Atheism

You mean the one where the gods didn't want to have to do all the work, so they created humans to do it for them? That's also basically behind the Greek story of the first humans being made out of clay (with the added bonus that the god who had to do it was so lazy that he tricked his slow-witted brother into doing it for him), which was probably drawn from a Persian derivation of the Sumerian story.

Actually, when you ignore the bad translations of the Bible that most people use, it's pretty close to what the Jews still maintained when they compiled the Old Testament. They just leave out the reason for creating humanity altogether, probably on the assumption that the Old Testament god looks bad enough without being made to look like a lazy slave-driver.

Yes, something like that. I remember it very vaguely from my school days, but I remember thinking that it sounds a bit like Daeniken's books :-) And that it actually made sense. Plus the original tables were basically "classified" by the "monks", which I thought was kind of funny

Yeah, it's a little more complex than that. First, let's get Von Däniken out of the way - the man is a complete fraud and the only way he can maintain his views is by completely denying ALL findings of Egyptology in the past 70 years. He and people like him base their theories on the completely ridiculous assumption that people who lived more than 2000 years ago didn't just lack modern tools and knowledge, but that all people who lived more than 2000 years ago were complete and utter morons incapable of even the simplest reasoning or even of progress by trial and error. All (and I mean all, without exception) 'ancient astronaut theorists' hold their view on the basis of sheer bloody ignorance of ancient cultures and a conviction that mankind has only been capable of intelligent behavior for a few centuries at most.

The Sumerian ethnogenesis (the story of how their people came to be) is much more pessimistic than most other culture's interpretation of where they came from, but it is not unique or even the most far out of the bunch. The ancient Germanic peoples believed they and their whole world were carved from the gory remains of a slain giant, the ancient Fins described how the people came with the land, and the land came to be when a goddess burned herself on some eggs and dropped them in the sea, the eggshells forming the land, and an African creation myth tells of how the world was found fully-formed at the bottom of the sea by a bird that was fishing (don't ask for logical consistency and don't ask where the bird came from or what it was fishing for). Want a pleasant afternoon of sheer and utter bafflement? Look up creation myths on the internet.

Finally, "the original tables were basically 'classified' by the 'monks'": sadly, it's not that simple again. As in most early cultures that had discovered writing, writing was held to be a supremely magical act (making words last much longer than those who spoke them means you can put your soul onto paper, or more accurately, clay tablets). As such, all religious writing was almost by definition secret, reserved solely for the priestly class and not to be discusses outside their own class. The same thing was common in many cultures: the Celts, contrary to popular belief, did use writing (probably an adapted Greek alphabet), but it was strictly prohibited to write down any of their religious knowledge because that would make it available to people who weren't druids. Similarly, people who were part of a so-called Mystery-Religion (a religion that reveals secrets to their believers, usually a way to live eternally after death. Christianity is basically a Mystery Religion) in the Greek and Roman world were not allowed to share any of their religious knowledge with anyone who wasn't part of their cult on the pain of death.

It is very normal for people who grew up in parts of the world dominated by Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) to consider that version of religion the norm, but in fact it isn't. Those religions fall under the heading 'Revealed Religion', meaning a religion based on the teachings of one or more prophets. These religions are universalist (Judaism is a rare and strange exception, hinting at very great antiquity but also syncretism, i.e. the mixing of multiple religions), meaning that their aim is to present their teachings to the whole world. Most ancient religions were exclusivist, meaning their teachings were for the benefit of a small group (a single City-State, or even a single ruling class) and as such were closely guarded. This latter scenario also applies to the Sumerians. So it's not that just this story was 'classified', basically their whole religion was, as were most religions at the time (at least those we know of).

Fascinating stuff, TQ. Truly.

I’m especially intrigued by the notion of ancient religions being exclusivist. It’s hard to imagine such spiritually-guided people not wanting to share their beliefs, or not feeling the need to convert others to it. I get the reasoning – that the select few who understood would benefit from such wisdom – but I still find it strange. Though, I’m not sure which is worse, that a wise and learned group would assume such exceptionalism for themselves and withhold those life-altering secrets from the masses, or that they would insist, as in more contemporary religions, that others follow and believe the same without question.

