of an all powerful god that created
everything you would have been a heritic.

in another 2000 years when the god is called jehovazoid and that god
bot actually created everything through computers and robots and that
people live in the matrix, would that faith be incorrect?

use your brain for something useful instead of being scared of going
to hell <which according to your bible that you so devoutly worship>
would be MUCH MUCH better than any heaven

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
"holds that the universe looks essentially the same from every spot in
it and at every time. (This applies only to the universe at large
scales; obviously planets, stars, and galaxies are different from the
space between them.)
Obviously, for the universe to look the same at all times, there
could have been no beginning or no end. This struck a philosophical
chord with a number of scientists, and the steady-state theory gained
many adherents in the 1950s and 1960s".
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/steady.html.

I am confused are you saying that you believe that the steady state is
a proven and correct theroy??

No, I'm not!

Post by b***@m.nu
If not, then what does it have to do with the price of tea in china.

Nothing about the tea in China, but there is a corollary between

I guess you are not famaliar with that saying...point is you dont know
what you are talking about so what you said means nothing to everyone

Bilgat knows more that you do about the real world.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
an eternal universe that needed no creator and the eternal god that

WHAT FUCKING "THE ETERNAL GOD" IN THE WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGIOUS
BELIEFS?

Post by b***@m.nu
the universe is not eternal

Post by Aerion E.
needed no creator. Before Hubble and the Big Bang falsified it, the
universe was widely held by scientists, including A. Einstein to be
eternal without a beginning or an end.

No I do not think that is true at all
maybe perhaps from 1917 to 1926 but it has never actually been
confirmed that he ever thought it was eternal. Einstein was agnostic
perhaps even atheist so he would not have said anything about a
universe having a creator or being eternal

As I said, until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and others, the universe
was just the universe.

Nobody thought it was expanding or as large as it is.

Let alone had the strawman beliefs he attributes to them,

This is all a red herring though...

Mitch asked Andrew "who created your God then" in response to Andrew
saying everything was created.

Which just applies Andrew's own reasoning to his hypothetical God.

This moron asked a remarkably stupid question along the lines of "if
the universe can nave been considered eternal. why can't God?".

And he's too stupid to understand just how stupid it was.

Intelligent theists understand that only members of their religion
believe in it.

And that a question like that should never be asked outside it, as
well as why.

We are dealing leading edge physics and cosmology - so before he can
invoke what is merely his religious belief, he has to demonstrate it
scientifically.

But like Mad Joe, he imagines it is exempt from the rules and methods
used in the real world.

In his mind, he can talk about it as if it were real, but he doesn't
have to prove it.

I've never understood what makes so many fundamentalist theists so
mind-numbingly and rudely stupid.

There are places where it is OK to bring it up - ie inside their
religion.

But he asked his ridiculous question outside it - saying that Mitch's
response to Andrew was just as stupid to him, even though it showed
the fallacy in Andrew's "everything has a cause" argument.

Because if everything has a cause, then so does his hypothetical god.

Basic logic.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Aerion E.
Why do you feel the need to insult me? You have no cause to do so.

Thing is you dont see it or you have just simply blocked out the fact
that you are so brain washed that you just simply cant think for
yourself. You have had the fear of god rooted to deep in you that you
will not ever ever know what the truth is and what life is. You are in
an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards. If you
dont like or you cant understand then I would recommend that you talk
to andrew and told that loser not to crosspost his crap. Becaue that
is ALL he EVER spews is crap.

I mean if you like your stories about magical beings and fairies then
stay in alt.talk.creationism and dont post to this group, after all
that is what that group is for <I guess I have never read the chater>

[Andrew]

You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I was raised an atheist. Utterly godless. Not even agnostic. No gods.. Fairies..
Santa's or bunnies... Believed nothing at all. I saw all the trouble and confusion
it caused and wanted nothing to do with it. I see Christians always fighting and
debating and being hypocrites all the time. I see new agers not really having a
clue what it is they actually believe in, and going in circles. I see all the other
religions all banging their head on a wall but achieving nothing but headaches.
I wanted no part in it..

I was 15... Still a kid.. But wondering what it was all about, seeing as everything
was so totally pointless and without a reason or a goal. Being an atheist is the
most pointless life one can live.. So empty of purpose or meaning. And like all
kids I needed purpose and meaning.

So the dream./ vision...

It was September the 28th 1984.... A day I will never forget, because its the day
my life was taken right OUT of my hands, and I realized that none of us really
have a choice... Only a will directed by the one who makes the choices. I remember
so clearly.. Sitting on my bed that night... Looking out the window at the stars.
Wondering why they were there.. What purpose they served.. If any at all. I
remember asking the same thing of myself.. What was my purpose.. Did I have a
purpose... Or was it all pointless.. An illusion.. Meaningless and dead? That night
I lay down on my bed.. Still wondering what it was all about... And I had a dream....
Or a vision.. Not sure which but it was incredibly vivid.. I was there.. Could feel..
Hear.. Smell....Where was I?

(Keep in mind up UNTIL that point I had never even looked into a bible or any
religious book.. So what I saw was not previously planted in there)

One moment I was on my bed.. In a half awake half sleep state.. A trance you
might call it. That zone you are in where you are still aware but also.. Not aware.
I found myself about 200 meters in the air... An air that was NOT air as we know
it. I looked around in shock... I was there.. This was no dream.. I panicked at first
cause I thought I was dead.. And for all I know.. I was.

