October 7th, 2008, 12:59 PM
The purpose of this topic is basically to explore the roots of religion and how all the religions today are connected in parallels from stories and concepts all developed from some place of origin, perhaps early sun worshipping and/or astrology. I wouldn't know, which is also part of the reason I made this topic.
I'll add more to this topic later after I see how it develops. That is assuming it will of course. :P
Well theres alway's the possibility that those things actually did happen and everone is just telling a different story of the same event... The great flood for example, everyones got that one...
Correct...when the spirit interacts with the spiritual existence, it is translated by a conditioned, fallible brain; hence you have various religions.Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
The God gene hypothesis proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predispose them to belief in a higher power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
When hunters in Africa made a kill of an eland that would feed the clan for several weeks, it wouldn't be surprising if they gave thanks to the spirit of the animal. American Indians thanked the spirit of the buffalo they killed. What could be more logical than to thank the beast that fed you and your family?
Some entrepreneurial member of the clan, perhaps one who was not such a great hunter, but had a good head on her shoulders, might see an opportunity to put some organization into this spirit-thanking and at the same time ensure a share of the meat for herself and her family. Meet the priest.
It's all different now of course - the priest has a nice frock and tall hat, and the hunters work in offices, and worship the Dow instead of the eland. I guess we're in a drought right now. Pray hard.
What Bunbury coveniently ignores is that we are talking about a time long before the kind of specialization between all the different specialized occupations and fields of study that we have today. At this early stage in all the tasks of religion, science, history, law, medicine, philosophy, education and entertainment were all one and the same, largely embodied in the stories and oral traditions accumulated and past down from generation to generation that the wise one (or shaman) would tell at fire-side gatherings. Thus this "entrepreneurial member of the clan" that Bunbury is talking about was not just the "priest", he was the scientist, historian, legal expert, doctor, philosopher, teacher, actor, storyteller and magician, all roled into one. He was after all, the smartest and cleverest of the tribe. The point is that all these professions have pretty much the same prehistoric origins, and so it is no wonder that we often feel at times that these practioners have much of the character of the con man.
But consider there is one of these specialized decendents of these ancient "entrepreneurs" who now "holds all the cards", deciding what you will believe, what services of his you will buy and what price you will pay - the medical doctor. His is the clearly the best con of all. By comparison the religious "con-man" is in quite the 2nd rater having the opposite situation, because in that case you are the one who gets to decide what you will believe, what service you will partake of and you pay whatever you feel like.
Regardless of how religion came into existence the believer will believe it is divinely inspired and the detractor will believe that it is not. But regardless religion remains a fundamental part of human nature and development and its contribution to human development and identity is enormous.
Or it could be that it started with one very imaginative storyteller, who told his stories so convincingly, that they appeared true to the more gullible of the group. who then when on to hero worship the characters in the stories, and make idols, etc.. there descendants, who were brought up with this delusion believed it to be true, thus religions began all from this one group of cavemen and there storyteller.
Or it could be that early man just noticed that the sun was the life giver, and things just when on from there.
Quite right pavlos. That is also possible.
or it could be that pesky god gene that inspired the story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
From your link,or it could be that pesky god gene that inspired the story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene
"According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2), is not an encoding for the belief in God itself but a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with the presence of a God or other mystic experiences, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind "
An hypothetical gene that makes your imagination run riot, I sure the asylums are full of people with a gene like that. Some humans are predisposed to believing what they imagine is true, else where did all the religions come from. So I suppose there could be an abnormal gene that could cause that problem, there are after all a lot of other abnormal genes that cause a lot of abnormalities in the human body.
But now you will probably say that, who's to say it's an abnormal gene, probably because you feel a belief in god is good.
But a belief in fairies or some other mystic experience isn't?
What is the difference.
They are both, so called higher powers.
October 10th, 2008, 08:46 AM
From 'bits and snatches', I have analyzed the sources of the most probable reasons for the 'origin' of religion.The purpose of this topic is basically to explore the roots of religion and how all the religions today are connected in parallels from stories and concepts all developed from some place of origin, perhaps early sun worshipping and/or astrology. I wouldn't know, which is also part of the reason I made this topic.
I'll add more to this topic later after I see how it develops. That is assuming it will of course. :P
We have to go back to the most credible sources of history to determine the sources like the Egyptian historic record that goes back to about 3000BC+.
