3 of 4
3
Interesting happening…
Posted: 20 October 2013 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  438
Joined  2012-02-02
Lausten - 20 October 2013 10:27 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 20 October 2013 08:30 AM

I don’t think that its too much of stretch to believe that the accidental exposure to such things led to the formation, or at least some aspects of religion.

Depends on your definition of “stretch”. This idea has been around for decades, but has never had any confirmation, no evidence, it has not been shown to have any predictive power. So, if you ignore all the scholarship, sure, you could believe it.

“No evidence”?  What on earth do you mean?  There’s ample evidence that humans have used mind altering substances (or techniques, such as sweat lodges) as part of religious practice and that new beliefs have arisen because of the experiences of individuals while under the influence.  Is that how religion first began?  I don’t know, and we’re unlikely to uncover any evidence giving concrete explanations of how religion first began, since it dates from before written history.  All anyone will be able to do is speculate, and its only been in the past few decades that we’ve had techniques to analyze residue left by primitive societies to look for plant material.  We’ll eventually be able to assign a level of probability to the idea that drugs were involved in formation of religion, but I’ve yet to see any evidence saying that its more or less credible than any other theory put forth by academics.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2013 04:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6135
Joined  2009-02-26

Jacko1 - 20 October 2013 07:24 AM

A question remains….........  who put the original “idea of God” in the minds of people?

That is not the correct question to begin with. The question should read, “where did the original idea of “gods” come from”?

And that is easy to answer.
It started with fear of an unseen action by an unknown enemy. Thus thunder begat Thor (god of thunder) one of the oldest gods on record. Do you realize how many gods were created by humans to explain all natural phenomena? Hundreds of gods have existed since the dawn of ability to think in abstract terms. Yet even you will admit that all these gods were created from ignorance of the true causality of natural events and once these causalities were understood, the belief in these old gods became moot and relegated to mythology.

To create a single Creator God is a refinement and last vestige of mythology, because it is the last natural phenomena which we have not yet been able to explain with certainty. But once we know the true causality of Creation, even this single God will be forgotten. But morals will never disappear, even without a God. Nature and Evolution have proven four fundamental survival techniques, all of which are learned skills. Only the instinct for survival seems to be hard wired and there is nothing divine about that. Yet almost all advanced animals display a certain morality, in accordance to their lifestyle.

a) Herbivores,

Grazing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Grazing generally describes a type of feeding, in which a herbivore feeds on plants (such as grasses), and also on other multicellular autotrophs (such as algae)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grazing

b) Carnivores,

Predation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In ecology, predation describes a biological interaction where a predator (an animal that is hunting) feeds on its prey (the animal that is attacked).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predation

c)Omnivores

Omnivore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An omnivore /ˈomnɪvɔər/ meaning ‘all-eater’ (Latin, omni meaning “all” or “everything” and vorare meaning “to devour”) is an animal that derives its energy and nutrients from a diet consisting of a variety of sources that may include plants, animals, algae and fungi.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore

d) Symbiosis,

Symbiosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Symbiosis (from Ancient Greek σύν “together” and βίωσις “living is close and often long-term interaction between two or more different biological species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

All these traits are products of natural evolutionary processes. No divine intervention is necessary for all of it to work just fine. When we laid Thor to rest, did thunder disappear?  When no one believed in Zeus anymore, did the oceans disappear?  And so it is with God. If we no longer believed in God, would the universe disappear? Or would we suddenly start killing each other in the name of Atheism instead of the age old practice of killing each other In the name of God(s)?
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/godsmyth/a/102110-War-Gods-And-Goddesses.htm

[ Edited: 21 October 2013 03:06 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2013 06:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1419
Joined  2009-10-21
Coldheart Tucker - 20 October 2013 03:54 PM

... I don’t know, and we’re unlikely to uncover any evidence giving concrete explanations of how religion first began, since it dates from before written history.  All anyone will be able to do is speculate, and its only been in the past few decades that we’ve had techniques to analyze residue left by primitive societies to look for plant material.  We’ll eventually be able to assign a level of probability to the idea that drugs were involved in formation of religion, but I’ve yet to see any evidence saying that its more or less credible than any other theory put forth by academics.