After adjusting to this "Shock" I was able to look around me.. Where I was...
And what I saw.... Spreading around me in every direction to a horizon that just
was not there.. Was THE most incredible landscape I have ever seen. No majestic
scene on earth comes close to this.. Awesome.. The SCOPE of it... Endless..
And solid and real... ......

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/mans-trip-to-heaven-story-going-viral-2-2939846.html

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Andrew

You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I was raised an atheist

sorry that is about as far as I got and realized that it is a total
lie, so I read no more

[Andrew]

Post by Andrew

You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I was raised an atheist

- sorry that is about as far as I got and realized that it is a total lie, so I read no
- more

I was 15... Still a kid.. But wondering what it was all about, seeing as everything
was so totally pointless and without a reason or a goal. Being an atheist is the
most pointless life one can live.. So empty of purpose or meaning. And like all
kids I needed purpose and meaning.

So the dream./ vision...

It was September the 28th 1984.... A day I will never forget, because its the day
my life was taken right OUT of my hands, and I realized that none of us really
have a choice... Only a will directed by the one who makes the choices. I remember
so clearly.. Sitting on my bed that night... Looking out the window at the stars.
Wondering why they were there.. What purpose they served.. If any at all. I
remember asking the same thing of myself.. What was my purpose.. Did I have a
purpose... Or was it all pointless.. An illusion.. Meaningless and dead? That night
I lay down on my bed.. Still wondering what it was all about... And I had a dream....
Or a vision.. Not sure which but it was incredibly vivid.. I was there.. Could feel..
Hear.. Smell....Where was I?

(Keep in mind up UNTIL that point I had never even looked into a bible or any
religious book.. So what I saw was not previously planted in there)

One moment I was on my bed.. In a half awake half sleep state.. A trance you
might call it. That zone you are in where you are still aware but also.. Not aware.
I found myself about 200 meters in the air... An air that was NOT air as we know
it. I looked around in shock... I was there.. This was no dream.. I panicked at first
cause I thought I was dead.. And for all I know.. I was.

After adjusting to this "Shock" I was able to look around me.. Where I was...
And what I saw.... Spreading around me in every direction to a horizon that just
was not there.. Was THE most incredible landscape I have ever seen. No majestic
scene on earth comes close to this.. Awesome.. The SCOPE of it... Endless..
And solid and real... ......

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/04/mans-trip-to-heaven-story-going-viral-2-2939846.html

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Andrew

Post by Andrew

You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I was raised an atheist

- sorry that is about as far as I got and realized that it is a total lie, so I read no
- more

are you freakin serious? do you think I would read your lies this
time? Just how retarded are you

[John Locke]

Post by Andrew

You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I was raised an atheist. Utterly godless. Not even agnostic. No gods.. Fairies..
Santa's or bunnies... Believed nothing at all. I saw all the trouble and confusion
it caused and wanted nothing to do with it. I see Christians always fighting and
debating and being hypocrites all the time. I see new agers not really having a
clue what it is they actually believe in, and going in circles. I see all the other
religions all banging their head on a wall but achieving nothing but headaches.
I wanted no part in it..
I was 15... Still a kid.. But wondering what it was all about, seeing as everything
was so totally pointless and without a reason or a goal. Being an atheist is the
most pointless life one can live.. So empty of purpose or meaning. And like all
kids I needed purpose and meaning.
So the dream./ vision...
It was September the 28th 1984.... A day I will never forget, because its the day
my life was taken right OUT of my hands, and I realized that none of us really
have a choice... Only a will directed by the one who makes the choices. I remember
so clearly.. Sitting on my bed that night... Looking out the window at the stars.
Wondering why they were there.. What purpose they served.. If any at all. I
remember asking the same thing of myself.. What was my purpose.. Did I have a
purpose... Or was it all pointless.. An illusion.. Meaningless and dead? That night
I lay down on my bed.. Still wondering what it was all about... And I had a dream....
Or a vision.. Not sure which but it was incredibly vivid.. I was there.. Could feel..
Hear.. Smell....Where was I?
(Keep in mind up UNTIL that point I had never even looked into a bible or any
religious book.. So what I saw was not previously planted in there)
One moment I was on my bed.. In a half awake half sleep state.. A trance you
might call it. That zone you are in where you are still aware but also.. Not aware.
I found myself about 200 meters in the air... An air that was NOT air as we know
it. I looked around in shock... I was there.. This was no dream.. I panicked at first
cause I thought I was dead.. And for all I know.. I was.
After adjusting to this "Shock" I was able to look around me.. Where I was...
And what I saw.... Spreading around me in every direction to a horizon that just
was not there.. Was THE most incredible landscape I have ever seen. No majestic
scene on earth comes close to this.. Awesome.. The SCOPE of it... Endless..
And solid and real... ......

Disneyland ???

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:54:44 -0700, John Locke

Post by John Locke

Post by Andrew

You are in an atheist group we talk science here and we talk facts and things
that are real, not supernatural ghost, goblins, and wizards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I was raised an atheist. Utterly godless. Not even agnostic. No gods.. Fairies..
Santa's or bunnies... Believed nothing at all. I saw all the trouble and confusion
it caused and wanted nothing to do with it. I see Christians always fighting and
debating and being hypocrites all the time. I see new agers not really having a
clue what it is they actually believe in, and going in circles. I see all the other
religions all banging their head on a wall but achieving nothing but headaches.
I wanted no part in it..
I was 15... Still a kid.. But wondering what it was all about, seeing as everything
was so totally pointless and without a reason or a goal. Being an atheist is the
most pointless life one can live.. So empty of purpose or meaning. And like all
kids I needed purpose and meaning.

