What is the history of religion? Who invented them? Why did they pop up?
>>380359
Ancient peoples who need someway of explaining the natural phenomena around them.
>>380359
In a broader sense, religion is an extension of tribalism. Yes, we might live separately, but if we believe the same things then maybe I can still trust you
Spooky shit is real, and ancient peoples needed a way to explain it.
Also, gods and spirits and shit are real, and they talked to people. That helped too.
>inb4 go back to /x/
YOU CAN'T SILENCE THE TRUTH
>>380359
this might surprise you but humans naturally generate bullshit. there is no more reason to it than dropping dead skin cells.
>>380359
One reason that language evolved was to replace the extremely social nature of grooming in primate groups. As the population grew, religion would ensure the individuals within that expanded group would still have a strong social bond to its community.
our social culture and rapid expansion required language and religion from an early point.
>>380359
Originally it was to honor the dead. It's pretty easy to extrapolate from there
>>380359
Into the trash they go
>>380359
>>385263
Catholicism in a nutshell
>>385263
Retarded comic, but funny
>>380359
Unless Hegel was influenced by gnosticism I'm inclined to believe that there is something out there which Gnostics have gained insight into.
Though reading CJ, I find myself inclined to believe that just as evolution made men in physical appearance to be like one another, consciousness also evolved in the species to be similar in certain respects; hence why all the belief of father sun, mother moon, etc.
Either that, or again, there is something gnostics are feeling that can't be accessed with the 5 senses.
>>386885
What the hell are you talking about?
>>385263
lel
>>388781
it's amazing. i read it and my mind goes completely blank. try it. is this nirvana?
>>380359
Is there any rebuttal to this, christfags?
>>380359
>Why did they pop up?
because we have a tendency towards the divine, just like we have a tendecy to find patterns and knowing the world
>>391344
Can you explain why every human culture has religion of some sort, but no religion to date has cropped up twice independently with the same accounts?
To me this seems like very strong evidence for religion as an evolutionary adaptation or side-effect rather than anything true, because it raises the question; why are only YOUR people 'enlightened'? Why didn't God speak to other cultures and give them his word?
>>391351
every religion is essentially saying the same but using its own unique language to express the idea ;^)
A lot of people need to believe in something.
My parents are Lutheran, and when I abandoned the religion we got into a lot of debates and arguments. My mother cannot refute any of my arguments, and when I ask her why she continues to believe it's always the simple response: "I want to believe, I want to think that I'll be able to see my parents again."
>>380359
well, wipe mankind from the earth and let the next species take the point - whether is monkeys, dolphins, dogs or cats
what will they do after trying to understand what happened previously and what comes next and fail miserably:
>accept it was something greater than them that lived before and created and perfect them to the point they are able to think
>accept that they don't know anything and stay in the dark for several millennia until science finally kicks in
i'm pretty sure what would i choose... a sweet lie is always preferable to a grim dark solitude
>>391572
>a grim dark solitude
Go make some friends, anon (imaginary ones don't count)
>>391333
>muh faith
>>380359
It's a natural human inclination, that's why we see religion in every single human culture across the globe.
Religious ideation doesn't even have to take the form of what we would recognize as traditional religious worship. That's how pervasive and natural it is for us.
It's like breathing.
>actually thinks religion is about faith and "explaining the world"
You're the same people who try to explain ISIS with Quran quotes, right? Get a grip you white fools.
Religion originally developed as a method for controlling violence within a community.
Before the gods or other mythological explanations, comes the ritual. First of all sacrifice, which exists in every primitive culture everywhere. Sacrifice is about assigning blame to a scapegoat for all the violence and conflict that exists within the community, and then eliminating that scapegoat, which makes it possible for the members of the community to continue living with each other without excessive resentment or vengeance. You no longer have to take revenge on your brother for wronging you or vice-versa, because the scapegoat was the one responsible. Without this and similar purifying mechanisms, primitive societies quickly self-destroy in a bloodbath.
It's only later that divinity is attributed to the scapegoat, since he has the power to either destroy or save the community.
>>380359
>"Religion was invented when the first conman met the first fool." - Mark Twain
>>392814
Well, organized religion anyway.
>>392552
Isn't Jung a new age spiritualist?
>>380359
People wanted to control the world and events beyond their physical reach. Their lives and survival depended on a blind luck and they tried to bribe higher forces and fix the odds in their favour.
>>395778
He accidentally invented New Age with his body Campbell. You could call him a respectable type of New Ager and you could call him spiritual. That isn't to say he believed in Atlantis but he beleived the story of Atlantis has spiritual wisdom.
>>385263
>I have autism so my mind can't comprehend theological principles, the meanings of religious parables, nor can it compare religious teachings across religions: the post
>>396256
>4chin is srs biz, no funnie allowed!: The post
>>380359
Religion probably sprung up from the animism of prehistory.
Nobody 'invented' religiosity, it emerged organically. I think it can be best though of as an artifact of human cognitive formatting interacting with emotional biases.
Religion as an institution is mostly contingent on the sophistication of institutions in general, within a society and culture.
>>380359
religion first appeared when people started first started to think things like
>what in the fuck is going?"
>what am i even doing here?"
