Notices
Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: How did Religion Get Going in the First Place?

  1. #1 How did Religion Get Going in the First Place? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,882
    For those who perhaps do not ascribe to the creation stories, any thoughts on how religion got started? Did it start when a little caveboy asked his father about how we got here? How did God(s) come about? Was it originally shrugged off or immediately accepted? Somewhere at sometime, somebody came up with the idea. Is it older than the wheel?

    My feeling is that it was born of superstition. Maybe a bunch of repetitive events such as a succession of bountiful crops occured after a certain ritual was performed, leading to the belief that someone unseen was watching.


    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i have this strange feeling that this subject has already been discussed in another thread, but i can't seem to find it

    something in that vein definitely cropped up in A narrow, serious question


    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,882
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i have this strange feeling that this subject has already been discussed in another thread, but i can't seem to find it

    something in that vein definitely cropped up in A narrow, serious question
    I looked at that and in the serious question a primitive religion had already been established. So I guess my question is more or less what got the primitive religion going in the first place, how did it start? I agree, the first religion was primitive and its has evolved to its complex present state but it had to start somewhere. Moynihan thinks it to be Africa, I supposed that's because of evidence of early man found there.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: How did Religion Get Going in the First Place? 
    Forum Freshman Midnight Madness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

    My feeling is that it was born of superstition. Maybe a bunch of repetitive events such as a succession of bountiful crops occured after a certain ritual was performed, leading to the belief that someone unseen was watching.
    That and I think an element of control over the group also had something to do with it. Tell the people of an all seeing and all knowing deity who will strike them down if they do not do as the leaders say to get control over the tribe.

    Also when you consider acts of nature that may have seemed to be sent by something in the sky. So this could have led on to the notion of pleasing these gods to achieve a certain need. Sacrifices or offerings to the deities of the times could lead to a tribal elder who takes control by saying that the gods speak through them.. the result a few generations down the track is religion.
    "If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. "
    George Carlin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    For those who perhaps do not ascribe to the creation stories, any thoughts on how religion got started? Did it start when a little caveboy asked his father about how we got here? How did God(s) come about? Was it originally shrugged off or immediately accepted? Somewhere at sometime, somebody came up with the idea. Is it older than the wheel?
    I think it's because religious priests/shamans showed themselves early on to be effective as leaders. People needed leadership, good leadership, so they could vanquish their enemies, defend their territory, and feed themselves.

    They probably didn't really care where it came from, or how all the details worked out. If this really effective leadership/authority figure says he's effective because some god up in the sky is helping him, why question it? Isn't that kind of the same as looking a gift horse in the mouth?

    The problem, I think, honestly is that somewhere along the way religious leaders began to lose their effectiveness. They started to get too entrenched in the old ways and unable to adapt to new situations. So......... as a species we've gotten to be a little bit less keen on following them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I think it's because religious priests/shamans showed themselves early on to be effective as leaders. People needed leadership, good leadership, so they could vanquish their enemies, defend their territory, and feed themselves.
    i think that in most cases religion has acted as the power which pulls the strings behind the throne rather than being in the front seat itself - presumably using the power of the knowledgeable adviser
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    159
    The idea of how religion started is widely accepted as being because primitive man could not find an immediate answer to how lighting, volcanoes, earthquakes, the sun, moon and stars etc. exist/happen, so they believe (in the logical train of thought) that it must have been brought by someone, or that it is someone, i.e., the egyptian belief in the sun god, and the ancient tribal belief that the volcanoe was a god that got angry and erupted. This then evolved to more complex religions, until we have the religions today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Everlasting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    93
    Religion originated from the orginal sins of man. Man had no religion or laws. We adhere to the structure society creates, and even rely on it's institutions to provide positive reinforcements; in our world. The foundation of a deity is embedded in the structure of our society because without it, we would still be primative beings without structure.


    Just a Thought
    _____________


    Everlasting



    Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
    Moon over Key Biscayne

    http://www.bookfellas.com
    http://www.booksandmore.4t.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: How did Religion Get Going in the First Place? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    how religion got started?
    Somebody asked a question. Sombody else answered it. A third person then told a story about this conversation.