The proven serial liar still pretends he doesn't know that atheism is
a non-event that is pretty much ythe same as not believing in Santa
Claus.

So he needs to pretend t hat dot doing something unimportant, is
pointless.

Post by John Locke

Post by Andrew
So the dream./ vision...
It was September the 28th 1984.... A day I will never forget, because its the day
my life was taken right OUT of my hands, and I realized that none of us really
have a choice... Only a will directed by the one who makes the choices. I remember

What "the one who makes the choices"?

Hint" the moron already believed in it in order to interpret his
hallucination in terms of it.

Post by John Locke

Post by Andrew
so clearly.. Sitting on my bed that night... Looking out the window at the stars.
Wondering why they were there.. What purpose they served.. If any at all. I
remember asking the same thing of myself.. What was my purpose.. Did I have a
purpose... Or was it all pointless.. An illusion.. Meaningless and dead? That night
I lay down on my bed.. Still wondering what it was all about... And I had a dream....
Or a vision.. Not sure which but it was incredibly vivid.. I was there.. Could feel..
Hear.. Smell....Where was I?
(Keep in mind up UNTIL that point I had never even looked into a bible or any
religious book.. So what I saw was not previously planted in there)

He's lying.

Because "the one who makes the choices" was already implanted.

Post by John Locke

Post by Andrew
One moment I was on my bed.. In a half awake half sleep state.. A trance you
might call it. That zone you are in where you are still aware but also.. Not aware.
I found myself about 200 meters in the air... An air that was NOT air as we know
it. I looked around in shock... I was there.. This was no dream.. I panicked at first
cause I thought I was dead.. And for all I know.. I was.

We've all had dreams like that, to be wrenced back to reality with a
falling sensation.

Post by John Locke

Post by Andrew
After adjusting to this "Shock" I was able to look around me.. Where I was...
And what I saw.... Spreading around me in every direction to a horizon that just
was not there.. Was THE most incredible landscape I have ever seen. No majestic
scene on earth comes close to this.. Awesome.. The SCOPE of it... Endless..
And solid and real... ......

Lysergic acid diethylamide.

Post by John Locke
Disneyland ???

A hallucination or an epileptic fit.

But none of that bullshit suggests a god.

[Don Kresch]

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

You missed the point. Before Hubble, Lemaitre etc. scientists
had no problem with the concept of having no beginning, eternal
or no end as applied to the universe. So, why is there a problem
with saying God had no beginning?

Because the nature of a being is to have a temporal beginning
and a temporal end. You'd have to re-define a being into something it
isn't in order to get a god with no beginning.

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

If there was evidence, you could never accept it, so it doesn't matter
whether there is evidence for God or not. It could make no difference
to you.

Which, of course, is a cop-out.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[tippy2tim]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

So who created this Creator?

If at one time science accepted the idea that the Universe
was eternal without beginning and or end, thus needed
no creator,

Distortion noted.
Until Einstein, Hubble, Lemaitre and a few others around the same
time, there was no reason to assume otherwise.
Why do you need to twist that into something it isn't?

Post by Aerion E.
then how is it, that the idea of an eternal
God without beginning or end, who needed no creator is
unacceptable?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR ONE, imbecile.

lol your a athiets imbecile lol

[Andrew]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

So who created this Creator?

Post by Andrew
There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
question which you keep asking repeatedly.
THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
existent.

So who created this Creator?

Post by Andrew
Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
Creator who purposefully and actively created...... <--- option # 1
~ or ~
that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
*explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller <--- option # 2
than this.... ----> . <----
In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
position requires far more faith than the creationists.

Restating that your Creator created the
universe doesn't answer the question.

You have option # 1 above, or option # 2. Choose one.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Andrew

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

So who created this Creator?

Post by Andrew
There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
question which you keep asking repeatedly.
THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
existent.

So who created this Creator?

Post by Andrew
Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
Creator who purposefully and actively created...... <--- option # 1
~ or ~
that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
*explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller <--- option #
2 than this.... ----> . <----
In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
position requires far more faith than the creationists.

Restating that your Creator created the
universe doesn't answer the question.

You have option # 1 above, or option # 2. Choose one.

1 You said that everything that exists was created.

+

2 You said us that this Creator exists.

----------------------------------------------------

=

3 Therefore this Creator was created.





By whom?

[John Locke]

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
question which you keep asking repeatedly.
THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
existent.
Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
Creator who purposefully and actively created......
~ or ~
that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
*explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
than this.... ----> . <----
In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
position requires far more faith than the creationists.

...wrong again...

There is sufficient evidence at present to indicate that the universe
came into existence without being caused to do so. This evidence
includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced
Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. Claiming that
some god did it is irresponsible and an indignation to nature and
science. Experiments with the Large Hadron Collider at Cern will
most likely yield real answers...your god is a dead-end and no
credible research group would ever consider it for a second.

[lucaspa]

Post by John Locke
There is sufficient evidence at present to indicate that the universe
came into existence without being caused to do so. This evidence
includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced
Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe.

Let's go into that "sufficient evidence". Hawking-Penrose still breaks down at Planck time, doesn't it? So it can help understand black holes, but won't work at Big Bang.

There are 2 competing Quantum Cosmological Models I am aware of: string theory and loop quantum gravity. Quantum cosmology trys to explain the evolution of the universe from the initial state, but they don't explain the initial state. IOW, they don't give us a universe to evolve. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/qg_qc.html

So, it seems "sufficient evidence" is too strong. I would strongly agree that there alternatives to deity as First Cause. I would even agree that quantum fluctation is one candidate. A major problem with quantum fluctuation is getting a spacetime by quantum fluctuation.