>seriously you guys whats all that shit in the nigth sky"
and lets not forget the big one wich was probably the cause for gaia worship i.e mother earth wich is a essential part of Animism wich is considered the earliest religion
>huh i appears like the world is random chaos but at closer inspection its perfectly balanced where each indivdual part is more or less essential for the whole to function why is that?
as of how religions came to be over all early humans probably rationalized their obeservations of the natural order of things that coupled with a tireless study and mapping of the movements of the heavenly bodies probably led early humans to belive in intelligente design wich is probably the cause of all other religions
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." - Werner Heisenberg
Religion is based on folk tales and myths that were eventually co-opted by rulers and institutions with the rise of civilization (thus organized religion) because it had its various benefits. I like to think of the pagan gods as representing Ideals like Fertility, Victory, Love, etc., but also physical elements/phenomena but not in a naive sense as a replacement for science. I think people on the contrary were quite cynical about their gods. It becomes evident that religion was rarely something authentic since rulers changed religions and tried to synthesize others all the time in accordance with their conquests and subjects. As a result it became a tool and symbol of geopolitics, similar to how "American culture" was treated during the cold war, or religion itself to this day. It's not a coincidence that schisms were heavily political. Later on it became strongly associated with national identity with the rise of nationalism where the Balkans serve as a good example.
>>392217
>Islamic State is not Islamic
Kill yourself
>>396418
well the word islam is literally derived from a word that means peace so i would say no :^)
>>396475
Their leader has a PhD in Islamic Studies from Baghdad University
>>397698
Kim Jong Un has a PhD in Economics. Tell me how great the Korean Democratic Peoples Republic economy is. Degrees mean jack shit.
>>396256
>i am butthurt about a funny comic: the poster
>entertainer who pretends he is a philosopher
>>396475
this is b8
Islam means submission to God.
>>398051
Islam means just submission, and is meant to be understood like stoicism.
You made peace with things beyond your control and just seek to be the best possible man.
>>398061
You mean you submit to God's plan.
![peace[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/f72SgHY.jpg "peace[1].jpg")
>>396475
>the word islam is literally derived from a word that means peace
So fucking what? That proves nothing. Lot's of people mention peace
I think it's the extreme of wishing. No one invented it, it probably started as the first human become aware of itself, it wished things to do as it pleased. As things turned out differently they said it was a higher power.
Older religions probably were ancient PR campaigns that set up the social structure as the wishing things was something shared by everyone.
Modern versions are probably developed into what they are (organized religion) by building on the unchecked knowledge from the past as complete devotion and avoiding questioning was part of all religions.
One thing I hate is that people tend to forget that organized religion (I'm not questioning the existence of god and stuff) is just something we developed. Best example is probably sects of Islam, like Hanafi, Maliki and such. They were creations and interpretations made by men, but if you want to create your own today, you are branded as heretic. That's why modern versions of religions are kinda dangerous.
This ended up more incoherent than I thought it would, but whatever.
>>380359
|you welcome dude....
>>398391
>green text autism
I cringed
Just your daily reminder that atheism is LITERALLY a symptom of autism.
>>400435
The study you're referring to doesn't say you are 500 or even 5 times more likely to an atheist if you are autistic.
It doesn't say ALL atheists are autistic it says there is a connection sort of like how there is a connection between being Christian and having a lower IQ.
>>398040
>common sense is philosophy
Religion is a natural response to the otherworldly and the supernatural. As long as the inexplicable happens, we'll need religion.
>>392309
This. It should be reminded that without this "domestication" of human nature performed by religion, there would be no civilization, no human society, so people who say that religion is a bad thing because the metaphysics of Christianity or Islam doesn't actually fit modern scientific understanding of the universe should really just shut up.
PS: The image in OP's post exhibits such a crude understanding of science, is that what people really think nowadays? That science is a "thing", not a method, and that it is literally "true"?
>>402751
Science can also refer to the body of knowledge gathered through the scientific method and known to be probably true
>>400357
>cringing about greentext
>uses greentext
I cringed
>>402802
Green text stories are /b/-tier autism
>>401922
>shutting down portions of your brain raise IQ
>>403062
Source?
>>403076
My ass
>>396394
This is the best answer
>>396370
>"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." - Werner Heisenberg
I think what he meant here was "I was raised indoctrinated and the mind control is too powerful to break free"
Religion is a natural response to the mysteries of existence. How autistic do you have to be to believe someone "invented" belief in higher things.
>>391333
I got about 5 minutes to kill.
As stated in the quote, "there might be some other nonsense in its place." Throughout world history, almost every culture independent of one another has developed some sort of divine myth or "nonsense" as one might see it. There are different explanations offered as to why this could be the case, but it's interesting how hardwired faith seems to be in humanity. Even athiests have to come forth and reject any notion of the divine. It's not entirely unreasonable to believe that there could be some kind of force pushing humanity to that conclusion. Of course, that's not any proof in of itself.
>but different interpretations
It's likely impossible for man to know the nature of the divine, presuming it exists. Working off of that presumption, it's possible that every single religion is wrong to a varying extent about this. People like to assert that their belief is correct, but they have no better of an idea than any anon on this board.