You’ve taken the argument from ignorance and made it sound almost scientific.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2013 07:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  438
Joined  2012-02-02
Lausten - 20 October 2013 06:41 PM
Coldheart Tucker - 20 October 2013 03:54 PM

... I don’t know, and we’re unlikely to uncover any evidence giving concrete explanations of how religion first began, since it dates from before written history.  All anyone will be able to do is speculate, and its only been in the past few decades that we’ve had techniques to analyze residue left by primitive societies to look for plant material.  We’ll eventually be able to assign a level of probability to the idea that drugs were involved in formation of religion, but I’ve yet to see any evidence saying that its more or less credible than any other theory put forth by academics.

You’ve taken the argument from ignorance and made it sound almost scientific.

And you’ve failed to post anything to refute my comments.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6135
Joined  2009-02-26
Coldheart Tucker - 20 October 2013 07:19 PM
Lausten - 20 October 2013 06:41 PM
Coldheart Tucker - 20 October 2013 03:54 PM

... I don’t know, and we’re unlikely to uncover any evidence giving concrete explanations of how religion first began, since it dates from before written history.  All anyone will be able to do is speculate, and its only been in the past few decades that we’ve had techniques to analyze residue left by primitive societies to look for plant material.  We’ll eventually be able to assign a level of probability to the idea that drugs were involved in formation of religion, but I’ve yet to see any evidence saying that its more or less credible than any other theory put forth by academics.

You’ve taken the argument from ignorance and made it sound almost scientific.

And you’ve failed to post anything to refute my comments.

May I ask what there is to refute that people got high on plants and mushrooms in days of old and had visions which they believed gave them access to the realm of spirits?  This has been practiced for thousands of years.

@Jacko1,

Evolution is a process and does not need to have any presupposition other than what physics knows. The only argument that cannot be confirmed or refuted is Creation itself. There is evidence for the Big Bang, but that is no proof of God. That is just an assumption and quoting passages from the bible does not prove anything, other than what people of old assumed was the creative causality.  But where is the evidence that your God is any different than Zeus or Odin? http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/religionmythology/a/042710_gods_and_goddesses_AtoZ.htm

Actually mythology came closest in naming the initial state during the beginning, Chaos.

In both cases, chaos referring to a notion of a primordial state contains the cosmos in potentia but needs to be formed by a demiurge before the world can begin its existence.

This model of a primordial state of matter has been opposed by the Church Fathers from the 2nd century, who posited a creation ex nihilo by an omnipotent God.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)

The strange thing is that atheists do not deny that the bible has some philosophical truths, but they are mixed up in all the speculation of origins, miracles, unseen voices, visions, angels, demons, but these things are biochemical functions of the mind which is the domain of science and that is why the bible cannot serve as authority on absolute Truth.

Check out these mental illusions and you will see how easily the mind is fooled by it’s sensory processing.
http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/Spinning_Dancer.php
http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/opticalillusions1.php
http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/lilac_chaser.php

Optical Illusions Further Explained
An optical illusion (also called a visual illusion) is characterized by visually perceived images that are deceptive or misleading. The information gathered by the eye is processed by the brain to give a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source. There are three main types of illusion - literal optical illusions that create images that are different from the objects that make them, physiological illusions that are the effects on the eyes and brain of excessive stimulation of a specific type - brightness, tilt, color, movement, and cognitive illusions where the eye and brain make unconscious inferences.

http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/optical-illusions-explained.php

Are these miracles or limitations of the mind to process sensory input?

