aha, but first you have to prove that man created godPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Which god? If gods in general, then I'd have to say the first, to try and explain the unknown. If it's some of the later religions, then you may be more correct in saying control was the reason.
The idea of god, like every other concept, evolved. It likely began as a worship or mysticism around fire, death and the growing seasons. In that case, it originated for the purpose of explaining otherwise unexplainable phenomenon. You say it was to control the masses. More likely, it developed as man desired a sense of being able to control his own future. Early humans (and evidence points to neanderthals as well) would have greatly wished to be able to affect the growing seasons which dictated their life. Praying and sacrificing would have made them believe they had this power.
Turduckin; No arguement is necessary. Unless you are about to take up the position that every god ever believed in by any human being is real. Somethin' tells me you ain't about to do that, though.
The assumption here is that god(s) are just a result of human imagination and have no basis in reality. With that assumption in mind then what did those who created such ideas have in mind? Of particular interest is Christianity where there is evidence that texts that did not conform were burnt, and in fact whole libraries were destroyed. I believe tha massive library at Alexandria was one such crime. But even those who chose the books of the bible were openly re-writing and editing texts to suit what they wanted to claim. What was it that those early creators of the religion expected to gain? Can we assume power and wealth, and if so what evidence can we find?
I agree Cris. I also think that it started in the first place,to explain what man did not understand,but soon changed,to a tool to control the masses.
Pardon the rant. It's my first. Actually, just a little - I'm of the much maligned 'commond thread' school. I'm just apalled by the number of assumptions underlying this overly-broad statement. Like the proverbial blind men touching an elephant in different locations and declaring 'this is what an elephant looks like', we argue back and forth about the existance or non-existance of God without experiencing enough about the underlying nature. We are only left with either a)rationalisms that cannot make a valid statement one way or the other, or b) metaphors and allegories which, while self-limiting, allow some comparative understanding. All the evidence is indirect and subjective. and the 'logical thinking mind' - the ego, can't stand that. How can you say that you understand something if you are not willing to use the full measure of the mind you have in your skull. There are other parts to the human mind - The primitive reptilian mind probably centered around the limbic system. The subconscious mind that communicates in signs, symbols, dreams, visions and emotions. Perhaps even a spiritual mind. Each of these minds has it's own function and processes and insight. But in order to think with those minds, the logical mind - the ego - has to get out of the way. And it doesn't want to. It would rather come up with any reason rather than die the sacrificial death - everything from "The only answers are rational, everything else is superstition" to "religion must be eradicated". The fear is generated by the ego's desire to live at any cost. Like a yammering little speck of a demon, it puffs itself up and blocks any attempt at a greater understanding than it is capable of providing. It's overweening mantra is "I MUST BE RIGHT, I MUST BE RIGHT...." So the infinitesimal mind has the arrogance to say - "prove it in my terms or it must be fantasy, and you must be wrong", when in fact, It doesn't want to know the answer. It will never do what needs to be done to find the answer. The most weaselly response of the ego is that "Since no one can see the truth, everyone must be wrong". (and, by implication, I'm the only one that's got it right.) Horse Puckys! Again, all the evidence is indirect and subjective. So God has to be tracked. But tracking implies that you want to find the thing you are tracking. So it constantly amazes me how many people who claim that religion is a fantasy have so much to say about it. If you believe that God did not create the universe, then why do you waste your time arguing about it? You will never find God because you aren't looking for him - so sit back and enjoy your self fullfilling prophesy. If you truly didn't care, why would you post inane questions like this one? If you are an athiest, why are you asking about religion or God? It's all been said before, over and over again ad nauseum. Blackstone - you are right. Religion is a tool to control the masses, but only for people who worship control of the masses. People create their own realities. But not all realities are equal - that's why we have Darwin awards. I understand that just because religion exists doesn't make it right. What frustrates me is that true intellectual and spiritual growth is sacrificed at the alter of fear. The fear of being wrong. In that regard, as much as I believe in evolution, I believe that rational man is an evolutionary dead-end. Our logic prevents us from seeing the ultimate consequences of the way we think and behave, and therefore it will eventually destroy us. Hopefully, the meek shall indeed inherit the earth. "The thing that sets us apart is not that we are unable to find God, either in history, or in nature, or behind nature--but that we regard what has been honoured as God, not as "divine," but as pitiable, as absurd, as injurious; not as a mere error, but as a crime against life" Nietzsche - The Antichrist
"Like the proverbial blind men touching an elephant..." This is just my little thing but.....that's not proverbial. I believe the elephant thing comes from a poem. Not a proverb. "we argue back and forth about the existance or non-existance of God" Comparing it to the elephant poem is not a wise link. The elephant poem sets out to show that perhaps all religions/spiritualities and the such are understanding only part of the whole and declaring it the whole. This has nothing to do with the existence of non-existance of god. There is no logical reason to believe in god. If you want to compare religion and atheism to the elephant poem, you'd have to take out the elephant (not because I assert that god definetly does not exist - but because there is no logical reason to...). The next two paragraphs you wrote are totally off-topic and seemingly just rantings. "If you believe that God did not create the universe, then why do you waste your time arguing about it?" If someone came on a debate forum and said they had physical proof the world was flat would you debate them to prove them wrong? Why bother, you already know the world isn't flat? "you truly didn't care, why would you post inane questions like this one?" 1) How dare you assert I don't care. Try not to make so many gross assumptions in one post when you argue that I (or, Redoubtable) have done the same. 2) This question concerns the nature of man. Some people are intersted in the nature of man. And I don't really know what you're saying is of any relevance after that.