>>406764
Or "oh shit I'm getting old, please save me magic man in the sky"
>>406834
Tips fedora
>>406842
>>380359
Myth was the precursor to science.
Humans liked to tell stories, and most stories told had to do with other humans, therefore we liked to personify. When trying to describe forces of gravity, that big ball of fire in the sky, the fruitful earth, etc. we personified them, and respected them for providing for us and protecting us. Polytheism came to be. What screwed it all up was cults, some groups would choose a patron god and say their god was more powerful than the other gods (its said to have started with Atenism). You see similar stories with all monotheistic beliefs. Zoroastrianism came from Persian mythology, then a prophet said only one god was king of gods. Judaism did the same, the god many worship today was chosen from a pantheon of gods for political reasons, and its like a war demon or something. I believe Islam has its own patron god that represented the moon as well and is also a god of war. This trend was also present in European mythology, you can see Tyr being replaced with Woden as the king of gods simply because more people chose Woden as their patron god, Thurs/Thor would have likely been next as he was very popular. Same in Greek myth, Olympians were made up to replace the Titans for reasons I'm not really sure of, the Titans made a lot of sense and the Olympians were just assholes. But when you run out of stories to tell you need more characters.
>>406879
>Myth was the precursor to science.
Got way off on tangents and forgot to expand on this.
Before humans could understand the forces of nature they still wondered about them. They used these "gods" as ways to understand and pay homage to forces that protect and provide for us. It's actually scary how accurate they were...
Using examples from Greek paganism, the primordial titans were birthed from Chaos, who was described as a void. Chronos who represents time (chronology), Gaia (earth) and Eros (light). In other European pagan myth the universe (yggdrasil) came from the "gap var ginunnga" which roughly translates to empty void. Does this not sound exactly like the big bang theory?
Another cool one is Thurs is representative of gravity, which protects the earth and he's seen as a protector god. How would they know how gravity and the atmosphere protects humankind? Jupiter was another protector god, and the planet Jupiter whom he was said to actually be protects the earth from like 1,000 asteroid strikes a day. There would be no life on earth were it not for Jupiter, and they were paying homage to that before we were even able to observe it occurring.
>>391333
Although my favorite proofs of God are all metaphysical, even I have to concede and say that metaphysical arguments are fallible.
>if every religion was wiped out and recreated...
Not necessarily true. This, of course, has never been tested, and any atheist can even admit similarities between religions.
>if all of science was wiped out...
Again, depends on the interpretation. Scientific theories themselves are fallible as well, and we could cycle through thousands of incorrect theories before arriving at the one closest to "the truth". See Aristotle and the presocratics.
But even so, metaphysics and physics are different subjects; the two will still relate to the other, but Penn's claim shows that he uses selective choice in what he calls evidence for God in a field of study that can, at the very most, imply his existence.
>>406927
>>406879
Beautiful posts, Anon
>>380359
> there is no self, and that's the simple truth. If every trace of every single conscious being were wiped out and nothing were passed on, there would never be created exactly that being again. There might be some other being in its place, but not that exact being. If all our bodily senses were plugged up and numbed, we'd still have a body and someone would find a way to figure out that he was alive again."
I translated this idiot's verbiage for you guies.
>>407282
>There might be some other being in its place, but not that exact being.
The important difference is WHY this is.
>>380359
Like people have said, religion, spirituality, the supernatural, all that came from the relevant currently unexplainable things.
Imagine living 100,000 years ago. What did you think an emotion was? Did it feel strong? Did you feel injured when your parents died? Did you feel scared when there was lightning the way you felt scared when there was a predator?
Creating a story about how something works is naturally how human minds work.
>>408486
>Imagine living 100,000 years ago
Okay... but what about today?
>>408701
Childhood indoctrination
>>406834
Nah, he was Lutheran since birth
>>406830
>Throughout world history, almost every culture independent of one another has developed some sort of divine myth or "nonsense" as one might see it.
They also thought the world was flat
>>407009
Rediscovering metaphysics to prove a prime mover isn't the same as rediscovering any particular religion
>>410487
>if you have a sense of the sacred, it's just because you were indoctrinated
Nigga please
>>396475
>>396256
Now this is autism
>>412617
Except he was indoctrinated as a child, so what is your point?
Do you think free will is an illusion, or do you agree that it is more likely a misunderstanding? No illusion is unbreakable if it can be seen.
>>414292
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
You're welcome
>>414301
>the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the manner necessary for moral responsibility.
This is already nonsense. Why should I continue reading?
>>414329
>Why should I continue reading?
So that you can understand it. Then it will cease to be nonsense to you
>>414334
The problem is that it ignores the issue by giving a definition to free will instead of addressing the origin of the concept of free will.
>>414353
What it offers is four elements of a theory of moral responsibility: we must have the ability to act, we must be in control of our action, we must have a reason to act, and we must be the cause of the act.
>>414389
This has nothing to do with the original question, because this is a worthless Christian definition of free will.
>>414400
So what is your definition of free will?
Not being able to act, being helpless? Not being in control of your actions, being puppets? Not having any reason to act, total randomness? Not being able to cause ourselves to act, being immobile?
