NationStates Jolt Archive

If you think about the origin or religion, you come to doubt its truthfulness (or it's just me). Early man created gods as a way of explaining the unexplainable, such as natural phenomena(sp?) and strange coincedences. This practice continues today - we use a God to explain our origins and "miracles". Are these not simply unexplainable phenomena, just like other things were for early man that we can explain now, that will be explained in the far future? And it seems that we place a lot of faith in a 2000 year old book written by a few monks.

While your theory sounds good, I don't think that it will stand up to historical scrutiny. There is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived, so it's not just a "book written by a bunch of monks."

While your theory sounds good, I don't think that it will stand up to historical scrutiny. There is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived, so it's not just a "book written by a bunch of monks."

So did Muhammad and all the other "prophets" :rolleyes:

Religon was started to explain the inexplicable and as a moral tool to keep society in line; which soon turned into a reactionary political tool of the ruling class.

So did Muhammad and all the other "prophets" :rolleyes:

Religon was started to explain the inexplicable and as a moral tool to keep society in line; which soon turned into a reactionary political tool of the ruling class.

Here,here.

The bible is a mixture of geneology and ancient history. I don't think Jesus existance is disputed it's what is claimed he supposedly did concerning miracle making etc. that is questioned. he was simply a man who talked a good talk and was martyred for it.

Early man created gods as a way of explaining the unexplainable, such as natural phenomena(sp?) and strange coincedences.

religion is older than gods

While your theory sounds good, I don't think that it will stand up to historical scrutiny. There is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived, so it's not just a "book written by a bunch of monks."

There is historical and physical evidence that a certain Grettir the Viking lived. In the Saga's he is said to have wrestled a ghost and killed an enormous amount of people, and he was psychic (he had dreams of what would happen in the future). After his death was seen by a number of people and was heard reciting rhymes and poetry from his grave. These accounts are more recent than the bible.
Historians don't take all of it seriously.

People are naturally programmd to be superstitious. If we didn't accept readiy available explanations for things, we'd never get anything done. It's only when you've a stable society WITH RESOURCES LEFT OVER that you can afford to question things. until then, believing God caused that landslide won't interfere with your evacuation, so why not? Think about it - if you believed that germs were invisible demons that caused illness and could be banished by alcohol and cleaniness, you could disinfect things just as easily as if you had medical training and knew they were little organisms. If the former explanation was the only one easily available, it'll do for the moment.

At this point we have the time and energy to spare on finding more ratioal expanations for things than "God Did It". Religion was useful when we didn't have that luxury. Ofcourse that doesn't mean people haven't used it fo other things, not all of which were good *coughmandateofheavencough* but hey. That's human nature.

Here,here.

The bible is a mixture of geneology and ancient history. I don't think Jesus existance is disputed it's what is claimed he supposedly did concerning miracle making etc. that is questioned. he was simply a man who talked a good talk and was martyred for it.

According to Josephus, he was killed for starting an uprising.

That fact of the matter is that religion is not just a matter of explaining what can't be explained. In fact, even noted atheists like Alfred North Whitehead have stated that science could not have started without a Christian framework. Christianity (and most other religions) are much more than just an explaination of natural phenomena. Neither is it a matter of holding power over others. It is a way of life and a pattern of looking at the world.

While your theory sounds good, I don't think that it will stand up to historical scrutiny. There is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived, so it's not just a "book written by a bunch of monks."

Ya there was historical evidence that a man lived during that period, but thats about all we know.

We were designed to be inquisitive, and to try to understand the world around us, because our intelligence is what let us survive. Because of this, we needed an explanation for the unexplainable. That's why religion was created. "Hey, there's no obvious reason why lightning happens, maybe there's some big guy up there that makes it happen!" And that's the truth, that's how it all started.

At this point we have the time and energy to spare on finding more ratioal expanations for things than "God Did It". Religion was useful when we didn't have that luxury.

except that the kind of religions that attribute spirit or whatever to most of the things in the world and explain most events in terms of interaction between inspirited entities tend to belong to cultures with loads of free time and no shortage of resources.