    The question is whether any of these persons were God.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Julian Jaynes offered an elegant and novel answer to this question in his The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. [ISBN: 10: 0140174915 Penguin]
    Jayne believed that consciousness was a recent development, arising in the last few thousand years. Prior to that people heard voices , telling them what to do. These voices came from one hemisphere of their brains, but were interpreted as the voices of the Gods.

    There is an interesting review of the idea on this website:
    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/JLimber...ynesPoster.htm

    or the home page of the Julian Jaynes Society:
    http://www.julianjaynes.org/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: How did Religion Get Going in the First Place? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    zinjanthropos,

    For those who perhaps do not ascribe to the creation stories, any thoughts on how religion got started?
    Why would you disclude ascribers to the creation story, if the question is of serious intent?

    Did it start when a little caveboy asked his father about how we got here? How did God(s) come about?
    If the little boy suddenly became curious, why didn't that same curiosity arise in his father?
    Better questions would be, "how and why did this curiosity arise".

    Was it originally shrugged off or immediately accepted? Somewhere at sometime, somebody came up with the idea. Is it older than the wheel?
    The little caveboy sounds quite intelligent, why he would enquire into such matters, especially as he asked the question, and so it would appear that people/community were reasonable and intelligent.

    My feeling is that it was born of superstition.
    Where did superstition come from?

    Maybe a bunch of repetitive events such as a succession of bountiful crops occured after a certain ritual was performed, leading to the belief that someone unseen was watching.
    I think it is in the nature of human beings to take things for granted, until things go wrongs, at which time they may become greedy in the hope of securing more produce for future bad times (western ones anyway).

    I think religion is part of human nature, and is as old as humanity and is not necessarily God-based. The idea of 'religion' being based on God alone, is a man-made idea, imo. To sum-up, I believe we are all religious about different things, and it manifests in our daily actions. And when we sincerely come to God-realisation, we reach the pinnacle of religion.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Hazz wrote:
    The idea of how religion started is widely accepted as being because primitive man could not find an immediate answer to how lighting, volcanoes, earthquakes, the sun, moon and stars etc. exist/happen, so they believe (in the logical train of thought) that it must have been brought by someone, or that it is someone, i.e., the egyptian belief in the sun god, and the ancient tribal belief that the volcanoe was a god that got angry and erupted. This then evolved to more complex religions, until we have the religions today.
    I second that.

    Everlasting wrote:
    he foundation of a deity is embedded in the structure of our society because without it, we would still be primative beings without structure.
    circular reasoning.

    Ophiolite wrote:
    Jayne believed that consciousness was a recent development
    I believe animals also have conciousness. But it is difficult to prove either way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit
    Ophiolite wrote:
    Jayne believed that consciousness was a recent development
    I believe animals also have conciousness. But it is difficult to prove either way.
    Good point. I agree. In fact I believe that all life has consciousness, for it is part of the process, but this is not a qualitative distinction but quantitative. The measure of consciousness varies even between people let alone between species. However this may be a matter of terminology, for I think it is evident that humans have something that other forms of life on this planet lack.

    I call this the mind, which I see as a self organization of dynamic structures in information flow with the characteristics of a living organism. Now unlike other life forms on the planet, all the animals have a nervous system of some sort and thus they have information flow in that system. Some animals may even have self organizing dynamic structures of information and I think that this can partly be seen in the way that some learn and even take on some human characteristic in close relationships with human beings. But the question of whether such an organization of dynamic strutures constitutes a living organism in its own right (as it does or comes close to doing in human beings) has to do with its relationship to its environment. The living organism has both sensitivity to and independence from its environment, doing what it does for reasons of its own and yet remaining responsive to events in the environment. The environment of this dynamic organization of information flow is the body so the question of whether it constitutes a living organism has to do with its independence from the chemical control mechanisms of the body (instincts).