Post by John Locke
Claiming that
some god did it is irresponsible and an indignation to nature and
science. Experiments with the Large Hadron Collider at Cern will
most likely yield real answers...your god is a dead-end and no
credible research group would ever consider it for a second.

Actually, physicists have considered it. Hawking did in A Brief History of Time:
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe?"
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pg 174.

The problem is that physicists have been unable to find a testable prediction that would only be true if the universe were created by deity.

I fail to see how saying God created the universe via the Big Bang is an "indignation to nature", since that is where "nature" begins.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:12:42 -0700, John Locke

Post by John Locke

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
question which you keep asking repeatedly.
THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
existent.
Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
Creator who purposefully and actively created......
~ or ~
that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
*explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
than this.... ----> . <----
In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
position requires far more faith than the creationists.

...wrong again...
There is sufficient evidence at present to indicate that the universe
came into existence without being caused to do so. This evidence
includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced
Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe. Claiming that
some god did it is irresponsible and an indignation to nature and
science. Experiments with the Large Hadron Collider at Cern will
most likely yield real answers...your god is a dead-end and no
credible research group would ever consider it for a second.

Besides which, he has to demonstrate this creator scientifically
before claiming in the scientific arena that it did anything.

What is truly puzzling, is why he keeps repeating this mindless
stupidity so regularly, after we have been explaining it to him for so
many years.

[Andrew]

Post by John Locke

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
question which you keep asking repeatedly.
THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
existent.
Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
Creator who purposefully and actively created......
~ or ~
that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
*explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
than this.... ----> . <----
In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
position requires far more faith than the creationists.

...wrong again...
There is sufficient evidence at present to indicate that the universe
came into existence without being caused to do so. This evidence
includes the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems that are based on
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, and the recently introduced
Quantum Cosmological Models of the early universe.

New theories and models must constantly be introduced because
under closer examination, every one of them is eventually found
to be unworkable . http://alturl.com/wsifm

Post by John Locke
Claiming that some god did it

No, there is no "god", but there is an awesome Creator.

Post by John Locke
is irresponsible and an indignation to nature

Rather it is an indignation to nature to disavow her Creator.

[lucaspa]

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

Don't know, Mitchell, and at this point it is irrelevant.

The question is bad science. What caused the Big Bang? We don't know. Does that negate the Big Bang?

What causes stem cells to persist into adulthood? Don't know. Does that negate the existence of adult stem cells?

Mitchell, science works in layers. As soon as you answer one question, 3 or 4 new questions pop up out of the answer. You can't use an inability to answer the new questions as a means of denying the answer you've got.

Question: is there a being that created the universe (a Creator)? Science doesn't know at the moment. IF we ever get the answer, THEN we can ask "what is the origin of the Creator?"

Theists believe they already have the answer. However, they don't know the answer to "what is the origin of the Creator?" But, they don't HAVE to know that answer, either.

Now, Andrew has discussed the concept of First Cause. In the chain of cause and effect, logic dictates that there must have been an uncaused Cause to start the chain. This is known as First Cause.

Post by Andrew
Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.

That, Andrew is being a bit disingenuous. "our Creator" refers to deity (God). There are other causal agents proposed for the cause of the universe. For instance, Hawking proposes that the laws governing the behavior of the universe had the power to cause such a universe to come into existence. In the list of First Cause, this is referred to as Logical and Mathematical Necessity.

However, I don't know of anyone -- atheist, agnostic, or deist/theist -- that would refer to this as "our Creator".

Post by Andrew
Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
Creator who purposefully and actively created......
~ or ~
that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
*explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
than this.... ---->

1. Those are not mutually exclusive. Cannot God be the cause behind Big Bang? What you are doing is confusing HOW the Creator worked with the existence of a Creator. The implication in what you wrote is that a Creator had to manufacture "this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly complex life forms" in its present form. However, can not "a Creator" create the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution? And yes, Darwinian selection can make "irreducibly complex" structures. Shoot, according to Behe, even CHANCE can make irreducibly complex structures.

Bottom line: you should not make "a Creator" be limited to a particular HOW of creation. This is particularly true if "a Creator" = God, since it is the height of religious folly to dictate to God how He MUST do things.

2. You have made a false dichotomy. There are other candidates for First Cause. Right now there are at least 5 possible candidates for First Cause to get the universe. They are, in no particular order:

1. Logical and mathematical necessity. The equations and laws of the universe are so compelling that they forced the formation of a universe for them to describe.

2. Deity. A God or Gods created the universe.

3. Quantum fluctuation. Events at the quantum level are uncaused. The universe is a huge quantum event.

4. No Boundary. This is a proposal by Stephen Hawking and updated with Turok. If all the dimensions of the universe were the same shortly after the Big Bang, you get a universe that doesn't have a beginning and therefore was never "created". It just IS.

5. Ekpyrotic. The universe is the result of a random collision between two quantum membranes in 11 dimensions. The 11 dimension 'brane is equivalent to deity in that it has always existed.

It is a classic case of multiple competing hypotheses with insufficient data to choose between them. None have been falsified, so all are still on the table as far as science is concerned.

Post by Andrew
In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
position requires far more faith than the creationists.

Since the factors are wrong, the conclusion is wrong. Besides, I'd like to see how you quantify "faith" to say that atheists have "more".

I agree that atheists have faith, but "more"?

[raven1]

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause.

That appears to be false in QM.

