God: A History

[KingDave]

God probably arose because early humans had highly developed brains compared to their ancestors and as a result came to the correct conclusion that all things in nature that they witnessed must be caused by something. This was due to the evolutionary pressure towards developing object permanence, because believing something did not exist if it stopped registering in the sensory areas of their brains would have led to the extinction of our species. Early humans also falsely came to the conclusion that that something must be some kind of creature/being (since they had no concept of physics, etc) and since it/they could do all kinds of crazy that it/they must be all powerful. As a result, the idea that some kind of being(s) created the changes that can be observed in the world flourished and eventually created such logical fallacies as Catholicism and Islam. The creation of both of these, seem to have been supplemented with the taking of magic mushrooms and/or hallucinations caused by epileptic seizures.

Modern humans (mostly the uneducated ones) still seem unable to relinquish the idea that natural occurrences must be caused by some kind of being/creature. Its understandable, as stated above, this was highly important to not being eaten by Sabre Tooth tigers. However, evidence has been presented that all of those natural occurrences are not caused by any kind of omnipotent being. Therefore, a believe in any kind of God is illogical and believers in that ridiculous assumption must be shunned. God has no place in modern society.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
The King.

[GenWolfe]

I always found it kinda funny that people believed in gods before they ever knew that the real god existed. And by real gods I mean the fake ones that some believe in today.

When I was younger I used to be afraid of the dark because I was sure that some monster or ghost would get me. I didn't know any better, as I got older and learned that the monsters and ghost were simple a figment of my imagination and now I sleep well every night.

It seems people are flawed in the sense that we seem to jump to mystical conclusions when we plunge into the realm of the unknown.

[Poach]

Religion (in all forms) came about as a pre-science method of explaining the existance of both humanity and the world. Primitive mankind could not explain natural phenomenon like the sun rising and falling, earthquakes, rain etc and so attributed them to a power greater than themselves. It is a well known human trait to try to get onto the good side of that which has the power to aid or harm us, thus the early humans began attempting to befriend this greater power through worship and thus religion was born.

Over time, ceremonies, rites and codes of conduct arose and thus the modern concept of religion was born. Religion is woven into society's fabric, it is a manmade doctrine catering to mankind's fears and insecurities and that is why people continue to believe.

To be honest, there's nothing wrong with personal religion. When people politicise it and try to use it for their own gain or agendas or force it upon others it becomes a problem. Unfortunately for us, religion is very often used by people to justify forcing (or attemtping to force) their own views on everyone else.

[KingDave]

To be honest, there's nothing wrong with personal religion. When people politicise it and try to use it for their own gain or agendas or force it upon others it becomes a problem. Unfortunately for us, religion is very often used by people to justify forcing (or attemtping to force) their own views on everyone else.

The first part of what you said is repeating me and making some mistakes doing it. This next bit is very wrong. Religion promotes illogical thought, such as the belief in aliens and/or big foot. It is not needed in any shape or form in a modern society.

[GenWolfe]

The first part of what you said is repeating me and making some mistakes doing it. This next bit is very wrong. Religion promotes illogical thought, such as the belief in aliens and/or big foot. It is not needed in any shape or form in a modern society.

It may seem illogical to us and I agree that I think the world would be a better place without it. However we do not have the right to tell people what to believe or not to believe in. As humans continue to discover the workings of our world, the universe and ourselves religion will have less unknowns to grasp on to.

[SigniferOne]

At the risk of dignifying this insulting thread with a response, I'll hazard to say a few words:

God probably arose because early humans had highly developed brains compared to their ancestors and as a result came to the correct conclusion that all things in nature that they witnessed must be caused by something.

"probably arose"? This out of your great sociological knowledge?

This was due to the evolutionary pressure towards developing object permanence, because believing something did not exist if it stopped registering in the sensory areas of their brains would have led to the extinction of our species.

"Evolutionary pressure"?

Do you even know how evolution friggin' works? It does not work within a generation, but across generations. Acquired traits are of no consequence.

Modern humans (mostly the uneducated ones) still seem unable to relinquish the idea that natural occurrences must be caused by some kind of being/creature.

Modern atheists still seem unable to relinquish the idea that they are not more intelligent.

I have been up and down through this subforum. Pretty much all of the atheists admitted that they don't care to learn philosophy or any kind of high thinking, and their views on issues were filled with logical fallacies.