    It is tempting to point to human language and there is no denying that human language adds a great deal of complexity to human information structures but I think it is especially the abstract concepts in language that adds the most substantial degree of independence from and sensitivity to the environment, because it not only means that we can do things for abstract reasons but it also means that we can see things in our environment beyond what is directly evident to our senses.

    In conclusion, I think what a lot of people mean when they talk about consciousness as something human beings have "developed" they are talking about the consciousness of the human mind which in my way of thinking is this question of whether the organization of dynamic structures of information flow in the nervous system constitutes a living organism in its own right. For as I said before all life has consciousness, and therefore a living mind would be a whole new kind of consciousness that is faster and more flexible than anything to be found in biological organisms.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazz
    The idea of how religion started is widely accepted as being because primitive man could not find an immediate answer to how lighting, volcanoes, earthquakes, the sun, moon and stars etc. exist/happen, so they believe (in the logical train of thought) that it must have been brought by someone, or that it is someone, i.e., the egyptian belief in the sun god, and the ancient tribal belief that the volcanoe was a god that got angry and erupted. This then evolved to more complex religions, until we have the religions today.
    You got the right idea, but the first religions were animist, and "god" was more advanced concept that we later evolved to. In fact, in between we went through a stage called polytheism.

    The origin of religion seems simple to me. You and I both sense we have a consciousness that is separate from our physical being. They just called it "spirit" or "soul" and mistakenly assumed everything had one, including wind, rocks, trees, rivers etc.

    But that is only a small part of religion. Its function was to provide them with common answers as to their origin, what purpose (goal) they had, how to achieve it, and what stood in their way. They needed answer and their belief system with its "souls" was a then logical way of coming up with the answers so they would more easily feel a common bond.
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Goodday everybody, I'm new here and it's a pleasure to make y'alls acquiantence.



    I see religion as existing intially as a natural byproduct of the feeling that consciousness is somehow transcendent to physical reality.

    Other than that I think it formed out of the concepts of hero worship, ancestor worship, fear of death and reverence for nature(including animals).

    And hung around because it provides an identity for the society, method of influence for the elite (justification of position) and a shared motivator/meaning people can belong too.

    But the initial feeling that consciousness is transcendent is the important one that gives rise to religion. The fluff got added as consciousness transitioned through various forms allowing greater use of the frontal lobe and as society developed altering the environment that the consciousness was trying to make sense of.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Flip McWho
    Goodday everybody, I'm new here and it's a pleasure to make y'alls acquiantence.

    I see religion as existing intially as a natural byproduct of the feeling that consciousness is somehow transcendent to physical reality.

    Other than that I think it formed out of the concepts of hero worship, ancestor worship, fear of death and reverence for nature(including animals).

    And hung around because it provides an identity for the society, method of influence for the elite (justification of position) and a shared motivator/meaning people can belong too.

    But the initial feeling that consciousness is transcendent is the important one that gives rise to religion. The fluff got added as consciousness transitioned through various forms allowing greater use of the frontal lobe and as society developed altering the environment that the consciousness was trying to make sense of.
    I agree with all of that . . . The idea of the "self" being different from the body occured to people as soon as language and speech developed. It has been the foundation of all "spirit" based world-view systems every since. The only real fault with it is that the "self" does not survive the death of the brain.

    Myself, however, I do not think we use our frontal lobes any more than we humans did 10,000 years ago plus. It is just that we have gradually accumulated an immense cultural heritage that we absorb as youngsters and which enables us to function in huge societies and use what we learn to build technology. People in Ancient times had to think also to survive. They just did not have the knowledge tools we have now. The village shaman, for example, had to plan how to deal with people to keep their faith and the group leader had to know human nature and play politics in a mechanistic manner to keep and exert his authority. The sub-dominant men of the group had to compete for authority to eventually take his place. To do that they needed to be right about things and in that way discredit the leader. The mind was the tool by which people competed then as now.
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,882
    If a bunch of cavemen theorized that a God was in place and it became the focal point for many conversations afterward then how long before they started having dreams about a god. I think dreams of this nature could also reaffirm our forefathers that there is definitely some type of presence that lives amongst us. Along with that I believe it quite possible that heaven has its roots in dreamland. Don't forget that people will also see in their dreams those that they knew and have died.