There is historical and physical evidence that a certain Grettir the Viking lived. In the Saga's he is said to have wrestled a ghost and killed an enormous amount of people, and he was psychic (he had dreams of what would happen in the future). After his death was seen by a number of people and was heard reciting rhymes and poetry from his grave. These accounts are more recent than the bible.
Historians don't take all of it seriously.

Jesus is a bit of a different matter....There are numerous accounts of Jesus existence, from Persian to Roman writings, and I think I read somewhere that there are even Chinese accounts of his existence...

All I have to say is a religion itself is an instution that surrounds a faith, but it's not the faith itself. Faith is something you feel that can't be described completely. The origins of a religion are completely different than that of a faith since it's a feeling. I know y'all are probably going to try to debate that theory to the ground, but honestly, I'm fine with it. Humans have curiosity like that for a reason and my own faith is secure enough that I don't mind it.

While your theory sounds good, I don't think that it will stand up to historical scrutiny. There is historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived, so it's not just a "book written by a bunch of monks."
May I point out that religion started far before the appearance of Jesus, and therefore, he has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion?

science could not have started without a Christian framework.

Is this a joke? So, only Christian countries have science, and there was no science before the 1st century AD? Pythagoras and Archimedes were great mathematicians and scientists before Jesus was born. If science needs a Christian framework, then how can these scientists and mathematicians predate Christianity?

According to Josephus, he was killed for starting an uprising.

That fact of the matter is that religion is not just a matter of explaining what can't be explained. In fact, even noted atheists like Alfred North Whitehead have stated that science could not have started without a Christian framework. Christianity (and most other religions) are much more than just an explaination of natural phenomena. Neither is it a matter of holding power over others. It is a way of life and a pattern of looking at the world.

Lol science existed before christ and continued long after ... it is a process thats it

And far to the east... no one's mentioned on this comment how science in Asia developed without the influence of western culture, including Christianity.

The fact that ancient cultures used God as an explanation does not mean that the idea of God was derived from a need for explanation. It is a plausible idea - if you start from the axiom that there is no deity, but is a far cry from certain.

And far to the east... no one's mentioned on this comment how science in Asia developed without the influence of western culture, including Christianity.
Very true as well :-D

Jesus is a bit of a different matter....There are numerous accounts of Jesus existence, from Persian to Roman writings, and I think I read somewhere that there are even Chinese accounts of his existence...

When are they going to publish the new "PartIII: Jesus goes to china" testament?
What does the language matter? The bible is much older and you've seen what time has done to tales of Grettir the Viking, who is a much more recent figure in history. In all likelyhood a guy called Jesus lived and could do a really neat trick with a coin.
There have been many editions and the story of our beloved poetic zombie psychic viking has been told in many forms. They know where he lived, they've found evidence of battles where the books said there had been battles, they've found remains of houses where the books said they had been, and they've even found evidence of his house. But no historian believes that he wrestled ghosts...etc

I don't really see much of a difference.

Well, in some cultures Gods and Goddesses had nothing to do with explaining the unexplainable at all...Some were like a God of War, born from the blood and death of a famed and fierce battle or something like that.

Well, in some cultures Gods and Goddesses had nothing to do with explaining the unexplainable at all...Some were like a God of War, born from the blood and death of a famed and fierce battle or something like that.
Yes, but that was only after the origin of religion. People started with explanations, then went to "who can we pray to to make this stuff happen?" and they took off from there. When you go back to the very beginning, it was all explanation.

When are they going to publish the new "PartIII: Jesus goes to china" testament?
What does the language matter? The bible is much older and you've seen what time has done to tales of Grettir the Viking, who is a much more recent figure in history. In all likelyhood a guy called Jesus lived and could do a really neat trick with a coin.
There have been many editions and the story of our beloved poetic zombie psychic viking has been told in many forms. They know where he lived, they've found evidence of battles where the books said there had been battles, they've found remains of houses where the books said they had been, and they've even found evidence of his house. But no historian believes that he wrestled ghosts...etc

I don't really see much of a difference.