However, evidence has been presented that all of those natural occurrences are not caused by any kind of omnipotent being.

Evidence? You're talking to me about evidence? The leading science of today posits that the Universe at a certain point came out of nothing, and that time and space (our three dimensions) were created with it. Then you've got moral conscience which contravenes our evolutionary instincts at every level, and free will which is metaphysically impossible in a deterministic universe.

Let me guess, deterministic pseudo-scientific materialism was really the only viable alternative in your cocoon, wasn't it.

God, I swear that I have to repeat these arguments every time some new-fangled atheist comes up here thinking he's got the newest mighty realizations which disprove religion. Then, when faced with logic and rational facts, dethroned from this pompous perspective he slinks away only to be replaced by another new-fangled atheist comes up clamoring that he's found another new way.

Thank you for your time.

You're welcome.

[KingDave]

At the risk of dignifying this insulting thread with a response, I'll hazard to say a few words:

"probably arose"? This out of your great sociological knowledge?

"Evolutionary pressure"?

Do you even know how evolution friggin' works? It does not work within a generation, but across generations. Acquired traits are of no consequence.

You seem to have confused what I said. Please reread it. I have no made any mistakes in my discussion of evolutionary pressures. And my proposition about how God arose is shared by numerous evolutionary psychologists. Please review the literature on the subject before mistaking what I'm saying for lacking evidence.

Evidence? You're talking to me about evidence? The leading science of today posits that the Universe at a certain point came out of nothing, and that time and space (our three dimensions) were created with it. You also have no explanation for our moral conscience which contravenes our evolutionary instincts at every level, and no explanation for free will which is metaphysically impossible in a deterministic universe.

Morality does not contravene evolution. Altruism is a trait that has been proven to help contribute to the passing of one's genes to the next generation. Take Prairie Dogs. Often one will stand guard in an elevated location and when it sees a predator will emit a loud noise which warns the others of the attack and tells them to run for their holes. However, since the guard is higher up and therefore farther from the safety of its subterranean dwelling, it is more likely to be killed. However, overall, the entire pack (likely comprised of at least several individuals with the same genetic material) is more likely to avoid being predated and the guard gives every other prairie dog a chance to escape that they may not have otherwise. Isn't that a precursor to this morality that you seem to think is so impossible? You see, evolution does not work towards the survival of the individual but to the survival of the species as a whole. You seem to have had this confused. Please review basic evolutionary theory.

As for the Universe forming. Great. So there's no current concensus on how the Universe formed. Does that mean that it must have been God's doing? No. There is no evidence God created the Universe and therefore it is illogical to believe he did.

God, I swear that I have to repeat this every time some new-fangled atheist comes up here thinking he's got the newest mighty realizations which disprove religion. Then, when faced with logic and rational facts, dethroned from this pompous perspective he he slinks away only to be replaced by another new-fangled atheist comes up clamoring that he's found another new way.


You're welcome.

Furthermore, God is not a logical or rational fact and you will not be dethroning me anytime soon.

Cheers,
The King.

I'm pretty sure this exact topic has been written on, in book form, by someone much more educated and literate than the OP.

Oh, yes, here it is: A History of God by Karen Armstrong.

Damn. Someone beat me to it? I was gonna publish my work. Make it look like a bible and sneak it into Sunday schools so the youth of tomorrow would KNOW the TRUTH.

[SigniferOne]

You seem to have confused what I said. Please reread it. I have no made any mistakes in my discussion of evolutionary pressures.

You have made a major mistake in your discussion of evolutionary pressures. You have said that the concept of God was a new development spurred by the need for "object permanence", without which humans would have perished. On how many levels is this wrong, I can't begin to count. First of all the case of the first man's realization about the 'object permanence' of God would've had no relevance to those after him, because evolution does not transmit acquired characteristics. What you're talking about is demanding a wholesale brain mutation in the whole of the human race which transformed them from beings without such an 'object permance' to those with it. And, what sort of 'humans' were those people without or before 'object permanence'? You make absolutely no sense! It gets worse when you say that without it humanity would've perished. Really? Life requires 'object permanence'? Those poor animals, millions of species of them, are on the brink of extinction, never having acquired man's conceptual consciousness!