    Again, dreaming about a god and along with it predeceased friends may have helped forge the belief that god existed in dreamland or heaven as it later became known as. Early religion still would have depended on who had the dream. People of power were probably more likely to take these dreams seriously and thus instill the resultant beliefs that arose from their dreams in the minds of followers. After that I can picture a chain reaction of people dreaming about gods (visions) and everything associated with them at the time.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    I think dreams did serve to re-enforce their beliefs, but the first religions were beliefs in spirits, animisms, not in gods. Eveything had its own spirit. The social evolutionary process of religion was its adapting to what men gradually learned by experience. They learned to explain somethings without "spirit" explanations and thus we evolved into polytheism and left the animistic "spirit-in-everything" age in the human mainstream. Evolving into monotheism was another big step. The next one will be all natural-cause explanation.
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Myself, however, I do not think we use our frontal lobes any more than we humans did 10,000 years ago plus.
    I was referring to a longer time scale when I mentioned frontal lobes. As in from whatever specie our ancestors was that developed into consciousness as we humans now experience it. As the frontal lobes developed and humans became more rationally focused and self-controlled they then turned their developing intellect to rationalise and explain their initial religious feeling. This is all pure speculation on my part. I agree that for the last 10,000 years or so it is the cultural heritage that we absorbe that accounts for our knowledge.

    If a bunch of cavemen theorized that a God was in place and it became the focal point for many conversations afterward then how long before they started having dreams about a god.
    Religious visions aren't necessarily related to dreams though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    When they compare brain case size between 150,000 plus and our skulls today, according one of the science Internet news services, ours is a little bit smaller. Compare the shape, and our forhead is more prominent. When the change took place is controversial. I think it is gradual and evolved in the last 150,000 years with the development of speech/language/religion.
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Brough
    Hazz wrote:
    The idea of how religion started is widely accepted as being because primitive man could not find an immediate answer to how lighting, volcanoes, earthquakes, the sun, moon and stars etc. exist/happen, so they believe (in the logical train of thought) that it must have been brought by someone, or that it is someone, i.e., the egyptian belief in the sun god, and the ancient tribal belief that the volcanoe was a god that got angry and erupted. This then evolved to more complex religions, until we have the religions today.
    You got the right idea, but the first religions were animist, and "god" was more advanced concept that we later evolved to. In fact, in between we went through a stage called polytheism.

    The origin of religion seems simple to me. You and I both sense we have a consciousness that is separate from our physical being. They just called it "spirit" or "soul" and mistakenly assumed everything had one, including wind, rocks, trees, rivers etc.

    But that is only a small part of religion. Its function was to provide them with common answers as to their origin, what purpose (goal) they had, how to achieve it, and what stood in their way. They needed answer and their belief system with its "souls" was a then logical way of coming up with the answers so they would more easily feel a common bond.
    I'm going to have to agree with this interpretation largely.

    Humans are social beings. The only thing early humans truly understood (or felt like they came near understanding) was other human beings, because you can ask a human being a direct question about themself and get a direct answer. (but you can't ask a rock, or the wind, a similar question and get any answer at all.)

    It probably became easier to understand the wind, rocks, and etc. if they gave those entities a human-like personality, and then started to factor in the differences they could find.

    ie. The wind is like a person, but all he/she ever does is howl, and he/she seems to only like to blow at certain times or for certain reasons..... and of course sometimes their observations were just flukes they'd observed, but they didn't know that they were flukes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: How did Religion Get Going in the First Place? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    For those who perhaps do not ascribe to the creation stories, any thoughts on how religion got started? Did it start when a little caveboy asked his father about how we got here? How did God(s) come about? Was it originally shrugged off or immediately accepted? Somewhere at sometime, somebody came up with the idea. Is it older than the wheel?