*sigh* Dude, I said I 'think' I read something about that, or rather saw it on the History channel. There is way too much evidence of Jesus existence. Celts told of him, Romans did, Greeks did, Persians did, Egyptians did, to say that all that stuff they wrote was some coincidental bullshit seems a tad off...

By the way, there is actually a lot of historians who have found and believe evidence that Jesus actually spent the 'lost years' in China. One reason is that his teaching's show a strong influence, or at least a strong resemblence, to Eastern philosphies such as those in Daoism. To totally discount the possibilty of his actually going to ancient China is, heh, a tad off...

Or perhaps man is born with a natural yearning to seek out and know his creator(s). Perhaps there is something inside us that is incomplete until we have God in our lives.

The explenation you have for the origin of religion is not fact, its just one possible explenation, like mine is another. If you want to base your beleif on religion on one subjectively chosen explanation, well...be my guest.

Jesus is a bit of a different matter....There are numerous accounts of Jesus existence, from Persian to Roman writings, and I think I read somewhere that there are even Chinese accounts of his existence...
We are not contesting his existance, just his holiness. That viking LIVED, he just didn't do the stuff people said he did.

Yes, but that was only after the origin of religion. People started with explanations, then went to "who can we pray to to make this stuff happen?" and they took off from there. When you go back to the very beginning, it was all explanation.

Did you build a time machine and go back to the time before there were written records/cave paintings/etc. and ask?

Well, in some cultures Gods and Goddesses had nothing to do with explaining the unexplainable at all...Some were like a God of War, born from the blood and death of a famed and fierce battle or something like that.

Aries? What about Helios? The ancient greeks used him as an explanation for the sunrise and sunset.

I think the origins of religion do have a lot to do with trying to explain the unexplainable. People today sure do feel the need to question their existence, purpose, and meaning in life. :/ I can't think any less of people back then.

And it seems that we place a lot of faith in a 2000 year old book written by a few monks.

I don't know anyone who places their faith in a book.

Anyway, religion doesn't explain the unexplainable. In Qur'an, Allah tells us that man will learn and study his universe and all of creation and we will learn everything about it through scientific discovery. It is through this discovery that we will get ever closer to Allah. Judaism, as well, strongly endorses education - especially in the sciences.

In short, Qur'an doesn't explain the unexplainable. Your assessment is wrong. Pagans had gods to explain lightning and rain and why men go bald. No way to conceivably compare Paganism and, say, Judaism.

Did you build a time machine and go back to the time before there were written records/cave paintings/etc. and ask?
It's human nature. I see no other way it could have possibly happened. If I lived back then, that's what I'd have done, as well. But now, there are explanations for all that stuff, so I see no reason other than tradition that religion still exists.

Aries? What about Helios? The ancient greeks used him as an explanation for the sunrise and sunset.

I think the origins of religion do have a lot to do with trying to explain the unexplainable. People today sure do feel the need to question their existence, purpose, and meaning in life. :/ I can't think any less of people back then.

I wasn't referring to the more popular religions such as the Greek beliefs. More along the lines of more pagan religions, where some Germanic sects of paganism (one of those nameless tribal religions) believed that their God of war arose from the blood of a fallen hero and the thousands slain in a huge battle....

It's human nature. I see no other way it could have possibly happened. If I lived back then, that's what I'd have done, as well. But now, there are explanations for all that stuff, so I see no reason other than tradition that religion still exists.

And this is all because you are beginning with the axiom that there is no God. Coming from the axiom that there is, the idea that religion exists makes perfect sense - as it is all a part of human beings trying to figure out how to interact with and get closer to a deity/multiple deities.

You see no reason other than "I can't explain X" to believe in a deity, but that is not true of all people, and it is pretty silly to project your own personal viewpoint onto all your ancient ancestors.

In short, Qur'an doesn't explain the unexplainable. Your assessment is wrong. Pagans had gods to explain lightning and rain and why men go bald. No way to conceivably compare Paganism and, say, Judaism.