This would be obvious because their record is the 'art' work that they left behing that certainly indicates an intelligent people.
So I would say that the first acceptance of a god was the Egyptian Sun God named Ra and his family.
To their ancient minds, I would say that is a reasonable choice because I think they were gardeners and determined that the Sun was needed for the plants (vegetation) to grow. As a result, it is then considered to be a creator God.
However, we know today that the Sun is only a source of energy.
But irregardless, without the Sun. there would be no life on our planet.
Of course, the plant eggs (seeds) and human 'eggs' (animal eggs) are the primary sources of all living creatures.
However, the jews adopted the chauvinist lion as their source for a god (YHWH )
as a reprentative of their Sun god in spite of the evidence that the Egyptian Sphinxes present.
Since the lion is a killer god that distuguishes hinself from the female, that portrays him as a sexist. But the only thing he can represent is the Sahara Desert .
So ignore the bible as a religious document because it promotes 'evil'.
See my post on religion, 'Nature as GOD' for more information.
Cosmo
The first people to write down their belief were the sumerians I think. But reading upon their beliefs it seems they can relate to your beliefs Cosmo. They draw their inspiration from nature, so there was no organized set of gods. There were however many different gods. The sumerians also mapped out our solar system, more or less, and were the first to do it if I'm not wrong, and believed that the movement of the planets, etc, had an effect on human life if I'm not mistaken. Thus an early form of astrology. It seems some major religions build their stories more or less upon the movement of the planets, alas that's the impression I got from Zeitgeist, a movie I dislike as I dislike most conspiracy stuff. The cross seems to originate from something called the "crux", a constellation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crux
Alas, that's the impression I got from the movie Zeitgeist, where I doubt I believe anything. It's interesting though, perhaps there's something to it, like shown here:
http://filmguide.wikia.com/wiki/Zeitgeist#The_Sun
There's more info on the sumerians here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer#Religion (not sure about the quality of the wikipedia article)
http://wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM (this is a good source I think. You can guide your way down from the left side 'til you find "sumerian religion" in large writing)
It may seem that the first form of religion was drawn upon awe of nature, so it seems Cosmos' belief is the culprit of the religions of today.
If I said I am to go to the past when becoming all powerful and omniscient (if not before) and tell people I am God. Would you believe me that I am God?
Being all powerful would you change the laws of physics so we could have a choice to believe or not believe? Being omniscient why would you even have to ask the question?
Please, stick to the topic and be objective. There's no need to assume the entity called God (Occam's razor).
Because I'm not omniscient yet. I'd give you the choice to believe or not, its your choice I wouldn't dictate what you believe, only advise what you should not do, such as murder and stealing not being advised because of what other people would do to you and how messed up you and other people would be as a result. I would look on not doing what I advise against to them that I do not like those things, because its not the way. If had the ability to punish them for doing something I saw as wrong, I do not know if I would or not. I'm not God yet :P.Being all powerful would you change the laws of physics so we could have a choice to believe or not believe? Being omniscient why would you even have to ask the question?
Yeah sorry.Please, stick to the topic and be objective. There's no need to assume the entity called God (Occam's razor).
Hunters -> Wizard
Settlers -> Sjamaan
Settlements -> King
King -> God
God -> '... therefore we build settlements in Judea ... in name of David and JWHW'
Christian and Heathens, The D20 version?
:-D Well, I'd suggest, you start developing a role-playing game. Maybe you can include the Jews and Muslims also.
That would be an intresting game.
But anyhow, what I meant with my short post, is that tribes had a physical leader and a spritual leader. The latter made sure that rain fell [or not] and that the animals would be caught they needed to survive. Nature Gods were as the animals themselves or appeared in some sort of demon-shape.
As men settled and the leader became a King, the King became more important. The early nature Gods became more and more humanised, as they now also needed Gods to maintain their newbuild cities et cetera.
Thus ... the first Kings also became Gods, as they were too important, just to die as a human being. This would last upon the Roman Empire.
The Gods evolved until pharao Echnaton [Achet-Aton] 'invented' monotheism.
Yes, even God evolved :P
Yes we know this, your point being?:-D Well, I'd suggest, you start developing a role-playing game. Maybe you can include the Jews and Muslims also.
That would be an intresting game.
But anyhow, what I meant with my short post, is that tribes had a physical leader and a spritual leader. The latter made sure that rain fell [or not] and that the animals would be caught they needed to survive. Nature Gods were as the animals themselves or appeared in some sort of demon-shape.