[ Edited: 21 October 2013 03:05 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 02:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Michelle D. - 20 October 2013 01:13 PM

Oh my, the arguments for the existence of God are about as silly as they come. That’s one thing I admire about Kierkegaard, that at least he understood that and didn’t argue in that vein. If anyone it’s him I can respect, but all that other pseudo-scientific nonsense out there doesn’t even deserve a response.

Sure, God’s non-existence can’t be proven either, but an atheist is hardly interested in proving anything.

It has nothing to do with atheists not being interested in proving anything. It is impossible to prove something does not exist and no one is required to do so.  We’ll make a deal with you, though. If you think non-existence can be proven, prove that Thor or Zeus or any entity or object you choose does not exist.  We’ll use the same method you use to prove any god does not exist.

Lois

[ Edited: 21 October 2013 02:47 AM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 03:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6135
Joined  2009-02-26

Now here is a truly interesting find. Evidence!

1.8M-year-old skull gives glimpse of our evolution.
The discovery of a 1.8 million-year-old human ancestor, the most complete ancient hominid skull found to date, captures early human evolution on the move.


http://news.msn.com/science-technology/18m-year-old-skull-gives-glimpse-of-our-evolution

[ Edited: 21 October 2013 04:20 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 04:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1419
Joined  2009-10-21
Coldheart Tucker - 20 October 2013 07:19 PM
Lausten - 20 October 2013 06:41 PM
Coldheart Tucker - 20 October 2013 03:54 PM

... I don’t know, and we’re unlikely to uncover any evidence giving concrete explanations of how religion first began, since it dates from before written history.  All anyone will be able to do is speculate, and its only been in the past few decades that we’ve had techniques to analyze residue left by primitive societies to look for plant material.  We’ll eventually be able to assign a level of probability to the idea that drugs were involved in formation of religion, but I’ve yet to see any evidence saying that its more or less credible than any other theory put forth by academics.

You’ve taken the argument from ignorance and made it sound almost scientific.

And you’ve failed to post anything to refute my comments.

And now you shift the burden of proof. I’m not sure I want to bother engaging with you.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 07:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  975
Joined  2005-01-14
Jacko1 - 20 October 2013 07:47 AM

Advocatus, you ask, what do biblical principles have to do with the theory of evolution, and you also ask how this ties in with “morality”?

Firstly on the “theory of evolution”…………….  Again, there are “preconditions” – things that have to be true in advance in order for knowledge to be possible. For instance, in order for us to have “intelligibility” we are barrowing the precondition of the Bible. One such biblical quote:  Proverbs 1:7 – the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

For example, a person who’s arguing for air would have to use air to make an argument “against” air. The fact that he’s able to make an argument at all proves he’s wrong!  This person is barrowing God’s laws of logic and scientific principles.

I’m sorry, but I still don’t see what this has to do with the theory that species evolved over time.  Science did not begin with the idea of God’s existence.  The theory of evolution is quite neutral with respect to God.  It would compatible with the existence of God, but also compatible with the opposite.  The principles of logic and scientific inquiry are NOT found anywhere in the Bible, so I don’t know where you get the idea that we follow “God’s logic” at all.

Now when talking about morality………….  How could we have right and wrong in a chance universe? The community does not develop these laws, there is a divine aught!

Sorry, Jacko, but it is not a chance universe.  Whoever told you that was wrong.  And that is exactly what I believe happened.  The community DID develop principles of law and order all on its own, because such laws were needed for people to live together.

  A person can repeatedly says, we don’t need God to do good, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you (principles adopted by society) by those who decide what benefits society, HOWEVER relying of biblical presuppositions again. Additionally almost all laws are biblically based (10 commandments).

But what I said was that our common cultural heritage of morality and human decency were written into the Bible.  We’re both saying the same thing.  It’s just that you claim the Bible came first, while I’m claiming morality came first.