    My feeling is that it was born of superstition. Maybe a bunch of repetitive events such as a succession of bountiful crops occured after a certain ritual was performed, leading to the belief that someone unseen was watching.
    ALL religions got started in exactly the same way. All by people asking questions and speculating answers. Just as you are doing right now.

    Human Secularism is merely the beginning of the next formitable religion with its eye on being the final total conquerer of all mankind forever more.

    None began as a "religion" but as belief that they were the "right" ones with all of the evidence required. You know, much like Science.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23 Re: How did Religion Get Going in the First Place? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Siau
    None began as a "religion" but as belief that they were the "right" ones with all of the evidence required. You know, much like Science.
    Nothing like science. Besides the standard of evidence being enormously higher than in religion, science doesn't speculate about God(s), the afterlife, or any such ultimate truths - the foundational concepts of religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: How did Religion Get Going in the First Place? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Quote Originally Posted by Siau
    None began as a "religion" but as belief that they were the "right" ones with all of the evidence required. You know, much like Science.
    Nothing like science. Besides the standard of evidence being enormously higher than in religion, science doesn't speculate about God(s), the afterlife, or any such ultimate truths - the foundational concepts of religion.
    Then you seriously don't know of Science.

    Science speculated the shape of an atom and led to 100+ years of false speculating as to how it was held together, inventing invisible forces to explain things they didn't understand. Then continuing to teach what they already knew to be false just so as to save face.

    Science begins totally from speculation. The distinction of Science is only in it requiring physical evidence to support the speculations (theories).

    By it requiring and focusing on physcal evidence only, it caused the speculation that none but the physical existed. This notion led to the current concept that the "spiritual" doesn't exist. The only problem with all of that is that the idiots didn't bother to define exactly what "spiritual" an "physical" really meant.

    All things are indeed physical, depending entirely on what you define as physical. But the word and concept of the "spiritual" was always exactly what Science today calls "energy". If the spiritual doesn't exist, neither does energy.

    Science, in it's lack of logical thought, has merely redefined words over and over so as to appear to be right.

    If they bothered thinking logically, most of Science would have been settled long ago and would be easily seen as merely an addition to the religions. They would have however, been able to discover which religion was more accurate. As it is, they simply have confused the words and concepts so much that they have to give up on anything but their own claim to fame.

    Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there. Science, by discovering things of great power and dangerous to be told, must now conceal many things. This involves maintaining a deception so that others cannot discover anything dangerous to know. Science has merely joined the ancient race for maximum control of others through deceit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Siau
    Then you seriously don't know of Science.

    Science speculated the shape of an atom and led to 100+ years of false speculating as to how it was held together, inventing invisible forces to explain things they didn't understand. Then continuing to teach what they already knew to be false just so as to save face.

    Science begins totally from speculation. The distinction of Science is only in it requiring physical evidence to support the speculations (theories).

    By it requiring and focusing on physcal evidence only, it caused the speculation that none but the physical existed.
    Let me repeat myself, and add some emphasis for you:
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    science doesn't speculate about God(s), the afterlife, or any such ultimate truths - the foundational concepts of religion.
    I never said science doesn't speculate in any way, shape, or form. I was pretty specific about the subjects on which it does not (and cannot) speculate. Those specific topics are the heart of religion and that is why your comparison is a poor one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siau
    By it requiring and focusing on physcal evidence only, it caused the speculation that none but the physical existed. This notion led to the current concept that the "spiritual" doesn't exist. The only problem with all of that is that the idiots didn't bother to define exactly what "spiritual" an "physical" really meant.

    All things are indeed physical, depending entirely on what you define as physical. But the word and concept of the "spiritual" was always exactly what Science today calls "energy". If the spiritual doesn't exist, neither does energy.
    None of this is scientific. Please show me the field of science which has ruled out the possibility of a "spiritual" realm?
    Here's the opening paragraph for "energy" in Wiki:
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    In physics and other sciences, energy (from the Greek ενεργός, energos, "active, working")[1] is a scalar physical quantity, often represented by the symbol E,[2] that is used to describe a conserved property of objects and systems of objects. It comes in many different forms, such as kinetic, potential, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, and mass energy.
    I'm curious how that is anywhere near the same thing as spirit, or spirituality. I don't think spirituality is a scalar physical quantity to the best of anyone's knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siau
    If they bothered thinking logically, most of Science would have been settled long ago and would be easily seen as merely an addition to the religions. They would have however, been able to discover which religion was more accurate. As it is, they simply have confused the words and concepts so much that they have to give up on anything but their own claim to fame.