I’d love to know what the belief system was for the average person during the times of these exclusivist religions, and how the wise men, if you will, felt about it.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

Yeah, it's a little more complex than that. First, let's get Von Däniken out of the way - the man is a complete fraud and the only way he can maintain his views is by completely denying ALL findings of Egyptology in the past 70 years. He and people like him base their theories on the completely ridiculous assumption that people who lived more than 2000 years ago didn't just lack modern tools and knowledge, but that all people who lived more than 2000 years ago were complete and utter morons incapable of even the simplest reasoning or even of progress by trial and error. All (and I mean all, without exception) 'ancient astronaut theorists' hold their view on the basis of sheer bloody ignorance of ancient cultures and a conviction that mankind has only been capable of intelligent behavior for a few centuries at most.

The Sumerian ethnogenesis (the story of how their people came to be) is much more pessimistic than most other culture's interpretation of where they came from, but it is not unique or even the most far out of the bunch. The ancient Germanic peoples believed they and their whole world were carved from the gory remains of a slain giant, the ancient Fins described how the people came with the land, and the land came to be when a goddess burned herself on some eggs and dropped them in the sea, the eggshells forming the land, and an African creation myth tells of how the world was found fully-formed at the bottom of the sea by a bird that was fishing (don't ask for logical consistency and don't ask where the bird came from or what it was fishing for). Want a pleasant afternoon of sheer and utter bafflement? Look up creation myths on the internet.

Finally, "the original tables were basically 'classified' by the 'monks'": sadly, it's not that simple again. As in most early cultures that had discovered writing, writing was held to be a supremely magical act (making words last much longer than those who spoke them means you can put your soul onto paper, or more accurately, clay tablets). As such, all religious writing was almost by definition secret, reserved solely for the priestly class and not to be discusses outside their own class. The same thing was common in many cultures: the Celts, contrary to popular belief, did use writing (probably an adapted Greek alphabet), but it was strictly prohibited to write down any of their religious knowledge because that would make it available to people who weren't druids. Similarly, people who were part of a so-called Mystery-Religion (a religion that reveals secrets to their believers, usually a way to live eternally after death. Christianity is basically a Mystery Religion) in the Greek and Roman world were not allowed to share any of their religious knowledge with anyone who wasn't part of their cult on the pain of death.

It is very normal for people who grew up in parts of the world dominated by Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) to consider that version of religion the norm, but in fact it isn't. Those religions fall under the heading 'Revealed Religion', meaning a religion based on the teachings of one or more prophets. These religions are universalist (Judaism is a rare and strange exception, hinting at very great antiquity but also syncretism, i.e. the mixing of multiple religions), meaning that their aim is to present their teachings to the whole world. Most ancient religions were exclusivist, meaning their teachings were for the benefit of a small group (a single City-State, or even a single ruling class) and as such were closely guarded. This latter scenario also applies to the Sumerians. So it's not that just this story was 'classified', basically their whole religion was, as were most religions at the time (at least those we know of).[/QUOTE]


Stupid people complicate things. Atheists are shortsighted morons. If they had any brains they would be able to see the correlation of theology and science and not pit the two against each other. The same goes for idiotic ultra religious types.

I just had some more to add. You have to be brain dead to not see the similarities between the creation story of Genesis and the Big Bang. Then these ancient people knew that before life a void existed. More concretely they knew humans were preceded by "beasts". How could they know that especially when we couldn't figure out dinosaurs until the 19th centuries?

Things that require more intelligence are the parables included such as the great flood which is similar to extinction events that according to what we know those people would not have had a clue about.

My best way of explaining it is saying how would you explain complex science in a way that everyone will understand? The same way you will explain it to a 2 yr old. Simple parables. Over simplified explanation. Why? Cause that way the most unenlightened of us will be able to understand and the most intelligent of our kind will be able to see how it relates to the science. The only thing is people in between who aren't intelligent enough to realize they're stupid will take it literally and use the science as proof against the credibility of the stories because they're a lil' smarter than the least enlightened but too ignorant to be of the enlightened. That in combination with petty, insecure groups manipulating the meaning to suit their own political means and the fact that war equals money and you get the mess we have today.