Common usage has turned it into a proverb. I never read the poem, but am familiar with the image. That is the reason I chose it. It was the point I was trying to make. There is an underlying whole that using just rational argument will never reveal. I agree - if I were to limit myself only to logic, then there is no logical formulation for belief in God. But does it neccessarily follow that there is no logical reason to limit the argument to logic. Talk about God REQUIRES that a style of thinking other than logic. That was the point of the rant that you don't seem to be able to entertain, whether its correct or incorrect, which is why you said: Thank you for using the term 'seemingly'. That was polite. And I admitted up front that it was a rant. Please accept that as an apology. I'm visiting to see how far modern thought has evolved. From where I sit, it hasn't made it to far past "Cogito, Ergo Sum" Nice editing job. You left out the IF... I proposed that "IF you truly didn't care, why would you post..." The obvious answer is that you DO care. Take the twist out of your shorts. Of course it concerns the nature of man. But I'm saying that you don't understand the nature of man. If you did, you would not have dismissed that whole middle part as an irrelevent rant. Don't worry, that's just your logical mind trying to save it's own skin.
Man created some Gods... Man created some Gods, because he was afraid to go into the forest without protection, or dive deep into the ocean, or climb high upon a mountain. Man created some Gods, because he wanted to give thanks for all the good things in life, to have a reason for feeling so good, and to explain the perfection around him that once existed in Nature. Man created some Gods, because he got bored being an atheist, and he wanted to argue in behalf of God. Then, God created woman. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It was a test ! It was a test ! A test to check whether what God understood about creating the most beautiful and intricate creature, is all correct ! The only place his program failed is in imparting the knowledge of truth ! And may be a bit of doubt also on the intentions of the human kind after reaching the truth ! So we are still in doubt and look at me I am publishing a bad comment about him here !! Sorry this is what I felt ! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
An apology Tyler and Blackstone, Please excuse my rather boorish intrusion into your poll with my rave. It really would have been more appropriate to post the thought elsewhere.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Turduckin, Nice to see you rant a little. Very refreshing. I wish everyone's rants here were as polite. So I owe you a response in the math thread - I'll get to it. In the meantime. Or show something more than speculation, otherwise you can't claim you know anything for sure, especially as your mind is equally infinitesimal. Perhaps some don't want to know and are happy with their position. But there are many who genuinely search for truth and look for the best methods that have been proven reliable. You mean they won't do what you consider needs to be done. What gives you the authority to say what is the correct method? Correction, alleged evidence. If it were acceptable evidence then there wouldn't be a debate. But indirect and subjective? How about vague, imprecise, imaginative, speculative, etc. You start with a closed minded presumption that an alleged god already exists. You really mean the 'idea of a god' must be tracked, right? It is not possible to track a fantasy. There has to be something more substantial before tracking can begin. Perhaps that is because you may not be able to understand a different attitude than your won. But it isn't religion that is the fantasy, unfortunately religion is very real and for many of us it represents a real danger to humanity and to the progress of humanity. It is the object of religion that many of us see as fantasy, i.e. the unsupported speculation of a supernatural realm. Your statement shows your difficulty understanding a different perspective. The issue of a god fantasy is largely irrelevant; it is the irrational people who try to impose their religious ideas and lifestyles on others that many of us find so repugnant. It is impossible to find something that doesn't exist. Why look for a fantasy? Perhaps because some of us are more than atheists, perhaps some of us want a society free of the imposition that religions place on human progress. Perhaps it is a quest to understand the mind of the theist and religionist so that we can more effectively oppose what they support. I don't see that exercising the discipline of critical thought is giving in to fear. It takes effort to think and reason for oneself and significant courage to face the expectation of death without anything on the other side no matter how attractive religions appear. I agree. Man must move to a new level beyond his current significant limitations. Many groups are now forming throughout the world with the specific hope and intention of seeing posthumanism become a reality. It is our logic that specifically frees us from making the tragic errors that have permeated religious thinking throughout the ages. It is our rationality that allows us to see and detect truth with clarity that religions can never achieve. Logic is the most disciplined form of thought currently devised by man. It may not always be perfect but anything less will always be prone to significant error. It is the ability of critical thought that will free us from the bondage and repression of religion, and eventually condemn religion to the trashcan where it belongs. When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it. -- John Adams, from Rufus K. Noyes, Views of Religion, quoted from from James A. Haught, ed., 2000 Years of Disbelief
Re: Pardon the rant. It's my first. Others might say that, in the case of theists, the illusion of true intellectual and spiritual growth is fabricated at the alter of ignorance. I suspect that this is an over-generalization. But I also know that it is preposterous to presume that intellectial and spiritual growth must be predicated upon the belief in God(s).
I suspect that the poll options say more about your baggage than about myth creation. Too bad, it could have been an interesting discussion.
Jan, Well the idea exists and has been voiced by humans so presumably it was their idea, especially since no other intelligent species is apparent, and chimps, apes and dolphins just don't appear to be sufficiently vocal.