>>414411
Not that anon, but is there a gradient of 'control of out actions' as you stated, if not free will. as an example, are you likely to make the same choice while suffering from sleep deprivation, after severe dehydration. This isn't randomness, but also not such a black and white dichotomy
>>414422
Compatibilism is the standard assumption of the law. For instance, in a more recent Supreme Court case regarding a man’s competency to conduct his own legal defense (Godinez v. Moran, 1993) it was ruled that he was acting of his own free will if he was “literate, competent, and understanding,” “informed,” and made his choice “competently and intelligently.” The court ruled that “the record must establish that the defendant ‘knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open’,” but that is all.
>>414411
The "ghost" that is seen as a cause behind actions. But the term "free will" carries the assumption that there exists a ghost for each human, which is unnecessary, and it fails to account for the cause of non-human actions.
The reality is that a thinking body can see the ghost at the point where its perception is strongest, namely, the body itself. This can easily extend to objects attached to the body, like clothing and tools. In any case, the ghost is never seen undergoing any sort of growth, shrinking, or division. It is a constant.
>>414425
>>414422
The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, which captures what is typically found in penal codes nationwide, declares the insanity defense thus:
>A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
Note what is not said here: it does not say that a person is free of responsibility if a mental illness caused his actions. Rather, it says he is guiltless only when a mental illness deprives him of what he must have in order to be responsible: namely, knowledge (here, the ‘capacity...to appreciate’ what he did) and intent (here, the ‘capacity...to conform his conduct’ to what is expected of him, i.e. despite what may have been an overriding desire to conform). Dressler again:
>Insanity involves an internal circumstance—disease of the mind—that substantially or totally impairs the actor’s cognitive capability. He must either be unaware of what he has done, or unaware of the wrongfulness of his conduct; alternatively, the disease must substantially impair his volitional capabilities, so that he cannot effectively control his conduct. Under these circumstances, talk of choice is meaningless. A person has no choice when disease causes him to lose all touch with reality or to be unable to conform to reality. (p. 507)
Thus, being caused is not the issue that deprives one of free will, but being caused to act contrary to or without the involvement of one’s will, one’s personal being (knowledge, desires, character, reason). And this happens when someone lacks awareness and thus cannot even be choosing what he is doing, or does not know what he is choosing to do, or when one’s body engages in actions wholly without or even against the will. That, and only that, is the reason insanity is allowed as a defense.
>>414434
No, there is no ghost. It's your brain. You should really try to study before you criticize something.
>>414442
But the brain doesn't cause anything. Things interact with the brain which causes it to interact with other things. It's not a source of action.
>>414486
Yes.
Now go read the rest of the page and realize that "free will" in any meaningful sense is completely compatible with determinism.
>>414492
I already said that page has nothing to do with this. The definition given there is an extremely narrow one that does not apply to actions in general.
>>380359
Group cohesion
>>414301
Mah nigga
>>397731
Al-Baghdadi didn't got the degree when he still was irrelevant. And I'm fairly sure the University of Baghdad knows a thing or two about islam.
>>417359
Nope, Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam. Nice try, /pol/
>>380359
wikipedia considers the first "religions" to just be people honoring their dead. Top kek
>>418227
I wonder what religion Stone Henge was
>>419068
That is embarrassingly inaccurate
>>418227
Ancestor worship and animism seem to be pretty close to universal, as in they've appeared in just about every culture at some point.
>>380359
religion is the adaptation of the stories from ancestrial times, which have to do with the zodiac, sun, stars, etc. it all has to do with astrotheology and how it ties into explaining the deffinate universal laws of morals and ethics. each prophet of every religion was just a manifestation of the sun and how it represents enlightenment and how it conquers darkness which represents ignorance. the ancients knew it was all stories to represent this, however it has been turned into something literal, which it isnt at all. the jesus figure was nothing knew and its obvious his teachings have alot in common with eastern philsophy. just the new coming to replace the old, guiding people to the path of enlightenment and expanding yourself intellectually and ethically.
>>419136
nothing new*
>>380395
Shut up.
>>419136
>each prophet of every religion was just a manifestation of the sun
What?
>>396256
> my superstition is so poorly organized that we have to develop new fields of scholarship to explain why it isn't bullshit
>>421309
>>421942
LET ME TELL YOU HOW WIZARDS WORK
>>422197
Having trouble getting an election?
It is likely a spell. Seek a witch or wizard to undo it.
>>422197
>Clerics sleuthing for dark magic
I need this for my dnd setting
>>380395
>Also, gods and spirits and shit are real, and they talked to people. That helped too.
And after 6,000 or so years of civilisation, no one has still provided any solid evidence.....
>>423409
I felt it so its real :^)
because the word became flesh and dwelt among us
it is a historical fact, with numerous eye witnessses, numerous sources etc
as for the other religions, you're always going to get wacky plagirising of the christianity, like islam and mormonism
>>380359
Because religion is inately human. Humans always have the need to humanize, to make nature explainable by assuming that it follows the same logic as that of a human entity. And because of the inate fear that we actually aren't special snowflakes, but just organisms living pointless lives in the grand scheme of things. It's an inherent coping mechanism.