Post by Andrew
Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist.

Shaky ground at best there: you're using "cause" to smuggle "reason"
in through the gate. Of course, you're pulling that sleight of hand so
you can justify where you were going with it.

Post by Andrew
Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.

See? I was right.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:00:11 -0400, raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause.

That appears to be false in QM.

He knows, because this has been pointed out to him every time he
repeats the same nonsense.

Post by raven1

Post by Andrew
Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist.

Shaky ground at best there: you're using "cause" to smuggle "reason"
in through the gate. Of course, you're pulling that sleight of hand so
you can justify where you were going with it.

Post by Andrew
Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.

See? I was right.

Yep.

Having been corrected so often, this is deliberate dishonesty.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the

uhh no, you are an idiot for thinking so

Post by Andrew
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
question which you keep asking repeatedly.

where do you get this dumb ass shit from? are you forgetting what
group you are in? are you forgetting that we are not stupid like you
are

Post by Andrew
THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
existent.

no only existent in your imagination

[Dale]

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

[Andrew]

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

[Dale]

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

what science?

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

So you believe in science?

Like evolution, cosmology, archeology
immunology, biology, geology...........

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

So you believe in science?
Like evolution, cosmology, archeology
immunology, biology, geology...........

He believes what ever his church tells him, if his church said science
is correct today but in 3.78 days science will be incorrect for only
56 minutes then he would believe it.

[Andrew]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

So you believe in science?
Like evolution, cosmology, archeology
immunology, biology, geology...........

There is a difference between hard science and soft
science. All that comes under the name of "science"
is not, and can not possibly be empirical truth.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...
Damn shame you cant figure that out

[Andrew]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

Also, there are no 'gods', but there_is_an awesome
Creator.

Therefore prepare now to meet Him in peace.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.

Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

And Galileo retracted his retraction on his deathbed?

But idiots like Andrew imagine that if somebody is theist, they are
his kind of theist - even though Newton, Galileo and the others
stepped aside from their beliefs when doing their work, and revised
them in the light of their discoveries.

For example, Kelvin who discovered thermodynamics, had previously
accepted the Biblical age of the Earth and as the result of his work
he concluded it must be much older - he still got it wrong because his
calculations were based on its cooling but he didn't know about the
radioactive core releasing heat.

Newton revised his theistic previous beliefs to become an early form
of deist called a mechanist - his version of God set things in motion
and then left the universe to run itself according to the laws of
mechanics and optics he had discovered.

If Copernicus. Galileo, Kelvin, Newton and the rest had been Andrew's
kind of theist they would have rejected their discoveries and we would
still be living in the dark ages.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

And Galileo retracted his retraction on his deathbed?
But idiots like Andrew imagine that if somebody is theist, they are
his kind of theist - even though Newton, Galileo and the others
stepped aside from their beliefs when doing their work, and revised
them in the light of their discoveries.
For example, Kelvin who discovered thermodynamics, had previously
accepted the Biblical age of the Earth and as the result of his work
he concluded it must be much older - he still got it wrong because his
calculations were based on its cooling but he didn't know about the
radioactive core releasing heat.
Newton revised his theistic previous beliefs to become an early form
of deist called a mechanist - his version of God set things in motion
and then left the universe to run itself according to the laws of
mechanics and optics he had discovered.
If Copernicus. Galileo, Kelvin, Newton and the rest had been Andrew's
kind of theist they would have rejected their discoveries and we would
still be living in the dark ages.

If they'd been Andrew's kind of thesis, they never would have done the
research in the first place. And we'd still be living in the ark ages.

[Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

And Galileo retracted his retraction on his deathbed?
But idiots like Andrew imagine that if somebody is theist, they are
his kind of theist - even though Newton, Galileo and the others
stepped aside from their beliefs when doing their work, and revised
them in the light of their discoveries.
For example, Kelvin who discovered thermodynamics, had previously
accepted the Biblical age of the Earth and as the result of his work
he concluded it must be much older - he still got it wrong because his
calculations were based on its cooling but he didn't know about the
radioactive core releasing heat.
Newton revised his theistic previous beliefs to become an early form
of deist called a mechanist - his version of God set things in motion
and then left the universe to run itself according to the laws of
mechanics and optics he had discovered.
If Copernicus. Galileo, Kelvin, Newton and the rest had been Andrew's
kind of theist they would have rejected their discoveries and we would
still be living in the dark ages.

If they'd been Andrew's kind of thesis, they never would have done the
research in the first place. And we'd still be living in the ark ages.

Fat Jeanne, without God there wouldn't be Ding-Dongs.

[b***@m.nu]

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:21:23 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

And Galileo retracted his retraction on his deathbed?
But idiots like Andrew imagine that if somebody is theist, they are
his kind of theist - even though Newton, Galileo and the others
stepped aside from their beliefs when doing their work, and revised
them in the light of their discoveries.
For example, Kelvin who discovered thermodynamics, had previously
accepted the Biblical age of the Earth and as the result of his work
he concluded it must be much older - he still got it wrong because his
calculations were based on its cooling but he didn't know about the
radioactive core releasing heat.
Newton revised his theistic previous beliefs to become an early form
of deist called a mechanist - his version of God set things in motion
and then left the universe to run itself according to the laws of
mechanics and optics he had discovered.
If Copernicus. Galileo, Kelvin, Newton and the rest had been Andrew's
kind of theist they would have rejected their discoveries and we would
still be living in the dark ages.

If they'd been Andrew's kind of thesis, they never would have done the
research in the first place. And we'd still be living in the ark ages.