OK, what you really seem to be saying is that you personally don’t spare any thought for any science that doesn’t follow from the Bible.  You have that right, of course.  But excuse me for saying so, but that sounds like YOUR problem, not mine.  smile

[ Edited: 21 October 2013 08:55 AM by Advocatus ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 03:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  175
Joined  2013-08-29
Lois - 21 October 2013 02:44 AM
Michelle D. - 20 October 2013 01:13 PM

Oh my, the arguments for the existence of God are about as silly as they come. That’s one thing I admire about Kierkegaard, that at least he understood that and didn’t argue in that vein. If anyone it’s him I can respect, but all that other pseudo-scientific nonsense out there doesn’t even deserve a response.

Sure, God’s non-existence can’t be proven either, but an atheist is hardly interested in proving anything.

It has nothing to do with atheists not being interested in proving anything. It is impossible to prove something does not exist and no one is required to do so.  We’ll make a deal with you, though. If you think non-existence can be proven, prove that Thor or Zeus or any entity or object you choose does not exist.  We’ll use the same method you use to prove any god does not exist.

Lois

Hi Lois, ... I don’t think you need to make a deal with me ;) I was simply saying the burden of proof lies with the theist. The existence of God cannot be proven, nor can the non-existence of God be proven, at least not empirically or by any scientific standard; everything in these arguments is drawn from inference that can be interpreted according to your liking, both parties sticking to principles they hold dear.

Peace.

 Signature 

“Metaphysical speculation is an expression of poetic illusion.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 04:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6135
Joined  2009-02-26

jacko1,
  A person can repeatedly says, we don’t need God to do good, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you (principles adopted by society) by those who decide what benefits society, HOWEVER relying of biblical presuppositions again. Additionally almost all laws are biblically based (10 commandments).

You mean the Two Commandments?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8  (warning, crude language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IRxpjEZveQ  (  ”        ”        ”    )

[ Edited: 21 October 2013 04:57 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 07:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2013-10-13
Write4U - 21 October 2013 04:42 PM

jacko1,
  A person can repeatedly says, we don’t need God to do good, just do unto others as you would have them do unto you (principles adopted by society) by those who decide what benefits society, HOWEVER relying of biblical presuppositions again. Additionally almost all laws are biblically based (10 commandments).

You mean the Two Commandments?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8  (warning, crude language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IRxpjEZveQ  (  ”        ”        ”    )

Same argument applies.  The reason we have humor is because it exists in the Bible (it is a preconceived notion).  God has a good sense of hyperbole Himself.
 
Jesus used many humorous descriptions to describe things.  One of them was how hard it is for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God. He said it would be like a camel trying to go through the eye of a needle (Luke 18:25). I am sure many laughed at this as they tried to picture this in their minds? His point was serious, but He used a humorous reflection to get it across.

Another one is the notion of our savior coming in the form of a baby.

Perhaps the reason we have humor at all, is because our Creator Himself does.

[ Edited: 21 October 2013 07:23 PM by Jacko1 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 07:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4850
Joined  2007-10-05
Jacko1 - 21 October 2013 07:15 PM

The reason we have humor is because it exists in the Bible.

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Was there no humor before the Bible?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 07:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  36
Joined  2013-10-13
DarronS - 21 October 2013 07:19 PM
Jacko1 - 21 October 2013 07:15 PM

The reason we have humor is because it exists in the Bible.

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Was there no humor before the Bible?

Again, same argument applies…..............  Maybe you should stop mocking me for what I write, when you procede to mimic it.

How long will it take you to learn?

Sorry no pun intented.  wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2013 07:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4850
Joined  2007-10-05
Jacko1 - 21 October 2013 07:28 PM
DarronS - 21 October 2013 07:19 PM
Jacko1 - 21 October 2013 07:15 PM

The reason we have humor is because it exists in the Bible.

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Was there no humor before the Bible?

Again, same argument applies…..............  Maybe you should stop mocking me for what I write, when you procede to mimic it.

How long will it take you to learn?

Sorry no pun intented.  wink

What argument?

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3