That's the uncomfortable truth that a lot of hard atheists refuse to acknowledge, prefering to pretend that it's all some rationalist conspiracy. That belief in the supernatural was just some invention, akin to modern political ideologies, when any objective analysis shows how unique , and essential it is to mankind. Hence why modern ideologies (even Atheistic movements) seem to echo organised religions, because despite the fact that they've displaced these beliefs, ultimately they exist to fulfill the same social and philosophical needs, both personally and collectively.
>>408701
>Okay... but what about today?
>Creating a story about how something works is naturally how human minds work.
You think ignorance 100,000 years ago works differently to ignorance today?
>>406927
>Does this not sound exactly like the big bang theory?
No it doesn't, you're rambling nonsense.
It's really not a profound idea that "before there was something, there was nothing" because if nothing exists all you have is a void. It's basic logic. You're making it sound a lot more contemplative and elaborate than it is.
>>406927
Big bang is an observation of an expanding universe, not a theory of things coming into existence from the void
>>424494
Actually it is in fact exactly that. A theory, of how something came from nothing.
>>406872
>imgur filename
hi, reddit!
>>424679
>literally recognises imgur filenames by just looking at them
Tell us all about the extensive time you spend at Reddit.
>>424701
it's pretty easy top spot them m8
there was a .gif with a guide on how to identify them but you wouldn't know since you are a redditor newshit
I recently read The Invention of Religion by Alexander Drake. It brings up some interesting theories for your last question.
>>412291
>[Citation Needed]
>>425085
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
>>380359
it arose naturally due to human nature and rulers opportunistically adopted it
religions aren't "invented" any more than languages are invented you dumb redditor
My problem with both religious beliefs of creation and atheist views of such, per se, is that neither can explain from where and how the creating entity, so to speak, came into being. How did the universe form from nothing? What created God? Something can't just spring from nothing.
Am I looking at this the wrong way, /his/?
>>425341
>Creator naturally not bound by the laws of the universe he created
how is this to understand?
>>425353
But where did he come from? How did he come into being? He cannot have willed himself to existence from nothing if there was nothing there in the first place.
>>425442
>still forcing God has to follow the laws of a reality he created
it's like the difference between a coder and a videogame character. a human isn't limited to video game actions he created. it's already stated in the Bible he's the alpha and omega. hell that even implies he's not bound by time either since beginning and end are at the same point
>>425519
>it's already stated in the Bible he's the alpha and omega.
Then it must be true!
>>425261
... Are most languages based around a single person's life?
>>396256
REEEEEE
>>424961
Thanks
>>426547
I also recommend The Great Transformation by Armstrong
>>410487
So, you're telling me that each and every single member of modern society that is religious was indoctrineated as a child? Every single one?
What about adult atheist-to-religious converts?
Hell, what about converts, period? Why convert from religion X to religion Y if you weren't indictrinated into Y?
I mean, I'm not particularly inclined to religion myself, but this just seems a little naive.
>>412672
how that conversation would actually go
>we did this because our holy texts exhort us to do it
>are you sure us illegally invading your country for no reason and killing your family didn't have something to do with it
>ok that was part of the reason
sometimes i wonder if conservatives have ever studied history or even current events at all
>>427996
Problem with this is twofold
1. You have societal pressures that can have an impact beyond even just family members. For example, I have an aunt who grew up in Pennsylvania as a non-denominational Christian. In her late teens, she moved to Arizona. Mormonism was very popular in Arizona and she converted. No one else in the family did, and she even married a non-Mormon, but is still a Mormon to this day. Would you consider her a convert?
2. I'm not sure if you realize just how rare religions conversion is when compared to the amount of religious people in the world.
>>421206
the sun represents light and what light represents is warmth, understanding and enlightenment
>>424631
It didn't come from nothing, it came from a singularity, which is something
>>428274
Please replace conservatives with Americans in the future
>>380379
/This
>>428416
That's like saying buildings represent the earth because they are both grounded.
>>428274
How is it illegal? Who said so and what office are they?
Yeah, they got bombed to shit and ripped apart by bigger powers in an attempt to stifle one another.
But now how do you fix it?
>>428622
Source? Because they are beefing with the cartels now for destroying drug shipments.
>>428746
you cleary dont understand ancient symbolism and how it relates to present day. your analogy made no sense what-so-ever. buildings are of the earth because it was made from materials from it. and they are both groudned. i don't understand what you are on about.. :/
>>428994
stop bombing them for a generation, putting up with the occasional small scale terrorist attack and wait for all the people whose relatives you murdered to die off.
as far as the legality, in international law is it legal to invade a sovereign country for absolutely no reason at all?
>>428746
>being this autistic
Your cozy Starbucks life has numbed you to the primal experience of life. Imagine what sunlight must represent to isolated tribes eking out their survival in an uncharted, dark wilderness of the world. It's literally the life principle, shining light and warmth on everything, illuminating the darkness and casting the terrors and phantoms of the night away. Light is rarefied, subtle, intangible but also the phenomenon that enables seeing and color and life in the first place. No wonder they felt existence on earth was a pale imitation of higher realms.
Your analogy sucks cause you're associating superficial qualities with a superficial understanding of what these symbols meant. There's nothing primal about a building. It's manmade
>>428746
The solar stuff is right. Prophets represent the sun because the sun has become associated with the male principle: activity, discipline, reason, knowledge. The Apollonian vs. Dyonisian dichotomy comes to mind, especially since Apollo himself was a sun god.
represents then summit of consciousness, the capacity to transcend our flawed, earthly, lunar selves.
>>428746
The solar stuff is right. Prophets represent the sun because the sun has become associated with the male principle: activity, discipline, reason, knowledge. The Apollonian vs. Dyonisian dichotomy comes to mind, especially since Apollo himself was a sun god.
The sun then represents then summit of consciousness in ancient imagination, the capacity to transcend our flawed, earthly, lunar selves.
>>429182
I'm saying that the symbolism isn't ancient, it's just made up. Prophets are Prophets. If you can describe them in general as a symbol of the sun that doesn't mean they were symbols of the sun. Just like buildings aren't symbols of the earth
>>431743
>just because you can symbolize someone as the sun doesn't mean they are the sun
Are you fucking soft?
>>431784
A manifestation of the sun, as the original anon said
>>431798
a manifestation of the sun as the light of all knowledge, the beacon of truth, etc.
you don't literally think he was saying these guys were the sun incarnate right? are you so autistic that you think linking the big globe of light in the sky and a prophet (especially Jesus, who is regarded as the "light of the world") is that far-fetched?
>>431822
>scientifically ignorant Christians
Every time, every where
>>431823
Oh, so science is a manifestation of the sun. Or a manifestation of the big bang, or a supernova, or a flash light
>>431834
Sure, but I'd hesitate to ascribe sun symbolism to a methodology of all things. This was a very visceral, very primal world a lot of these people were living in. Life was hard. the local holy man was a big deal, and a holy man who could also presume to speak for God was a Big Fucking Deal
>>431856
Nowadays it isn't such a big deal because they are all in insane asylums
>>431866
well the guys preaching doom and gloom on the streets sure, but don't assume all holy men were nutjobs or anything. that's a very ignorant view to hold
>>431878
Sure, most were conmen
Trashman is full of shit, religion is just a fancy way of saying "Ways of explaining how the world works." Science is no different. Wearing a labcoat does not prevent you from being wrong, and thinking otherwise is an example of "Religious" thinking.
>>423848
>That belief in the supernatural was just some invention, akin to modern political ideologies, when any objective analysis shows how unique , and essential it is to mankind.
Akin also - to Scientific Materialism
>>432215
Yes, thus any attempt to separate religion from science and philosophy is foolish. And thinking that your worldview is the only valid one is even worse.
>>402689
Common sense is neither common not sense.
>>422197
ARE YOU IMPLYING GOD IS A SKY WIZARD, DEGENERATE?
There are 4 fundamental questions to life:
1. Who am I?
2. Where do I come from?
3. What is my purpose?
4. What happens when I die?
Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
In other words, religion and philosophy are used to explain the world. They are world views.
People are hungry because food exists.
People have sexual urges because sex exists.
People have the urge to connect with something higher/intangible because God exists.
>>432374
Those aren't fundamental.
>>432374
>here are 4 fundamental questions to life:
Opinion.
>People are hungry because food exists.
>People have sexual urges because sex exists.
>People have the urge to connect with something higher/intangible because God exists.
Yes but the existence of God doesn't prove religion is right.
Moses teaches the law of God, Judaism enforces it under false teachings.
Christ teaches forgiveness for breaking the Law of God, Christianity enforces it under false teachings.
Muhammad teaches the spirit of reuniting with god completing the journey, Islam enforces it under false teachings.
>>432374
>1. Who am I?
Michael Smith
> 2. Where do I come from?
California originally
> 3. What is my purpose?
I stock shelves
> 4. What happens when I die?
I wish to be cremated
>>432374
I don't know the name of such a fallacy, but I can recognize it when I see it.
There's something you don't seem to get. You get hungry because that's what you need to survive. Your body needs food as a source of protein and energy. You like sex because your genes have a tendency to intend to survive, not because sex exists. In fact, sex wouldn't exist if people didn't have the urge to reproduce. Food is the label or the name we give to the living stuff we consume. If we didn't consume anything, then the concept of "food" wouldn't exist.
I don't know, maybe humans have a need to believe in God. Maybe it's merely nuturing, no genetics whatsoever. But that definitely doesn't prove that there is a God. If all the people in the world had a tendency to believe in the same god regardless of culture and historical setting, that would be a decent proof of the existence of God.
>>405803
Thanks anon
>>432374
god is fake
>Penn Jillette
>>432713
>being this much of a dull, joyless cretin
Who am I? Hurrr just read the name on my birth certificate bro
>>432732
>if all the people in the world had the tendency to believe in the same god...
This is what you get when atheists who have never studied religion past ebin memes presume they can talk about it
Pic related
>>417643
>le no true scotmans fallacy
Nice try Abdul, but they're still Muslims i'm afraid
People waste time, writing 10 + lines of text
with no source, just thei raw opinion about how
they want reality to work like...
I say as a personal opinion based on thousands of
studies of smarter people that there
is a spiritual reality and cultures of humanity
had developed rituals and complex systems
to ensure upon the younger ones their continuity
after death, this is what kept them going.
Read Stanislav Grof the ultimate journey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opwJXiLS4Xw
>>432374
there are three fundamental questions to life
what is good?
what is truth?
what is beauty?
in attempting to answer them it becomes necessary to answer questions such as what is the nature of reality, what is the self and how do i know.
>>432374
>2. Where do I come from?
Well you see, when a mommy and daddy like each other very, very much...
>>434582
>STEMfags are so autistic they think this actually is an answer
>>434598
I think the mongoloid here is someone else that cannot see a through a shitty joke.
Or is this some kind of post-modern bait?
>>433847
If you didn't want my name why did you ask who I am?
>>434573
But those are the same question.
Good is actions that are in line with truth, and beauty is a system for classifying things as good.
>>435904
Ignorance is bliss
>>432194
Difference is that science adjusts itself to the best known evidence, while religion does not.
>>436154
Yes it does :^)
>>429530
>stop bombing them for a generation, putting up with the occasional small scale terrorist attack and wait for all the people whose relatives you murdered to die off.
Arabic culture holds that seeking revenge for wrongs against family and friends, regardless of how many generations back the wrong occurred, is honorable. We could hold of bombing them for ten generations and we'd have endured ten generations of terrorist attacks and no end in site. Forgiveness is not a highly prized virtue in the Middle East.
>>436796
It's no coincidence the fat, comfy first world Muslims aren't shooting and blowing people up
>>434573
>what is good?
All these questions are context dependent, and trivial to answer. People assign goodness, truthness, and beauty for things every day.
>>407009
>Not necessarily true. This, of course, has never been tested, and any atheist can even admit similarities between religions.
It's true that there are a good deal of similarities between religions, but that's not, necessarily, because people came to similar conclusions about God/s and the supernatural. Many religions (like languages) evolved and stemmed from "mother" religions. There are a good many similarities between the pagan religions of Europe (Greek, Roman, Norse, Slavic, Baltic, etc.) and these religions share many similarities with Hinduism because they're all direct descendants of the Indo-European religion (the Indo-European or Aryan people were a nomadic group who, largely because they had successfully raised and domesticated horses, were able to spread out from either the Steppes around the Caucasus or Iran, depending on who you're talking to, into Europe, India, and other areas). As different Indo-European tribes (or family groups) met with other peoples, their religions mingled and, when they began to settle and stay separated, their religion took different shapes, influenced, in part, by the geography of the lands they inhabited.
If you look at the religions of groups that were farther removed, such as the religions of Native Americans, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Australian Aborigines (In would leave out several Asian religion, since several of those, such as Buddhism and Jainism, are offshoots of Hinduism which is just a mix of Indo-European beliefs and the beliefs of the pre-Indo-Europeans who inhabited India; the Dravidians, I believe), you'll see that the differences are much greater (especially between peoples that were farther removed from each other in history).
Certainly, there are features that span every religion (they, as far as I'm aware, all have some sort of death-deity and storm-deity), but this can be accounted for in two ways:
>>440400
1. These are inescapable things that are relevant to everyone, across the world, and storms, deaths, etc. were major events, especially to these early people. It makes sense that these would have been personified. However, more specialized deities (such as the gods of winter or agriculture) only appear where they are relevant.
2. Taking death and storms, again, these would have been very important in the lives of the earliest humans and they're very simple concepts. It's plausible to believe that these events were personified before early humans spread out of Africa.
Many religions share certain myths and stories (such as the God vs. Sea Beast myth that appears throughout the Indo-European and Middle Eastern religions), but, again, these are only really found in religions that have the same origin or when they were in close contact with other religions and shared stories.
So, if all religions and science were wiped out, we'd, almost definitely, see religions with storm, death, war, etc. deities, but we, definitely, wouldn't have Zeus, Thor, Chaac, etc.. We'd only see gods that are personified versions of relevant phenomena, but we'd lose specific myths and rituals.
>>407009
>>>391333
>if all of science was wiped out...
>Again, depends on the interpretation. Scientific theories themselves are fallible as well, and we could cycle through thousands of incorrect theories before arriving at the one closest to "the truth". See Aristotle and the presocratics.
In the case of science, we probably would. It would be different in regards to how it's presented (for example, we might not have a base-10 system for our mathematics and our scientific method may be somewhat altered), but our conclusions would still be the same: we'd still be able to prove and agree that water freezes at 32° F (though we'd have a different method of measuring temperature), we'd still know that items of different weight fall at the same rate, we'd still know that the planet is round and orbits the sun, and we'd still uncover the DNA double-helix and understand the role that genetics plays in all forms of life.
Our means and methods would be different, but our conclusions would be the same.
>>432339
>ARE YOU IMPLYING GOD IS A SKY WIZARD, DEGENERATE?
That's ridiculous. Of course he isn't.
God is a sky demon. The CLERGY are the wizards and they conduct rituals to call Him forth and have Him do their bidding.
>>392309
>Religion originally developed as a method for controlling violence within a community.
There is literally no way to prove this completely baseless claim.
>>406927
>Using examples from Greek paganism, the primordial titans were birthed from Chaos, who was described as a void. Chronos who represents time (chronology), Gaia (earth) and Eros (light). In other European pagan myth the universe (yggdrasil) came from the "gap var ginunnga" which roughly translates to empty void. Does this not sound exactly like the big bang theory?