    Unfortunately, the story doesn't end there. Science, by discovering things of great power and dangerous to be told, must now conceal many things. This involves maintaining a deception so that others cannot discover anything dangerous to know. Science has merely joined the ancient race for maximum control of others through deceit.
    Now I'm starting to think it's you who doesn't understand science. Science doesn't conceal anything - a fundamental property of science is you PUBLISH it for the entire world to see, test, examine, poke, prod, and falsify. You go in your post from merely being incorrect to starting to sound paranoid. Reminds me of the flat-earthers who invoke the grand government conspiracy involving millions of people all in cohoots to keep the "secret" of the flat earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    Siau wrote:
    None began as a "religion" but as belief that they were the "right" ones with all of the evidence required. You know, much like Science.
    Nothing like science. Besides the standard of evidence being enormously higher than in religion, science doesn't speculate about God(s), the afterlife, or any such ultimate truths - the foundational concepts of religion
    I don't know if it was so much about evidence. It was more a matter of people feeling a need to agree so they could work together and focus their attention on more practical matters, like, the real world.

    Once enough people had agreed on a set of opinions, they formalized it into a structure, and the rest just sort of got carried along.

    Science isn't so different in a lot of ways. Sure it's based more on actual evidence, and doesn't always address the same issues, but you still catch a lot of flak from the overall community if you disagree too strongly about it's various holy grails.

    I mean, sure, if some researcher with a phd found absolutely irrefutable evidence to oppose something like dark matter, or the big bang, the scientific community wouldn't burn them at the stake for expressing his/her beliefs, (or crucify them in the arena of public opinion until they couldn't find a job), but the burden of evidence is still pretty stacked against dissenters, even when dealing with a theory that has very little real certainty to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    5
    Well if you require a detailed explanation about this topic then this site will be useful:

    http://www.gov.ph/forum/thread.asp?r...03880&catID=24

    This examines and discusses the topic of: How did religion start? It is extremely detailed and after reading, the reader can unambiguously draw a simple idea about how religion was conjured up.
    KpATEL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28 Re: How did Religion Get Going in the First Place? 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
    For those who perhaps do not ascribe to the creation stories, any thoughts on how religion got started? Did it start when a little caveboy asked his father about how we got here? How did God(s) come about? Was it originally shrugged off or immediately accepted? Somewhere at sometime, somebody came up with the idea. Is it older than the wheel?

    My feeling is that it was born of superstition. Maybe a bunch of repetitive events such as a succession of bountiful crops occured after a certain ritual was performed, leading to the belief that someone unseen was watching.
    Moses wrote five books about the jewish people... not christians only believe it but also jewish people.. it is not just a fairy tell... There has been some digging findings that the Bible is true...
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    digging findings? care to elaborate? can you? no? surprise surprise.
    the religious rumour mill strikes again.
    you're just like the extremists of the middle ages, taking on pilgrimages for a wooden chip from someones backyard, claimed to be a chip of the very cross jesus was hung on.
    or the finger of a murderer recently executed, picked up by a lowlife,
    who runs to the church claiming he found the bone of the hand of christ.
    soon the church sacristice it, and pilgrimage ensues.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman Nikolas_Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    33
    the poor mans opiate?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Nikolas_Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    33
    Ezra, why does something that is created have to have a creator? Why does something always need a something to create it?
    Well, You say it does.

    Then tell me this: Who created God? and who created that who created god? and so on...

