The five "R"s that probably inspired the invention of god and religion:

[smax]

But what evidence is there that those are the reasons religion was invented?

Let's face it, when it comes to philosophy, ancient history, and religion, there is no conclusive evidence of anything that is relatively significant on the subject.

Does that prevent discussion?

Clearly it doesn't.

With that, I think the most compelling thing we have available is circumstantial evidence. We don't have a time machine to take us back to the events, but we do have the powerful tool of careful observation.

I certainly do not rule out other motivating factors, such as fear. And that's why I started this discussion, to explore the possibilities.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'd just like to see some links to research papers or some surveys or something. I don't really see much of a difference from this thread and one where a theist simply states that atheists are only atheists because they hate god, etc., etc., without any further justification.

My OP was merely a starting point for this discussion.

If a Theist wants discuss what motivates me as an Atheist, I'm happy to have that discussion, and I would hope other Atheists feel the same way.

Haha...don't be fooled by my username. I was never a believer.

You definitely fooled me. Not just because of your user name, but because you seem somewhat pro-religion to me, which is often a weird side-effect of Apostasy

I suffered from it for a while after I left the faith and, in some ways, still do.

That's fine, but when you leave out the fact that your statements are based on observations and experiences, it comes across as if you are stating brute fact.

I think I tried to make that reasonably evident.

The believers here certainly seem to think that we don't understand religion.

That's the product of discussion and debate. And, as I said, it's really inconsequential anyway. Because, no matter what you do, religious people (in general) will always look at you as if something is terribly wrong.

There is no way around that.

No reason, really, but if we demonstrate that we do understand religion better than they think we do, that gives them one less reason to simply dismiss anything we say without meaningful consideration.

All due respect, I think you are overestimating Theists here. But, for argument sake, let's say you are right. Everything I've presented here is well within the religious framework. All you have to do is merely discuss the matter with religious people and they wll happily concede most of these points.

The suicide terrorists who destroyed the twin towers during 911 were immediately celebrated by many fellow muslims for having "achieved the award of 72 virgins" and for having administered "Divine Retribution".

Does that not compell you to believe that "Reward" and "Retribution" are powerful religious motivations, and very likely two of the foundational cornerstones of it?

The motivations behind religion are complex and cannot be simplified so easily. Here's one psychologist's observations.

To sum up. The universal propensity toward religious belief is a genuine scientific puzzle. But many adaptationist explanations for religion, such as the one featured in Time last week, don't, I think, meet the criteria for adaptations. There is an alternative explanation, namely that religious psychology is a by-product of many parts of the mind that evolved for other purposes. Among those purposes one has to distinguish the benefits to the producer and the benefits to the consumer.Religion has obvious practical effects for producers. When it comes to the consumers, there are possible emotional adaptations in our desire for health, love and success, possible cognitive adaptations in our intuitive psychology, and many aspects of our experience that seem to provide evidence for souls. Put these together and you get an appeal to a mysterious world of souls to bring about our fondest wishes.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/m...ligion.htm

I feel that only helps to substantiate my position here.

The subject doesn't offend me at all. What bothers me is when complex issues are simplified and no corroborating evidence is presented for an argument, especially when said argument is attempting to show a person's motivations behind a belief. Were you here for jstrodel?

As I said, the thread was a starting point for the discussion. During the course of this discussion, we have discussed several possibilities and supporting evidence has been provided.

I went back and re-read your OP to make sure I was understanding what you were trying to say. I see now that you put the word "probably" in there, so you can ignore my objections about stating brute facts.

I still contend, however, that you are simplifying a complex issue.

How complex do you want this be? The points I laid out are fairly well supported, but I admit, they could be significantly expounded upon.

My goal was/is to make this a progessive discussion that is relatively all-inclusive.

What you want is not.

---

Actually, probably not.

Make a stronger case then?

---

Religion is certainly used to control people, but it's not clear that it was invented for that purpose. It was probably invented for multiple reasons, not the least of which as a way for people to understand the world around them, in a pre-scientific age. That's my anthropological guess.

I would argue that this falls under the category of reason (or purpose), which I'm very open to as the possible #1 reason.

There seems to be problem with the human brain coping with unanswered questions, and obviously life and the universe present us with a seemingly endless number of those.

When solid answers are absent, we invent answers to satisfy our own sense of resolve.