And my proposition about how God arose is shared by numerous evolutionary psychologists. Please review the literature on the subject before mistaking what I'm saying for lacking evidence.

Really? Evolutionary psychologists who have a lot of understanding in history, sociology, and anthropology? How embarassing if this is your source. Motiv-8's Karen Armstrong, an actual historian of religion, writes very honestly on p4:

"It is impossible to prove this one way or the other. There have been many theories about the origin of religion".

Morality does not contravene evolution. Altruism is a trait that has been proven to help contribute to the passing of one's genes to the next generation. Take Prairie Dogs. Often one will stand guard in an elevated location and when it sees a predator will emit a loud noise which warns the others of the attack and tells them to run for their holes.

Altruism is not just helping others, but helping others at the expense of yourself. A prairie dog that would willingly throw itself to the predators to allow the members of its pack escape. Have we observed that? I am sorry but you not only not understand evolution but morality and altruism as well. I would recommend avoiding confident tones of statement on these issues in the future.

As for the Universe forming. Great. So there's no current concensus on how the Universe formed.

No there is. It is a basic, mainstream, scientific fact. The Universe was formed out of nothing, at a fairly precise point in history, and time and space were created along with it.

Do you get the logical fallacy you just committed? By saying that there was no consensus you liked, no consensus existed.

[KingDave]

You have made a major mistake in your discussion of evolutionary pressures. You have said that the concept of God was a new development spurred by the need for "object permanence", without which humans would have perished. On how many levels is this wrong, I can't begin to count. First of all the case of the first man's realization about the 'object permanence' of God would've had no relevance to those after him, because evolution does not transmit acquired characteristics. What you're talking about is demanding a wholesale brain mutation in the whole of the human race which transformed them from beings without such an 'object permance' to those with it. And, what sort of 'humans' were those people without or before 'object permanence'? You make absolutely no sense! It gets worse when you say that without it humanity would've perished. Really? Life requires 'object permanence'? Those poor animals, millions of species of them, are on the brink of extinction, never having acquired man's conceptual consciousness!

I see where I went wrong. This is simply fixed. Our complex minds, combined with the idea that things did not just disappear if they did no register in our sensory cortex (which actually evolved much earlier than humans and is found in the majority of mammals) caused us to believe that there was a force behind every action (which was a correct assumption). That force, not knowing anything except what could be easily observed, was thought to be some kind of being.

Does that make more sense for you? Indeed, when our ancestors, the first mammals, were confined to the perilous life of a nocturnal animal, the idea that everything had a cause, pretty much saved us from extinction. This idea (agency detection mechanisms, I believe it is called more scientifically) is the basis for religion.

Altruism is not just helping others, but helping others at the expense of yourself. A prairie dog that would willingly throw itself to the predators to allow the members of its pack escape. Have we observed that? I am sorry but you not only not understand evolution but morality and altruism as well. I would recommend avoiding confident tones of statement on these issues in the future.

Did I not just say that? The prairie dog puts itself at a greater risk by standing look out in an elevated location. Not literally throwing itself at a predator but figuratively so.

I hate it when religious folk are so close minded.

[Chlodwig I.]

Did I not just say that? The prairie dog puts itself at a greater risk by standing look out in an elevated location. Not literally throwing itself at a predator but figuratively so.

I hate it when religious folk are so close minded.

Sorry but it has nothing to do with religon

but with precision

If you want to discuss (nature) sciences you need to be precisely

2+2 =4 not 4,1 or 3,9 or something like that,
it is 4

[SigniferOne]

Did I not just say that? The prairie dog puts itself at a greater risk by standing look out in an elevated location. Not literally throwing itself at a predator but figuratively so.

The prairie dogs standing at an elevated position can be explained by a number of different factors, so no simple and unambiguous conclusion can be derived from that behavior.

I'll ask a simpler question: have we ever observed prairie dogs literally throwing themselves at predators? Yes or no?

[motiv-8]

I'm pretty sure this exact topic has been written on, in book form, by someone much more educated and literate than the OP.

Oh, yes, here it is: A History of God by Karen Armstrong.

[motiv-8]

Actually... Armstrong reaches none of the inanity that you have put on display and her conclusons are much more sophisticated...

For example, she doesn't go off on tangents about prairie dogs in some sort of attempt to describe an evolutionary process of altruism. None of that silliness.