As men settled and the leader became a King, the King became more important. The early nature Gods became more and more humanised, as they now also needed Gods to maintain their newbuild cities et cetera.
Thus ... the first Kings also became Gods, as they were too important, just to die as a human being. This would last upon the Roman Empire.
The Gods evolved until pharao Echnaton [Achet-Aton] 'invented' monotheism.
Yes, even God evolved :P
Bleedin' shame !Yes we know this, your point being?
What a nonsence post you place there !
Go and shame yourself !
So, "you" are "we", as "Yes we know this" is your ignorant post.
May I intoduce to you : 'Religion'
The 'WE' you suggest you are, I know by ignorance.
Please, read some topics of mine and do not suggest asif everybody thinks like you; this makes you look very stupid.
Regardless of what you think of me, because of my one line post, which isn't being offensive to you. "What is your point"Bleedin' shame !Yes we know this, your point being?
What a nonsence post you place there !
Go and shame yourself !
So, "you" are "we", as "Yes we know this" is your ignorant post.
May I intoduce to you : 'Religion'
The 'WE' you suggest you are, I know by ignorance.
Please, read some topics of mine and do not suggest asif everybody thinks like you; this makes you look very stupid.
edit:bad spelling, wasn't thinking.
That doesn't make much sense Pavlos. Ir meaning the opposite. Less, meaning the opposite.Regarding only what you think of me, because of my one line post, which isn't being offensive to you. "What is your point"
Irregard means to disregard but is not proper english.
Regardless means to disregard, and is proper english.
Irregardless is not proper english unless you mean to regard.
Bleedin' shame !
What a nonsence post you place there !
I am not sure anyone here could compete with you.
Ok, does this have any purpose beside helping to practice with the little buttons?
Where do I sign up to change to an atheist?
I think its practice with the language that you need more than the little buttons.
not any more
Well pavlos and I certainly do not think alike but... you know sometimes a question has same answer no matter who you ask, like 1+1=? At least if anyone answers differently then either their answer or the person should not be taken seriously.
Not anywhere near as stupid as your inability to answer the question properly, makes you look.
Yes, quite right wasn't thinking, my bad.
I was a little irritated, by being ad hom'ed, for a one line post.
Which goes to show how cautious you should be about letting someone else decide what is best for you. You might want to make sure they share your sense of what is valuable first.
November 25th, 2008, 07:33 PM
The oldest religious relics are those of the mother figure. You might say that she was the first God.The purpose of this topic is basically to explore the roots of religion and how all the religions today are connected in parallels from stories and concepts all developed from some place of origin, perhaps early sun worshipping and/or astrology. I wouldn't know, which is also part of the reason I made this topic.
I'll add more to this topic later after I see how it develops. That is assuming it will of course. :P
Regards
DL
November 27th, 2008, 12:39 PM
I thought the concept of religion originated during the time of shamans and the cooperation of humanoids and neanderthals, where they would meet in the caves before a big hunt. The shaman began waving his arms and making strange noises in front of cave paintings and everyone followed along.The purpose of this topic is basically to explore the roots of religion and how all the religions today are connected in parallels from stories and concepts all developed from some place of origin, perhaps early sun worshipping and/or astrology. I wouldn't know, which is also part of the reason I made this topic.
I'll add more to this topic later after I see how it develops. That is assuming it will of course. :P
November 27th, 2008, 05:49 PM
Glad we're back on topic.The oldest religious relics are those of the mother figure. You might say that she was the first God.
I distrust our judgment that whatever artifacts we fail to see utility in, must be religious. The mother statuettes could simply be those objects we were least likely to discard or destroy. Take the old Singer sewing machine: lots of people have one in perpetual storage, they never use and never will use, yet for sentimental charm the useless hulk of metal is secure. So no one had the heart to crack walnuts with a likeness of mama. That's enough. Sometimes a statuette is just a statuette. I can see utility as a childminding device though. The first comfort doll.
Marija Gimbutas makes me want to hurl. Bulls represent female fertility because bull's horns look like fallopian tubes?!
Burial rites were not necessarily steeped in mysticism. So we brought flowers and personal effects to our deceased. A mother cat carries birds to her dead kittens, even while pining.
