Where Did the Idea of Gods Come From?

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Isherwood Who's conditioned? I was raised Christian and was a devout believer until I was in my 20's. Atheism is the conclusion I reached after a lot of study and contemplation. Mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seems like religion fits nicely into the myth category. My inability to disprove the notion of gods has to do with the theist's inability to provide anything to disprove. And game.

Are you comparing Abrahamic religions with Greek stories?

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 How do you figure?

I agree, how do you figure a belief in god requires that great a leap? I think the leap is pretty small. Human beings die, making them insignificant and their lives eternally meaningless. When man realized this he must have thought about how great it would be NOT to die, like god. And there we go, i personally believe gods were invented because of the depressing nature of finitude.

[Cephus]

Quote by: The_Genius Are you comparing Abrahamic religions with Greek stories?

They're both just as ridiculous and laughable.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Cephus They're both just as ridiculous and laughable.

Keep laughing then. :) It's your choice...

[Jagged]

I made a cool connection today when i realized the the origin of the concept of god is as known as the origin of life is in the theory of evolution. Beyond speculation (cavemen made it because they were confused), we know relatively nothing of either.

[Fonceai]

@Jagged

Precisely.

The origin of anything beyond our scope of history is always only a best guess.

As for gods, it's still an interesting question.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Fonceai @Jagged Precisely. The origin of anything beyond our scope of history is always only a best guess. As for gods, it's still an interesting question.

Yes, this question usually isn't asked or pondered because when people talk of Christianity and the beginning, they go into Genesis of the Bible. When you think about when the actual belief of god began, it seems to trivialize all religions, because all one can think of are cavemen. :confused:

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: rcne It started with Neanderthal burials and a belief in shamanism. Then to ancestor worship and the addition of Gods of nature. From there tribes and kingship, where the king was also the high priest who talked directly to god. This lead to the Pharaohs who were God on Earth. That lead to the semi-divine and a slew of half gods in addition to all the other lesser gods. From this polytheism, monotheism arose where God was separate and removed from earth and only spoke to men through dreams with a promise of a better life in the afterworld. Now we have thousands of visionaries, each claiming direct knowledge of what god wants. We were better off with ancestor worship.

We still have ancestor worship: it's called patriotism.

[phoenix_fire]

I personally think that the veritable pantheon we ended up with is a result of the following: there is one God...for real. Other cultures butchered the truth about Him and/or concocted rival deities out of spite. There is also a possibility of demonic involvement. Soon you have a concept of deity, but in some places the truth has become extremely dilute or forgotten, so people start creating. Naturally, their creations take on the similitude of the creators. This can even be seen among those who profess to worship the real God. In short, a case of telephone gone bad.

Just a theory.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Runa216 as best I can tell, God was created by man because there was much they didn't understand. take the Watch maker argument. you find a watch in the middle of the desert, you assume something created it. Well, what could possibly make the world we live in? there's no way such beauty could just spontaneously erupt from nothingness, so something HAD to make it, right? Well, God explained all that was unexplainable, and people were gullible (still are) and it was also a good way to use fear to rule. it was convenient.

Actually, the watchmaker argument is a belief that God made the universe and then just sat back and watched what happened, much as a watch can function on its own without the constant manipulation of the watchmaker.

But to address your argument: the argument is that a watch has to have been created by an intelligence. No one with two brain cells to rub together would say that the watch just happened. By studying the watch, you can possibly figure out the processes that were used to make the watch. You can see the grooves where the metal was shaped and perhaps find traces of the chemicals that were used in the manufacture. And even though you can see natural means in the formation of the watch, probability and common sense are against the idea that there wasn't a direction to it: a watchmaker. Much in the same way, the order of the universe: the constant principles of physics and chemistry and the other sciences, is posited to be a proof of a creative Intelligence. Randomness should not have been able to achieve the kind of complexity and order that we can observe in the universe. And then there are men. Men are irrational. They do not necessarily follow the order or logic. They transcend it.

Meh. It's an interesting thing to think about.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Runa216 oh, and of course, to this day, nobody is able to DISprove the existence of god, and therefore, the belief has been clung to by 5 Billion people worldwide. lack of disproof is not proof, however.

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".

[Jack]

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".

Shouldn't this be in your "too often quoted" thread? While it may not be in the absolute sense, in everyday life we often accept a lack of evidence as evidence of lack. Courts require evidence of guilt to be presented. If no evidence is brought forth, the charges are dropped as though there had been no crime committed.
Let me add to your list of frequently quoted, and disputed, phrases; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[phoenix_fire]

I don't remember anyone else having used that one...you need at least two volconvo offenders.

And just because you can't prove that someone killed another, that does not necessarily mean that the guy didn't. So your argument is rather more supportive of my premise, I think.

[Jack]

And just because you can't prove that someone killed another, that does not necessarily mean that the guy didn't.

Yet, as the OJ fiasco taught us, if the evidence is lacking or considered contrived, a verdict of not-guilty is rendered and it doesn't matter what we may think about it, the law considers that person free of guilt. Evidence has to meet a certain level of credibility, and if the evidence presented doesn't meet that standard, it can't be considered convincing.

[Cephus]

Quote by: The_Genius Keep laughing then. :) It's your choice...

I am, thanks for your permission.

[Athena]

Quote by: The_Genius Are you comparing Abrahamic religions with Greek stories?

I compare religions to Greek stories. I know this is not what a religous person wants to hear, and I am truly sorry about that, but it is unavoidable.
The bible begins with Sumerian myths that were adjusted to fit the idea of one God. The stories begin as stories of many gods and goddesses. Eve coming from Adam's rib, was orginally Ninti, the rib healing goddess. The Hebrew account of creation and the flood were the result of translating Sumerian stories found in Ur. Even the understanding of sin comes from Sumer.

I firmly belief, at no time did a God or angels speak to human beings. On the good side for Muslims, this means Jews are not God's choosen people and there is no justification for Israel. On the bad side, it means your understanding of God is no better than anyone else's, because like all understandings of God, it is human thought, not a message from God delivered by angels.

[Athena]

Quote by: Isherwood Yet, as the OJ fiasco taught us, if the evidence is lacking or considered contrived, a verdict of not-guilty is rendered and it doesn't matter what we may think about it, the law considers that person free of guilt. Evidence has to meet a certain level of credibility, and if the evidence presented doesn't meet that standard, it can't be considered convincing.

This is way off subject, but the people judged OJ guilty and he is so socially rejected he can not sell books.

When it comes to religion, what is credible depends very much on what is learned, and what is not learned. If we began our history with Sumer, instead of Egypt, it would change our reality almost as much as a polar shift. Or when we learn of Egypt, if we learned of Amenhotep IV'a monotheism, we might be less impressed by the Jewish worship of one God.

If all we learn is one religion's explanation and we learn that early enough in life, and live with people who believe this religious understanding of life, the religious teachings will seem obvious to us. The indoctrination will be complete, and not only will the religion make sense, but having doubts will result in terrible fear that results in a person no longer engaging in thoughts that cause him/her to doubt the religious teachings.

Arguing that a belief does not give valid proof is futile, when every cell of a person's body knows the religion is God's truth. This not just a thinking matter, but very much a feeling matter. We feel something is BS or absolute God's truth. My friend was oozing with positive feelings when she gave me a spiritual tape to listen too. It is so annoying to me, I want to throw it at her, and make it clear I think the thoughts expressed are trash. But I don't want to offend my friend, and I question why am I having such a strong negative emotional reaction to a fictional idea about God and being human? Why the emotional intensity?

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Isherwood Yet, as the OJ fiasco taught us, if the evidence is lacking or considered contrived, a verdict of not-guilty is rendered and it doesn't matter what we may think about it, the law considers that person free of guilt. Evidence has to meet a certain level of credibility, and if the evidence presented doesn't meet that standard, it can't be considered convincing.

Yet, to use your illustration, everyone knew OJ did it. The verdict is irrelevant. What matters is the truth.

[Athena]

Randomness should not have been able to achieve the kind of complexity and order that we can observe in the universe.

Why not?

Or, what is random about the evolution of hydrogen into other elements?

[Jack]

Yet, to use your illustration, everyone knew OJ did it. The verdict is irrelevant. What matters is the truth.

Yet the jury decided the burden of proof was not met. By saying you think he's guilty without acceptable evidence of that, you're saying that "to know" is the same as an opinion without supporting evidence. I relate that sentiment to religion.
To those in the legal profession, and incidentally by atheists as well, the verdict is not irrelevant. It's the conclusion reached by the failure to provide reasonable evidence of his guilt, or in theology the lack of credible evidence of the existence of gods. It may not be a popular conclusion, but it's reasonable considering that the evidence failed to meet the burden of proof. .