[KingDave]

Actually... Armstrong reaches none of the inanity that you have put on display and her conclusons are much more sophisticated...

For example, she doesn't go off on tangents about prairie dogs in some sort of attempt to describe an evolutionary process of altruism. None of that silliness.

Thank you for your input. However, with a little checking I have found you have a BA in History. This may be why evolution confuses you, because you wasted 4 years of your life. I was giving a clear example of how altruism can exist in terms of evolution. If you would like I can further explain the basics of evolution to you. Feel free to ask any question you would like.

Cheers,
The King.

Also, I just looked up that book "A History of God". It has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology. Which is what was being discussed, so either you never read it or are a retard. motiv-8, can you please refrain from commenting on things that are clearly over your head. Thanks.

[motiv-8]

I wonder how much time you have wasted in the formulation of these weak arguments?

I, at least, learned better than to use historical myths to "help" my claims, so it appears that time wasted is an uncertain premise.

The creation of both of these, seem to have been supplemented with the taking of magic mushrooms and/or hallucinations caused by epileptic seizures.

Everyone is an "expert"... on the Internet.

Also, I just looked up that book "A History of God". It has nothing to do with evolutionary psychology. Which is what was being discussed

I'm pretty sure everyone can read the thread title, entitled "God: A History," strangely the same as "A History of God." The original post which followed was a slapped together chain of ideas of, well, the history of God in the human creation. It would stand to reason that if another person, more informed on the subject matter, had written the same thing, but better, it should be shared. You don't have to get get so hurt over somebody else doing the work better.

[KingDave]

Here, a source discussing pretty much everything that has come up so far.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articl...9_religion.htm

[Chlodwig I.]

God probably arose because early humans had highly developed brains compared to their ancestors and as a result came to the correct conclusion that all things in nature that they witnessed must be caused by something. This was due to the evolutionary pressure towards developing object permanence, because believing something did not exist if it stopped registering in the sensory areas of their brains would have led to the extinction of our species. Early humans also falsely came to the conclusion that that something must be some kind of creature/being (since they had no concept of physics, etc) and since it/they could do all kinds of crazy that it/they must be all powerful. As a result, the idea that some kind of being(s) created the changes that can be observed in the world flourished and eventually created such logical fallacies as Catholicism and Islam. The creation of both of these, seem to have been supplemented with the taking of magic mushrooms and/or hallucinations caused by epileptic seizures.

Modern humans (mostly the uneducated ones) still seem unable to relinquish the idea that natural occurrences must be caused by some kind of being/creature. Its understandable, as stated above, this was highly important to not being eaten by Sabre Tooth tigers. However, evidence has been presented that all of those natural occurrences are not caused by any kind of omnipotent being. Therefore, a believe in any kind of God is illogical and believers in that ridiculous assumption must be shunned. God has no place in modern society.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
The King.

Insulting religious people isn't a good way to start a topic.


But you are wrong
There is no proof that "natural occurrences" are not caused by a omnipotent being
because it can't be proofed.
Nature Sciences are limited
Limited by the nature, so they are unable to proof anything that (could) exists outside this natural setting......and a omnipotent god is supposed to be outside this setting.
At the moment you can't proof or disproof the idea of a god with natural sciences

You say
God has no place in modern society

William Shakespeare has no place inside Romeo and Juliet
Does that mean he hasn't written it?

[KingDave]

But you are wrong
There is no proof that "natural occurrences" are not caused by a omnipotent being
because it can't be proofed.
Nature Sciences are limited
Limited by the nature, so they are unable to proof anything that (could) exists outside this natural setting......and a omnipotent god is supposed to be outside this setting.
At the moment you can't proof or disproof the idea of a god with natural sciences

See the ridiculous and hilarious argument for the existence of a pink unicorn. Because really, your claim for a God still lacks any kind of proof. You should also review the scientific method.

Here's a stab at metaphysics, if this being exists outside of the natural world, how can he have any affect on it?

[KingDave]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...8/fulltext.pdf

Here, a paper discussing in more detail what I touched on briefly in this forum.

[Ummon]

This God: a personal opinion thread seems very interesting.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...8/fulltext.pdf

Here, a paper discussing in more detail what I touched on briefly in this forum.

Indeed, there are plenty of papers on those issues.