    I say, not everything has to originate from something. That is, not everything needs a creator or a source. And if you think this is true (for some odd reason) then this too makes God's creation of the universe unlikely aswell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    the bible is full of contradictions:
    http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

    such a small contradiction as "if everything needs a creator, who created god", just adds to that list.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolas_Miller
    ok first of all

    Why does something always need a something to create it?
    Well, You say it does.

    Then tell me this: Who created God? and who created that who created god? and so on...

    I say, not everything has to originate from something. That is, not everything needs a creator or a source. And if you think this is true (for some odd reason) then this too makes God's creation of the universe unlikely aswell.
    Your an atheist right? If you are here is what my reply is... You atheist believe that the chemical didn't have a beginning, and same with us we believe that God had never a beginning.... So if you say who created God then who created that chemical and where did it come from???... the difference between us is that you atheist believe in luck and chance but we don't, we believe in a God not chance and luck...
    You atheist are are always denying the truth and don't want to here the truth its like you closing your ears.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    evolution isn't about luck and chance. its about the best adapted lifeform. our brains just happends to be our best weapon.
    something you religious sheep fail to realize.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    evolution isn't about luck and chance. its about the best adapted lifeform. our brains just happends to be our best weapon.
    something you religious sheep fail to realize.

    Yes darwin believed in luck and chance......
    evidence...
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    did he ? where did you get that information from ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    did he ? where did you get that information from ?
    Yes he did. It was central to his thesis. For example, in the summary of Chapter IV, Natural Selection, or Survival of the Fittest, in On the Origin of Species, he remarks "Therefore, during the modification of the descendants of any one species, and during the incessant struggle of all species to increase in numbers, the more diversified the descendants become, the better will be their chance of success in the battle for life."
    He fully understood that the selection process represented a tendency, not an absolute. The fitter organisms would tend to survive compared with less fit organisms, but the individual survival would be down to chance. It's a statistical consideration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    did he ? where did you get that information from ?
    Yes he did. It was central to his thesis. For example, in the summary of Chapter IV, Natural Selection, or Survival of the Fittest, in On the Origin of Species, he remarks "Therefore, during the modification of the descendants of any one species, and during the incessant struggle of all species to increase in numbers, the more diversified the descendants become, the better will be their chance of success in the battle for life."
    He fully understood that the selection process represented a tendency, not an absolute. The fitter organisms would tend to survive compared with less fit organisms, but the individual survival would be down to chance. It's a statistical consideration.
    well, the beauty of evolution is that its not governed by chance.
    what chance does, is lengthen the evolution process.

    selective breeding is a human-created evolution process working within a much smaller timespan, because of the absence of chance.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by dejawolf
    well, the beauty of evolution is that its not governed by chance.
    Correct. However I was addressing Ezra's correct, but probably misunderstood, statement that Darwin believed in luck and chance. They are central to evolution, but they do not govern evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman Swordsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The infinite reaches of the net.
    Posts
    50
    I'm just going to touch lightly on this, using evolutionary psychology.

    It's called "god of the gaps" theory.

    I assume that everyone on this thread can be considered equally atheist in regards to Apollo, Thor, Ares, Wotan, Loki etc. Why? Simple, we filled in the gaps.

    Man kind is instincitvely programmed with a reactionary reflex that is the basis of our flight or fight mechanisms. In fact, this can still be found today, illustrated by the sudden burst of fear or tension you feel when you catch something out of the corner of your eye that looks threatening: like seing a stick on the ground and percieving it to be a snake.

    Imagine early man, just starting to explore the world about him, lying awake during a terrifying thunderstorm. Without any understanding of the lightning arcing out of the sky, he creates a explanation: somewhere, living in the sky, there must be a creature or being creating the lightning.
    Thus, the life of religion began.

    Very few are the people who worship Thor (if any). Why? We filled in the "gap" this lightning god filled, thus, we no longer have need of him, as we understand that lightning is caused by an imbalanced charge between the storm and the ground. So Thor is gone, along with any other gods who's "gaps" we have filled. The only gap we haven't filled is how everything got going, and we only need one "god" for that.
    "Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis." - As Laplace said when Napoleon wondered how the famous mathematician could write his book without mentioning God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •