The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs EvolvedWhere might the first thoughts as to there ever being anything like a god have come from?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs EvolvedWhere might the first thoughts as to there ever being anything like a god have come from?
I was just asking cladking for his explanation (excuse).
I have basically the same view as the article - subscribing agency to the unknown, and possibly in promoting group cohesion - against other groups perhaps too.
Biologists start out with the assumption that the existence of living organisms is due to purely natural causes.
I believe the concept of a Creator "God" originated in the misunderstanding of ancient science. A great deal of writing in Ancient Language existed when the "tower of babel" fell. This language couldn't be translated because it was founded in science and science disappeared when the language collapsed.
People tried for centuries to translate it and these faulty understandings are the basis of a creator and of religion. The ancients had no beliefs so couldn't have even pondered whether a Creator existed or not. Certainly they knew they didn't understand how the first effect came to be but they had some limited understanding of how humans came to exist because they had history going back to the very beginning (~40,000 BC).
Even the story of "adam and eve" are likely based in this history but the reality would look somewhat different to modern eyes. I'm not suggesting everything in the Bible is based in science, history, or Ancient Language. It is merely based on ancient "holy books" many of which are based on a misinterpretation of Ancient Language. Some stories are recognizable but most are not. But the Bible and these holy books do present a sort of picture of ancient theory and our pre-history.
Really it was the dust of the tower of babel in which religion arose. When the language became confused so did the new species; homo omnisciencis. Modern science is beginning to help sort out the nature of reality so that we can understand some things. The ability to predict proves we understand. Technology is just a spin off and a sort of magic trick generated by the nature of the tool we use to study nature. It in no way shows understanding.
But what about earlier? Do you believe the concept of some agency, as in the article cited by ArtieE, is where the origins began before anything else?
Both hypotheses are baseless. There is no evidence there even was religion or belief before 2000 BC. It is illogical to assume either of these hypotheses carried any weight at all.
Lack of evidence? I would have thought that those farther back - 100,000 years perhaps - might have postulated something, even about the sun, volcanoes, lightning, etc., since I doubt we were that ignorant so far back. No evidence leaves a lot open.
You make some rather outlandish claims but provide no evidence that supports your claims. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.The evidence says they were scientists. Logic says they were scientists. This also supports the notion that ALL animals are scientific and explains how beavers learned to change their environment to suit their needs and termites invented cities, air conditioning, and agriculture. Animals are simpler so their science is simpler. Animals lack complex language as man has had for 40,000 years. We can pass knowledge down through the generations so our children can stand on the shoulders of giants. Animals have the bee's waggle dance and simple language.
There were no humans before 40,000 years ago. There was no analog language until 4000 years ago. But Ancient Language was a complex language made possible by a simple mutation that gave rise to homo sapiens who ruled the earth for 40,000 years. Now its homo omnisciencis' turn even though we are quickly devolving. We are the first species (on earth) which willed itself into existence and has some limited control over its destiny.
The evidence says they were scientists. Logic says they were scientists. This also supports the notion that ALL animals are scientific and explains how beavers learned to change their environment to suit their needs and termites invented cities, air conditioning, and agriculture. Animals are simpler so their science is simpler. Animals lack complex language as man has had for 40,000 years. We can pass knowledge down through the generations so our children can stand on the shoulders of giants. Animals have the bee's waggle dance and simple language.
There were no humans before 40,000 years ago. There was no analog language until 4000 years ago. But Ancient Language was a complex language made possible by a simple mutation that gave rise to homo sapiens who ruled the earth for 40,000 years. Now its homo omnisciencis' turn even though we are quickly devolving. We are the first species (on earth) which willed itself into existence and has some limited control over its destiny.
You make some rather outlandish claims but provide no evidence that supports your claims. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You have your own personal time-machine?
You have your own personal time-machine?
Remember I said earlier that writing was invented in 3200 BC but recorded history didn't start until 2000 BC. This is because the language changed and that history recorded the first 1200 years was lost. Since I can understand this writing I can see some of this history.
This is the nature of my time machine. Powered by google operated by logic.
No, they assume living organisms are due to natural causes because in spite of belief in thousands and thousands of gods over thousands and thousands of years theists haven't been able to produce a single specimen of a god.Homo omnisciencis always assumes the conclusion and then always rolls out the circular arguments to get there.
You make some rather outlandish claims but provide no evidence that supports your claims.
Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
No you don't. You even claim your designer wasn't designed but exists just because of a fluke... or do you have a third alternative... did your designer evolve?
All I get from Google is some rather explicit images when all I wanted was some nice-looking females.
Are you a fluke? Yes. The chances of you existing by accident is practically zero. And yet here you are. By accident and not designed by a god. You can of course be a fluke but not gravity or magnetism?Is gravity a fluke? Is magnetism a fluke?
No, they assume living organisms are due to natural causes because in spite of belief in thousands and thousands of gods over thousands and thousands of years theists haven't been able to produce a single specimen of a god.