Fat Jeanne, without God there wouldn't be Ding-Dongs.

Kudos to you JD... You must have really really gotten under this child
molesters skin....

[Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure]

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:21:23 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

And Galileo retracted his retraction on his deathbed?
But idiots like Andrew imagine that if somebody is theist, they are
his kind of theist - even though Newton, Galileo and the others
stepped aside from their beliefs when doing their work, and revised
them in the light of their discoveries.
For example, Kelvin who discovered thermodynamics, had previously
accepted the Biblical age of the Earth and as the result of his work
he concluded it must be much older - he still got it wrong because his
calculations were based on its cooling but he didn't know about the
radioactive core releasing heat.
Newton revised his theistic previous beliefs to become an early form
of deist called a mechanist - his version of God set things in motion
and then left the universe to run itself according to the laws of
mechanics and optics he had discovered.
If Copernicus. Galileo, Kelvin, Newton and the rest had been Andrew's
kind of theist they would have rejected their discoveries and we would
still be living in the dark ages.

If they'd been Andrew's kind of thesis, they never would have done the
research in the first place. And we'd still be living in the ark ages.

Fat Jeanne, without God there wouldn't be Ding-Dongs.

Kudos to you JD... You must have really really gotten under this child
molesters skin....

Fatty, have a Ding-Dong.

[b***@m.nu]

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:10:09 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:21:23 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

And Galileo retracted his retraction on his deathbed?
But idiots like Andrew imagine that if somebody is theist, they are
his kind of theist - even though Newton, Galileo and the others
stepped aside from their beliefs when doing their work, and revised
them in the light of their discoveries.
For example, Kelvin who discovered thermodynamics, had previously
accepted the Biblical age of the Earth and as the result of his work
he concluded it must be much older - he still got it wrong because his
calculations were based on its cooling but he didn't know about the
radioactive core releasing heat.
Newton revised his theistic previous beliefs to become an early form
of deist called a mechanist - his version of God set things in motion
and then left the universe to run itself according to the laws of
mechanics and optics he had discovered.
If Copernicus. Galileo, Kelvin, Newton and the rest had been Andrew's
kind of theist they would have rejected their discoveries and we would
still be living in the dark ages.

If they'd been Andrew's kind of thesis, they never would have done the
research in the first place. And we'd still be living in the ark ages.

Fat Jeanne, without God there wouldn't be Ding-Dongs.

Kudos to you JD... You must have really really gotten under this child
molesters skin....

Fatty, have a Ding-Dong.

confirmation of what I said

[Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure]

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:10:09 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:21:23 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

And Galileo retracted his retraction on his deathbed?
But idiots like Andrew imagine that if somebody is theist, they are
his kind of theist - even though Newton, Galileo and the others
stepped aside from their beliefs when doing their work, and revised
them in the light of their discoveries.
For example, Kelvin who discovered thermodynamics, had previously
accepted the Biblical age of the Earth and as the result of his work
he concluded it must be much older - he still got it wrong because his
calculations were based on its cooling but he didn't know about the
radioactive core releasing heat.
Newton revised his theistic previous beliefs to become an early form
of deist called a mechanist - his version of God set things in motion
and then left the universe to run itself according to the laws of
mechanics and optics he had discovered.
If Copernicus. Galileo, Kelvin, Newton and the rest had been Andrew's
kind of theist they would have rejected their discoveries and we would
still be living in the dark ages.

If they'd been Andrew's kind of thesis, they never would have done the
research in the first place. And we'd still be living in the ark ages.

Fat Jeanne, without God there wouldn't be Ding-Dongs.

Kudos to you JD... You must have really really gotten under this child
molesters skin....

Fatty, have a Ding-Dong.

You really need to get your gluten intake under control.

Post by b***@m.nu
confirmation of what I said

[b***@m.nu]

On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:47:11 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:10:09 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:21:23 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

And Galileo retracted his retraction on his deathbed?
But idiots like Andrew imagine that if somebody is theist, they are
his kind of theist - even though Newton, Galileo and the others
stepped aside from their beliefs when doing their work, and revised
them in the light of their discoveries.
For example, Kelvin who discovered thermodynamics, had previously
accepted the Biblical age of the Earth and as the result of his work
he concluded it must be much older - he still got it wrong because his
calculations were based on its cooling but he didn't know about the
radioactive core releasing heat.
Newton revised his theistic previous beliefs to become an early form
of deist called a mechanist - his version of God set things in motion
and then left the universe to run itself according to the laws of
mechanics and optics he had discovered.
If Copernicus. Galileo, Kelvin, Newton and the rest had been Andrew's
kind of theist they would have rejected their discoveries and we would
still be living in the dark ages.

If they'd been Andrew's kind of thesis, they never would have done the
research in the first place. And we'd still be living in the ark ages.

Fat Jeanne, without God there wouldn't be Ding-Dongs.

Kudos to you JD... You must have really really gotten under this child
molesters skin....

Fatty, have a Ding-Dong.

You really need to get your gluten intake under control.

sorry already gluten free, you are a moron


confirmation of what I said

[Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure]

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:47:11 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 20:10:09 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:21:23 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

And Galileo retracted his retraction on his deathbed?
But idiots like Andrew imagine that if somebody is theist, they are
his kind of theist - even though Newton, Galileo and the others
stepped aside from their beliefs when doing their work, and revised
them in the light of their discoveries.
For example, Kelvin who discovered thermodynamics, had previously
accepted the Biblical age of the Earth and as the result of his work
he concluded it must be much older - he still got it wrong because his
calculations were based on its cooling but he didn't know about the
radioactive core releasing heat.
Newton revised his theistic previous beliefs to become an early form
of deist called a mechanist - his version of God set things in motion
and then left the universe to run itself according to the laws of
mechanics and optics he had discovered.
If Copernicus. Galileo, Kelvin, Newton and the rest had been Andrew's
kind of theist they would have rejected their discoveries and we would
still be living in the dark ages.

