I think, but I am to tired to look for sources now and re-check it, that religion filled mankind's need for social hierarchy. And someone's gotta be on top of it.

And isn't one god way more competitive than a god for every fart?

All this info from Sumerian stems from the sky people, the annunaki. Less of a religion in that annunaki are regarded as extra terrestrials. An evolution of gods from normal ass physical creatures. Man we really screwed up!

[rant]

I hate to be a stickler for accuracy but it's not 'evolution' is it; rather it's 'change'.

Sorry but misuse of the word 'evolution' to mean 'change' is a pet peeve of mine, especially when creatards use the word to misrepresent it (e.g. 'stella evolution' ).

I recommend that before using the word 'evolution' people consider this simple test:

1. might one be able to calculate equivalents/analogues of allele frequencies
2. might one be able to state their equivalents/analogues of cladistics/phylogeny

If 'yes', you're justified in using the word 'evolution' as an analogy.
If 'no', it's just 'change'.

[/rant]

Quote:From a non-believer point of view, the evolution of the concept of the divine may appear almost intuitive.

This is the key.

First, try explaining similarities in religions from a literal Biblical viewpoint.

Second, note that people frequently get sloppy with assumptions because it seems so intuitive.

(December 3, 2012 at 11:53 am)John V Wrote:

Quote:From a non-believer point of view, the evolution of the concept of the divine may appear almost intuitive.

This is the key.

First, try explaining similarities in religions from a literal Biblical viewpoint.

Second, note that people frequently get sloppy with assumptions because it seems so intuitive.

hmmmm tricky... can you provide a sumerian equivalent of the bible?
I'd wager they wrote the book well before the hebrews wrote the Torah.

But why am I arguing over books written by people? The thread is about beliefs in gods, not beliefs in the contents of books.

(December 3, 2012 at 12:00 pm)pocaracas Wrote: hmmmm tricky... can you provide a sumerian equivalent of the bible?
I'd wager they wrote the book well before the hebrews wrote the Torah.

Suppose there are similarities between a Biblical text and another religious text, and the earliest extant copy of the other text is older than the earliest copy of the Biblical text.

1. So what? As you note, the evolution of texts seems intuitive. So, people merely note that one text is older than another and has similarities, and allow people's intuition to infer that the later copied from the earlier. This is sloppy. The actual transmission is dismissed with a general wave of the hand - the latter must have acquired the material from the former via trade or conquest. Well, no, that's not a given. You need convincing evidence of the transmission to have anything more than speculation. Atheists frequently note our tendency to make patterns out of data to explain religion, but generally fail to apply this tendency to their own arguments. perhaps you're just intuitively seeing a pattern that doesn't really exist.

2. A Biblical viewpoint also explains similarities between the bible and other religions. Romans tells us that early people knew God but didn't want to worship him, so they made up their own gods. It wouldn't at all be surprising for some of these peoples to include some of the truth into their new religions. Then, when God gave the truth to Israel, there were similarities to older traditions.

In short, we see patterns that fit into our pre-existing paradigm.

Similarities in texts of different religions mean that stories about god A have been adapted to fit god B. This means that, at least, a part of the god B story is made up by humans.

Biblical viewpoint, romans?.. I'm talking well before the romans were around. People already believed other deities before yahweh was ...... ad@pted.
Anyway, you then say that god gave the truth to Israel... isn't it much simpler, given all the similarities, to see this truth as arising from the "older traditions"?

You want to have your god present itself to human kind somewhere in the far past; humans then build a number of pantheons of gods and he eventually comes back to lay the truth on people again.... and few years later drops his son around the same geographical position, just to make a point.

I see naturalistic patterns. You see supernatural ones. I find my patterns more probable than yours.

(December 3, 2012 at 12:32 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Similarities in texts of different religions mean that stories about god A have been adapted to fit god B.

Not necessarily. You need to show evidence of transmission. for that claim to be more than speculation or intuition. It could also be that A stories and B stories were seprately adapted from earlier C stories, or the similarities could be mere coincidence.

Quote:Biblical viewpoint, romans?.. I'm talking well before the romans were around. People already believed other deities before yahweh was ...... ad@pted.

The book of Romans in the Bible, specifically the first chapter.

Quote:Anyway, you then say that god gave the truth to Israel... isn't it much simpler, given all the similarities, to see this truth as arising from the "older traditions"?

I don't see how we could quantify which is simpler, and simplicity does not necessarily imply truth anyway.

Quote:You want to have your god present itself to human kind somewhere in the far past; humans then build a number of pantheons of gods and he eventually comes back to lay the truth on people again....

Yes. Similarities between other religious texts and OT texts make perfect sense in the Biblical paradigm.

Quote:I see naturalistic patterns. You see supernatural ones. I find my patterns more probable than yours.

Of course you do.