You were going strong, right up until you said there was no way to compare Paganism and other religions.

Have you read Torah? There are all sorts of explanations in there that we now know the real cause of.

This does not mean, in either case, that the entire reason for the religion was to explain natural phenomena - but it is part of what ancient religions did.

Or perhaps man is born with a natural yearning to seek out and know his creator(s). Perhaps there is something inside us that is incomplete until we have God in our lives.

The explenation you have for the origin of religion is not fact, its just one possible explenation, like mine is another. If you want to base your beleif on religion on one subjectively chosen explanation, well...be my guest.
It's just a part of the explanation he gave. Why are we here? How did we get here? What made us? Needed and explanation, and made one. When you choose what religion in which you believe, you choose the one with the explanation you think is most plausible. For some, it's a single god, for some, it's multiple gods, for some, it's no god. That is exactly what we do.

I have seen it also explained in terms of an evolutionary benificial trait

Religion (weather deities exist or not) is a socialy unifying force or can potentialy be one.
Think of the advantage a group of humans would have if they had the ability to zelously unite under the banner of an abstract concept
It would give them a huge beifit as far as far as passing on thoes traits as well as just general resource advantage

(also is potentialy not dependant on the existance of a deity)

*sigh* Dude, I said I 'think' I read something about that, or rather saw it on the History channel. There is way too much evidence of Jesus existence. Celts told of him, Romans did, Greeks did, Persians did, Egyptians did, to say that all that stuff they wrote was some coincidental bullshit seems a tad off...

By the way, there is actually a lot of historians who have found and believe evidence that Jesus actually spent the 'lost years' in China. One reason is that his teaching's show a strong influence, or at least a strong resemblence, to Eastern philosphies such as those in Daoism. To totally discount the possibilty of his actually going to ancient China is, heh, a tad off...

The whole "savior" thing has made it impossible to get any accurate info, it is impossible not to have bias when studying one of the most controversial figures in history.
I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, but I doubt he turned water into wine, rose from the dead...etc.
The Egyptians said that "god" ruled their country, and they worshiped their leader like a god, yet nobody believes these rulers actually had the awesome power to make the sun rise every morning, which was their job (btw, nobody can actually "prove" beyond a shadow of doubt that the sun isn't rising due to the influence of some egyptian guy). There are ancient texts that speak of Odin, Thor and the rest of the gods as they actually existed. We've been to the peak of mount olympus and there wasn't anyone there (but there might have been some guys that could do a cool trick with a coin). There are theories that the "great oracle" was just high on natural gas...etc etc etc

Why isn't Jesus subject to these exagerations(sp?) ?

And this is all because you are beginning with the axiom that there is no God. Coming from the axiom that there is, the idea that religion exists makes perfect sense - as it is all a part of human beings trying to figure out how to interact with and get closer to a deity/multiple deities.

You see no reason other than "I can't explain X" to believe in a deity, but that is not true of all people, and it is pretty silly to project your own personal viewpoint onto all your ancient ancestors.
Hey, I just happen to be atheist. I'm basing this on how the human mind works. I could say from a Christian standpoint that people started realizing the concept of god when they figured out they could not explain certain events, and that later, even though there were explanations for the events that initiated the start of religon, they fully realised that it was quite plausible that it was this God who could use his will to create man.

There you go. Religious standpoint. But religion still started with some guy wondering how rain happened.

Have you read Torah? There are all sorts of explanations in there that we now know the real cause of.


Not really. Nothing in Torah seeks to explain lightning or why men fart or why that little dangly thing in the back of your throat is there. Pagan religions tend to have sprites or gnomes or whatever for all of those things, Judaism (as per example) doesn't.

The only thing Torah has there is Creation and even that's extremely vague at best. Even within the Big Bang ideaology, there is a point in time that we can never, ever see beyond. A limit is reached at 10^-43 seconds, during the quantum gravity era and there's still a lot of extreme speculation concerning the origins of the Universe all the way to neutrino transparency (at around 1 second post Bang). As you probably know ... in physics, 1 second is an eternity.