If they'd been Andrew's kind of thesis, they never would have done the
research in the first place. And we'd still be living in the ark ages.

Fat Jeanne, without God there wouldn't be Ding-Dongs.

Kudos to you JD... You must have really really gotten under this child
molesters skin....

Fatty, have a Ding-Dong.

You really need to get your gluten intake under control.

sorry already gluten free, you are a moron

Then what is your excuse?

[b***@m.nu]

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:30:56 -0500, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:47:11 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure
Fat Jeanne, without God there wouldn't be Ding-Dongs.

Kudos to you JD... You must have really really gotten under this child
molesters skin....

Fatty, have a Ding-Dong.

You really need to get your gluten intake under control.

sorry already gluten free, you are a moron

Then what is your excuse?

My excuse would be that I have to put up with child molesting bishops
and the people that support them, so tell me bob or whatever your name
is have you fondled any young boys lately?

[Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure]

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:30:56 -0500, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by b***@m.nu
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 23:47:11 -0400, Bishop Don Kool - A National

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Bishop Don Kool - A National Treasure
Fat Jeanne, without God there wouldn't be Ding-Dongs.

Kudos to you JD... You must have really really gotten under this child
molesters skin....

Fatty, have a Ding-Dong.

You really need to get your gluten intake under control.

sorry already gluten free, you are a moron

Then what is your excuse?

My excuse would be that I have to put up with child molesting bishops
and the people that support them, so tell me bob or whatever your name
is have you fondled any young boys lately?

I see you are projecting again. Please seek counseling.

[Andrew]

"Andrew" wrote: >

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

"To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His
wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree,
the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be
a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most
High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than
knowledge." ~ Copernicus

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Andrew

"Andrew" wrote: >

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

"To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His
wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree,
the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be
a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most
High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than
knowledge." ~ Copernicus

All the people you assume were theists and great scientists were also
the same people that lived in a time when you would be tortured or
murdered for thinking something different, mind you the people
ordering the torture and murder were the theists

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

"Andrew" wrote: >

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

When being anything else carried a death sentence, yes.
Did you know Copernicus waited until he was dying before
publishing his book because of penalty for heresy?

"To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His
wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree,
the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be
a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most
High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than
knowledge." ~ Copernicus

All the people you assume were theists and great scientists were also
the same people that lived in a time when you would be tortured or
murdered for thinking something different, mind you the people
ordering the torture and murder were the theists

Everybody was raised to be theist. But this was a time when if they
spoke out against church doctrine, they were punished as heretics.

It is extremely dishonest to say "Copernicus was theist" as though
that meant anything special, or that (As the in-your-face moron seems
to think) it means everybody else should be, a few hundred years
later.

Yes, he was theist. But in terms of the results of his research, so
what?

It is these results which count.

And once again, Anne Drool ignores them - but he's got a history of
ignoring whether scientists who happen to be theist, say something
because of their research or their religious belief.

But then he's thoroughly dishonest, stupid and pig-ignorant.

[b***@m.nu]

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

name three

Post by Andrew
Also, there are no 'gods', but there_is_an awesome
Creator.

tell that to the Norse, Egyptians, Greeks, pretty much the entire
world a few thousand years ago, they would have laughed at you

[Andrew]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew

Post by Dale

Post by Andrew
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause

what about a continuum?

Has been rejected by science.

Yeah so has god...

The greatest scientists of all time have been theists.

name three

1. Isaac Newton

2. Robert Boyle

3. Gregor Mendel

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Andrew
Also, there are no 'gods', but there_is_an awesome
Creator.

tell that to the Norse, Egyptians, Greeks, pretty much
the entire world a few thousand years ago, they would
have laughed at you

It is unfortunate that they would be deceived.

The truth however remains, that there are no
'gods, but there_is_an awesome Creator.

[harry k]

Post by Andrew

Now, answer the simple question.

"Who created your Creator?"

This was recently addressed. This time please kindly
take note.
It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to
exist has a cause. Scientists know and agree that the
universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe had
a cause and a reason to exist. Implying that there of
necessity had to be a causal agency, or causal Agent.
This causal agency, or causal Agent was our Creator.
There is another axiomatic truth which says there can
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause". Are you
still with me here? Because here is the answer to your
question which you keep asking repeatedly.
THE prime first cause ~is~ our Creator, who is self
existent.
Your choice is either to accept this, that we have a
Creator who purposefully and actively created......
~ or ~
that this amazing Universe with all of its irreducibly
complex life forms are all the result of a primordial
*explosion* of an infinitesimally small dot, smaller
than this.... ----> . <----
In light of these factors, we can see that the atheists
position requires far more faith than the creationists.
"It is an axiomatic truth that everything that begins to

exist has a cause"

"> There is another axiomatic truth which says there can

Post by Andrew
not be a causal chain of infinite length. Therefore we
see there had to be a --->Prime First Cause".

Are you so moronic that you don't see that you shot down your dissertation before it even got off the ground?

Harry K

[Aerion E.]

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
Who said anything about an expanding universe before Hubble? Certainly,
I did not! So, if this was your basis for calling my POV a distortion
then, I understand where you were coming from. That was an
understandable mistake.