Not exactly. The Big Bang theory posits that the universe expanded from an infinitesimally small point. It says nothing about what existed before the Big Bang or what exists "outside" the universe.
As for what came before, every scientific theory states that something came before the Big Bang. String Theory is the most commonly accepted, but there are several variations on this and it's far from being the only theory. There are multiple theories that hold that our universe is one of an infinite number of universes. No theory, though, claims that, before the Big Bang, there was nothing.
Also, it's worth mentioning that the word "theory" doesn't mean "guess". It means, in basic words, that there are several things that we know to be true and here's how we believe they fit together into one, cohesive idea. For example, we know that life changes over time and that genetics and natural selection, among others, play a role in how life changes and adapts. When we put all these things together, we call it the Theory of Evolution. In regards to the Big Bang Theory, we know that the universe is expanding, we can detect the radiation left over from the massive expansion of the universe, and we have several ways of measuring the age of the universe, pretty much all of which put it at 14-16 billion years (there's MUCH more to the Big Bang theory than this, though).
>>380359
the abrahamic religions are based on the prophet abrahm, the christianism is a split of judaism; the islam is a diferent version of both, christianism and judaism.
there is the group of religions centred in the idea of the Tao.
there is the group of indoeuropean religions, roman, greek, induism, germanic and celtic
an there is the other animist ethnic tribal religons like the african, american, shintoism, etc
>>425341
>My problem with both religious beliefs of creation and atheist views of such, per se, is that neither can explain from where and how the creating entity, so to speak, came into being. How did the universe form from nothing? What created God? Something can't just spring from nothing.
>Am I looking at this the wrong way, /his/?
Kind of. There's this prevailing understanding that, before the Big Bang, there was nothing, but this is not true. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe expanded, at faster-than-light speeds, from an infinitesimally small point and it, but it doesn't really seek to explain what came before it. Nobody in the scientific community, though, claims that there was nothing before the Big Bang and there exist many, MANY theories as to what might have (basically, scientists take a look at the facts that we have and know to be true, then try to come up with the framework by which they're all related).
String Theory is pretty well accepted, but there's, also, some evidence that may suggest that our universe was born out of the collapse of an earlier universe. Some theories suggest that universes exist within black holes and some suggest that there has always been a steady creation and destruction of an infinite number of universes, existing all at once! There's evidence for all of these theories, but not enough to say which one, if any of them, is right; just enough for someone to say, "Well, we know this, this, and this to be true, so... This is ONE way to explain them." and for another person to say, "You're right that this, this, and this are true, but we, also, think that THIS might be true, so this is how I explain it.".
Scientists are making new discoveries, every day, that strengthen some of these theories, discredit others, and create new ones, all in hopes of uncovering the truth. It's all really fascinating.
Rest assured, though, while we don't know what came before the Big Bang, we DO know that there was SOMETHING.
>>419068
before the indoeuropean came in to Europe there were people, do you know the iberians?, they where a preindoeuropean people in my coutry until 100 BCE
>>425561
I consider myself an atheist, but the worst thing that the atheist movement did was get involved in all manner of left-wing liberal matters. Transgender rights and medical marijuana use have about as much to do with one another as the weather on Mars has to do with what I had for breakfast this morning.
The socially liberal agenda of the atheist movement has weakened it, significantly. If it stayed focused on what was relevant to it (that is, the nonexistence of the supernatural and the belief in what is demonstrable and explainable), it would be farther along. Instead, atheists, en masse, are paying greater attention to social justice and, in doing so, are forming an ethical system based on emotions, rather than facts. Through this, they are, in effect, creating our religion.
If they had stayed focused on, simply, disproving the existence of God and promoting scientific facts, things would have been fine. THAT'S ALL THAT ATHEISM IS. Instead, though, we have these dickheads who hijacked it and turned it into their social agenda. They've basically decided that, if you don't believe in God and accept scientific facts, but are against legalized drug use and transgender bathrooms and for gun ownership, you're not an atheist because atheists are socially liberal, when it has NOTHING to do with "social justice".
I don't believe in the supernatural and I support the widespread teaching of scientific facts, but I'm still embarrassed to call myself an "atheist" because the term no longer means "someone who denies the existence of any gods" and, instead, means "a smug, cocky, and condescending, socially liberal Democrat".
>>440593
>before the indoeuropean came in to Europe there were people, do you know the iberians?, they where a preindoeuropean people in my coutry until 100 BCE
Actually, there are still some of those people, today. They're referred to as "Old Europeans" and, as far as I'm aware, the only surviving Old Europeans are the Basques. None of the Old Europeans are on this list, though, because essentially nothing, if anything, is known about their beliefs and cultures (we have theories, but almost no concrete knowledge) since they either died off or were abandoned, thousands of years ago, or were assimilated into the cultures and beliefs of the Indo-Europeans (in which case, there's really no way of knowing what was originally theirs and what was a later, Indo-European invention).
Unfortunately, the closest thing to written sources that we have about ANY of these cultures is the result if highly biased and secondhand Greek and Roman accounts. Anyway, that's, likely, why they aren't noted on this list.