Yeah, something about early communication. The collective consciousness/unconscious, and religion, developed together. They're still linked today. I think that the original shamans were the only ones articulate in what we now call "ego". Later our priests were those articulate in what we now call "superego". Now, our schizophrenics articulate resonant undercurrents we all sense but don't think about.
I thought I would resurrect this topic because of an interesting video I saw on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
Here it is claimed that we're not far from a comprehensive neuroscientific understanding of religion and there are a lot of examples and explanations to why religion has been so successful in humans. Supposedly it's a by-product of the development of our brain for things like social interactions and hyper-sensitive recognition software present in our brain. Religion supposedly works as a supernormal stimuli for the software in our brain which has been quite important in our development, but which are woundable to things like religion. For example, a Big Mac at McDonald's can be said to be a supernormal stimuli due to the fatty meat, high-sugar content of drinks which follows and salty fries. At one point in time we had a real need for fat, sugar and salt, and a Big Mac takes much advantage of such stimuli which creates cravings for such things. Religion thusly works in the same manner as a supernormal stimuli to things in our brain, which is also why it's so successful.
See the video for a detailed explanation. I only tried to summarize some of it.
I wonder what the religious of this forum thinks of this and what implications this might have for their beliefs.
/bump
No comments?
sorry haven't had the time to watch it and didn't know you had posted it.
finally someone who is realistic and agrees with my viewpoint on these things. (though i have never posed my viewpoint on this topic)I distrust our judgment that whatever artifacts we fail to see utility in, must be religious. The mother statuettes could simply be those objects we were least likely to discard or destroy. Take the old Singer sewing machine: lots of people have one in perpetual storage, they never use and never will use, yet for sentimental charm the useless hulk of metal is secure. So no one had the heart to crack walnuts with a likeness of mama. That's enough. Sometimes a statuette is just a statuette. I can see utility as a childminding device though. The first comfort doll.
i am alsotiredof every large structure being declared a temple when it is clearlynot one and there are so many options availble tochoose from. most archaeologists try to paint a false picture fo thepast and leave the impression that all the ancients did was eat, work and pray. FAR FROM THE TRUTH.
you cannot trust secular archaeologists.
religion started with God and the unbelieving world perverted it which allowed shamanism to arise and lead people further astray from the truth.Yeah, something about early communication. The collective consciousness/unconscious, and religion, developed together. They're still linked today
And this was the foundation of your own religion, so....
That's not really a fair statement considering they simply observe what they find, and have not found any supernatural evidence to link their findings to scriptures, especially when there are so many varying scriptures, religions and gods.
it is very fair as they have to do a lot of reading into their discoveries. with few written records to confirm their ideas, they are basically guessing.That's not really a fair statement considering they simply observe what they find
they wouldn't know the difference between supernatural and natural. take the location of sodom and gomorrah, please tell me what is supernatural and what isn't.have not found any supernatural evidence to link their findings to scriptures,
from a secular viewpoint, you would have problems.when there are so many varying scriptures, religions and gods.
Whatever you define as "guessing" has little to do with their work. Whatever written records found have been examined carefully. What point are you making?
The difference is well defined, that which is not of nature is supernatural.
they wouldn't know the difference between supernatural and natural. take the location of sodom and gomorrah, please tell me what is supernatural and what isn't.
From any viewpoint is a problem, obviously.from a secular viewpoint, you would have problems.
The mind is stranger than we think.
I have had two telepathic experiences in my life. The first with my wife and if it had not happened first I would not likely have believed the second to be real. I would have written it of as a mental burp or just plain delusion. As it is I believe that I found or made contact with what I took to be what most think is God but I just saw it as a cosmic consciousness and our next evolutionary step. I think all consciousness's go there after our death and a few can visit, if you will, before death.
Since religion seems to have started on all continents independently with a variety of God, I believe that shaman were those that touched this cosmic mind and tried as best as they could to dither out what it was.
It was born, I thinks, of the first true human and had to grow along with man and his knowledge as indicated by the evolution of sacrifices. Strange to think of God as dumb and having to learn but this is my view of things.
I have no more proof of this God than any other religion has for theirs so do not ask for any. It was a personal experience and if you want to know this God then you have to make that journey on your own.
Telepathy is the key and the trigger for it seems to be a strong desire to know God coupled with strong emotion.
Regards
DL
| « God, in terms of sexual authority. | The Zeitgeist film is it the truth or not? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