Torah simply says, "Hey ... it's here cuz God said so ... now on to more important things."

Torah even says there is a limit to man's knowledge and some things are best left unexplained.

"Religion" as such started when God created man. Adam always knew that God excisted, for God spoke to him. All society lived together at one point, but after they built the tower of Babel to show their greatness, God scattered them around the Earth, and different languages cultures and religions developed, mainly paganism at first.

The whole "savior" thing has made it impossible to get any accurate info, it is impossible not to have bias when studying one of the most controversial figures in history.
I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, but I doubt he turned water into wine, rose from the dead...etc.
The Egyptians said that "god" ruled their country, and they worshiped their leader like a god, yet nobody believes these rulers actually had the awesome power to make the sun rise every morning, which was their job (btw, nobody can actually "prove" beyond a shadow of doubt that the sun isn't rising due to the influence of some egyptian guy). There are ancient texts that speak of Odin, Thor and the rest of the gods as they actually existed. We've been to the peak of mount olympus and there wasn't anyone there (but there might have been some guys that could do a cool trick with a coin). There are theories that the "great oracle" was just high on natural gas...etc etc etc

Why isn't Jesus subject to these exagerations(sp?) ?


Well from what I know when the books of the new testament were writing there was still many people alive that witnessed it and if it was all a load of crap they would of said something about it and the religion would not of got very far.

Well from what I know when the books of the new testament were writing there was still many people alive that witnessed it and if it was all a load of crap they would of said something about it and the religion would not of got very far.

There were quite a few people who witnessed the pharaoh making the sun rise too. And the old custom (paganism) was dominant in Europe for many years and everyone witnessed Thor making thunder.

The *rule* is that accounts that deal with religion from this time are loads of crap with grains of truth in them. And yes most of those books and texts claim to have witnesses too and there is noone that says anything about it. We've even had Christian monks writing up pagan texts to preserve them and sometimes even "vouch" for the events described.

I've yet to hear an arguement why the bible isn't subject to the rule.

Well from what I know when the books of the new testament were writing there was still many people alive that witnessed it and if it was all a load of crap they would of said something about it and the religion would not of got very far.
Exactly. Since the beginning of Christianity, people have been twisting things up to spread it and keep it spreading. That's why if you commit suicide you go to hell--you don't want your followers killing themselves willy-nilly in a rush to get to heaven and forget to procreate in order to breed new followers. Same with homosexuality and the whole thing about birth control and abortions. So any person who is in a leading religious role is going to say he saw Jesus ascend into heaven.

Is this a joke? So, only Christian countries have science, and there was no science before the 1st century AD? Pythagoras and Archimedes were great mathematicians and scientists before Jesus was born. If science needs a Christian framework, then how can these scientists and mathematicians predate Christianity?

Many cultures observed the natural world, however it was not until the Scientific Revolution in the 16th century that science as a systematic study of the world began. Why is it that the west passed the rest of the world in this area at this point in time? Why didn't other cultures catch up until they had contact with the west? According to Whitehead, it was Christianity's insistance on on a reasonable God that allowed science based on reason to get started. Where else did this happen?

Well from what I know when the books of the new testament were writing there was still many people alive that witnessed it and if it was all a load of crap they would of said something about it and the religion would not of got very far.

Or mabye the Roman Church, the first officially founded Christian church, spiced up the bible a bit to attract new believers? Not an uncommon practice you know, people still do it to this day, we call it politics now...

Course, I like to think that Jesus was a philosopher who had studied in the East, taking in some of the beliefs of the Eastern philosophies, then moved back home, where he was rejected by the stronger powers such as the Romans because they didn't like the whole 'all men are equal' and yadah yadah yadah stuff, then once converted, the Romans tried to get as many converts as they could, but naturally, its easier to get someone to convert to a new religion if the new religion has a hero that's badder than the local god of war...