Einstein said a lot about it, he actually incorrectly said it was not
expanding

This is true.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
There was no discussion of an expanding universe before Hubble. Hoyle
never really came to terms with the Big Bang and the expanding universe.
He held on to his theory long after it gained broad scientific

acceptance.

Post by b***@m.nu
oh so wrong

You are wrong. Fred Hoyle who supported the Steady state universe called

the expansion a big bang which he meant as a pejorative. He held on to
this belief after the big bang was accepted by the scientific community.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
You are correct, the steady state theory was falsified by Einstein's

you need to learn what falsified means, first

If you question that, then you don't know what falsified means. It was
falsified since a "steady state" universe could not be a expanding
universe and Hubble proved it was expanding.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
general relativity theory, even though Einstein, himself did not
recognize the implications of his theory. It was a Russian

you seem to9 be confusing steady state theory with a static universe,
VERY BIG DIFFERENCE

From this, it's apparent that you don't know what the steady state
theory was about.
What do you think is the difference?

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
mathematician. A. Friedmann who pointed out his error. Later the
Catholic Priest, Lemaitre, as you pointed out, based on Einstein's
theory reversed the expansion of the universe. As you know, it was
Lemaitre who first predicted the Universe expanded from what he called
the "primordial atom". Later Hoyle, as a pejorative called the expansion
a "big bang".

you can read all you want and then plagiarize it without posting your
source <which BTW when you don't post your source your words are
meaningless. Also as I was saying that you can read all you want but
if you do not fully comprehend what you are reading then you go and
post dumb ass shit like you just did

Unless you point out what you think I plagiarized and from it came from,
then you don't know what plagiarize means. The words were mine. When I
quote someone, I provide reverences.
I don't plagiarize.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
I responded to a question: "who created the creator?": which is a stupid
question from my POV, and I suspect yours as well.

Your POV <sic>

POV is for "Point Of View"!
This is for your information.


is conflicted with real life, because you believe in

Post by b***@m.nu
fairies... Did you fully understand what I just said... let me say it
again, YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRIES, how fucked up is that?

Since, I do not believe in fairies, you are misrepresenting my views.

You have no right to co this!

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
Yes, I grew up in a Christian Church supported orphanage having lost
my parents in a car accident when I was a 6 week old infant. I was
provided housing, food, clothing and education at no cost to me. I have
no known relatives except the wife and 3 kids.

boo fucking hoo..... Everyone has got a sob story It has no bearing on
this topic, Noone is going to feel sorry for you

Nobody is asking for sympathy. In fact I felt blessed that I had food,

warm clothing and a place to stay since, without them, I was alone in
the world.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
WHAT FUCKING GOD, imbecile?

The God of the Bible, especially the understanding of God as
recorded in New Testament.

You do realize that everytime you play the fairy card you are just
hurting your argument worse and worse

I have no idea what a fairy card is. But since you are discussing
fairies, this must mean you believe in them otherwise you have no
need to bring them into a discussion?

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Either provide as much evidence IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION
for this hypothetical "God" as there is for the universe, or stop
being so stupid.

I don't need to prove God to anyone. Either you believe in God or you
don't. I'm in no way obligated to overcome the objections to belief in
God. So, you don't believe in the existence of God. It's your right. It
isn't my purpose in life to change anyone.

so since you habe a belief in the fairy folk, tell me how is harry
potter doing? and are you friends with tinkerbell? Because if you
believe in one then you must believe in them all, so let me hear you
say that you dont believe that all the characters in the lord of the
rings are not real..

Why are you so intolerant? You don't have any power. If you did, the

question is: would you treat Christians different than ISIS? Just
curious. In case you don't know ISIS decapitates Christians. And

decapitate means chop their heads off.
If you had the power would
you do the same? Just curious!

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Yet another lying theist who can't grasp just how irrelevant and
unimportant his religious beliefs are, outside his relifion, so he
invents positions about his hypothetical god that people outside it
don't have.

Where did this come from? It's not in response to any POV I voiced.

What do you not understand about your POV <sic> not having any meaning
whatsoever in the real world, in the world of matter and energy? your
POV holds no weight except in the imagination, so it is only relevant
to you and those you have forced your beliefs onto

You're projecting. I've never tried forcing my beliefs on anyone, unlike

certain atheist who would force us all to be atheist if they had the

power to do so.
And they do try though lawsuits.

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Now either provide this alleged evidecne for your hypothetical god, or
admit that it's merely a religious belief that gas no relevence
outside your religion.

Belief in God is a religious belief. I don't deny it. You are an

no belief in a god <any god> is a theist belief. belief that there are
some humans that are "closer" to this imaginary god and blindly
following them, listening to them, giving them your time and money -
is a religous belief.
obviously you have not realized in all of your years that you are a
sucker

How do I pay back the people that took me in and raised me when I had no

one. I'm sure no "atheist orphanage" would have done that. Is there

an atheist supported orphanage? Never heard of one.
Atheism is a
selfish mental state. .

Post by b***@m.nu

Post by Aerion E.
atheist, I have no problem with that, it's your right! You have
your reasons for thinking the way you do, I respect that.
While I do not share your view, I would fight to defend your right to
your atheism.

Please dont ever defend atheism, because eventually you will reach
into your pocket and pull out your fairy card as though it actually
means something to anyone besides you

You are misrepresenting me and my POV (point of view)! Why do you
insist on doing this?



You are a waste of time: don't bother responding to this, since it
takes too much of my valuable time.