My 0.02 $ since i dont have the patience to read all these talks about the existence of God. I already read a thread with 1300 replies about this in another game. From what i saw there nobody convinced anybody.

As a non-believer (that includes God, Budha, Alah and the rest of the gang) i would still have to call religion a necesarry evil. I personnaly think the idea of a god is stupid, but still....it gives some people a sence of direction, eases their sufering in times of pain or just makes them accept death easier when its time. It has its role, but i accept it only if it doesnt come to religious intolerance, brain-washing cults that take your money or make you commit suicide or whatever may harm another. I consider it acceptable as long as it helps humans stick togheter and sets a second set of moral laws. All so that 6 billion people can live easier togheter on this planet (that doesnt actually happen anyway)

The fact that ancient cultures used God as an explanation does not mean that the idea of God was derived from a need for explanation.

This is very true. As my statistics professor liked to say, correlation does not imply causation.

correlation does not imply causation.
I hate you now. :mp5:

Sorry, nothing personal, it's just I absolutely hate and despise that line, because, even though the correlation might be just a coincidence and have no relation to the result, it still does about 99% of the time. And there's no way to prove it. :headbang:

"Religion" as such started when God created man. Adam always knew that God excisted, for God spoke to him. All society lived together at one point, but after they built the tower of Babel to show their greatness, God scattered them around the Earth, and different languages cultures and religions developed, mainly paganism at first.

serious? not? no one can tell!

serious? not? no one can tell!
Yeah, I wasn't exactly sure how to respond to that post, actually. I certainly hope they don't believe that... or that they will at least be questioning their views within a couple months on this forum. :D

I hate you now. :mp5:

Sorry, nothing personal, it's just I absolutely hate and despise that line, because, even though the correlation might be just a coincidence and have no relation to the result, it still does about 99% of the time. And there's no way to prove it. :headbang:

Sometimes. Sometimes not. There does seem to be a correlation between getting in the shower and the phone ringing. Pavlov's dogs thought that there was a correlation between the bell ringing and getting food.

This is very true. As my statistics professor liked to say, correlation does not imply causation.
Though as my stats professor said it does not PROVE causation (implication is so broad that it can be non direct implication)

If there is a god, when did humans realise it? Was a capacity for god-belief inherent from the point of origin? (evolutionary or otherwise?) Was this capacity only realised with the attainment of conceptualising abstract principles, such as language? If, conversely, god is the product of human invention, such an invention would only be achievable at a point where humans are capable of conceptualising abstract principles.

I think child development provides plenty of evidence for a human's innate willingness to believe. Only though experience is this willingness to believe tempered by rationalisation. Belief is a potential in all humans - atheism isn't an absence of belief, just a belief that there is no god.

The fear of things we cannot explain is a good argument for god-as-invention, but it doesn't explain the spiritual component of personality. Not all spirituality is god-oriented. If god is an invention, I think spiritual capacity preexists this invention. If, however, god is not invented, but realised, this spiritual capacity would be necessary for realisation to occur.

It seems as though the vast majority of people who start discussions - and I use the term loosely on these boards - decrying religion as a fraud, a farce, an embarrassment, and so on do not do so out of some genuinely kindly attempt to free people from some sort of superstitious handicap but rather because they get a rise out of it. They feel a certain sense of high-minded, elitist intellectual superiority.

This isn't directed specifically at the person who started this topic. It's more of an observation. I could say the same thing about religious fanatics as well, but just as there is religious fundamentalism, there's also a high degree of atheistic fundamentalism swarming about as well, and I find that just as dangerous.

Until we discover the meaning of life, religion is going to exist.

If you think about the origin or religion, you come to doubt its truthfulness (or it's just me). Early man created gods as a way of explaining the unexplainable, such as natural phenomena(sp?) and strange coincedences. This practice continues today - we use a God to explain our origins and "miracles". Are these not simply unexplainable phenomena, just like other things were for early man that we can explain now, that will be explained in the far future? And it seems that we place a lot of faith in a 2000 year old book written by a few monks.

Religion IS NOT primarly a way of explaining away the enviroment.