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

[ReasonableRuben]

Evidence?

All of this unsubstantiated speculation about the motivations behind the religious and religion is just playing into the stereotype that non-believers simply don't "get" religion. Remember, bare assertions are not good foundations for an argument.

Kudos for not just sucking atheist cock but actually being fair and balanced, which is a rarity here.

Kudos for what one might call "creative" use of language.

[Sal]

I'm of the conviction that religion started gradually, out of fear and ignorance, and developed as our first attempt at explaining natural phenomena; something Christopher Hitchens also believed. And as first attempts usually go, failed miserably.

[Minimalist]

The most primitive hunter-gatherer societies we have available for study show an animist religion based on the idea of everything having a "spirit."
The best explanation for that is the realization that something happens when an animal dies and the solution that primitive humans came up with is that the "spirit" leaves the body.

In truth - its really no stupider than what theists believe now.

[smax]

Evidence?

Absolutely. As much as any theory can have evidence, anyway. Each of the conditions I presented are present in religion today. In fact, lots of historical evidence exists, as books such as the Bible, Quran, and the Bagvadhgita all include these conditions.

All of this unsubstantiated speculation about the motivations behind the religious and religion is just playing into the stereotype that non-believers simply don't "get" religion. Remember, bare assertions are not good foundations for an argument.

I completely disagree with you here on several levels. First of all, it's a theory, and not one that is unsubstantiated, and one that has been widely speculated about for many thousands of years.

Further more, many well accomplished scientists, philosophers, and other related experts, have theorized and published many similar speculations. It's not as taboo as you make it out to be.

Secondly, like you, I was a member of religion, therefore, I can speak from first hand experience about certain motivations, practices, and experiences. These not only include my own experiences, but those shared with me by other members, including several different levels of congregants.

Thirdly, what stereotype are you talking about? As a former member of the Christian faith, I don't recall any such stereotyping going on? And, even if it did, why should any non-believer care? I, personally, accept that there is a distinguishable difference between myself and someone who has an imaginary friend. We've all had them, some of us just grew up and gave them up entirely at some point.

Besides, these points suggest that I do get religious motivations, as many of these points are made by religious people all the time:

Regulation: "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman" - Former US President, George Bush.

Reunion: "I can't wait to see my grandfather when I get to heaven" - typical quote

Reason: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." - The Apostle Paul

Retribution: "I hope you burn in hell" - Random fan mail for Richard Dawkins.

Reward: "God will prepare everything for our perfect happiness in heaven, and if it takes my dog being there, I believe he'll be there." - Evangelist Billy Graham

What you call unsubstantiated speculation, I call careful observation.

Regardless, I find it much more likely that religion began as primitive man's attempt to explain the world around him, and these five "R's," as you put it, were incorporated later on.

Fair enough, and I don't see any harm in you speculating as much.

But I have to ask, why does this subject offend you so much?

---

look at rural communities, religion can offer a base for people to meet and connect and build bonds.

several communities throughout the american south, in which no other methods and places for social conecting are not provided are held together by their churches who do not only provide the mass but other events which can bring a community together.

If this should be debated, then it is important to stay objective. even when some of us like to solely concentrate on religions negative effects.
religion is not only a simplicistic way of totalitarian crowdcontrol - it can provide the services required to give a community stability.

True. Unfortunately, it doesn't always draw the line at the appropriate place.

---

I'm of the conviction that religion started gradually, out of fear and ignorance, and developed as our first attempt at explaining natural phenomena; something Christopher Hitchens also believed. And as first attempts usually go, failed miserably.

And this is really the point of this thread, to explore and speculate about the origins of religion.

---

The most primitive hunter-gatherer societies we have available for study show an animist religion based on the idea of everything having a "spirit."
The best explanation for that is the realization that something happens when an animal dies and the solution that primitive humans came up with is that the "spirit" leaves the body.

In truth - its really no stupider than what theists believe now.

Could you expand on the bold? I've never heard of any such phenomenon.

[Faith No More]

Absolutely. As much as any theory can have evidence, anyway. Each of the conditions I presented are present in religion today. In fact, lots of historical evidence exists, as books such as the Bible, Quran, and the Bagvadhgita all include these conditions.

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

I completely disagree with you here on several levels. First of all, it's a theory, and not one that is unsubstantiated, and one that has been widely speculated about for many thousands of years.

Further more, many well accomplished scientists, philosophers, and other related experts, have theorized and published many similar speculations. It's not as taboo as you make it out to be.

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.

Secondly, like you, I was a member of religion, therefore, I can speak from first hand experience about certain motivations, practices, and experiences.

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

I am, however, a big fan of these guys, and thought their band name made for a good atheist forum name.

These not only include my own experiences, but those shared with me by other members, including several different levels of congregants.

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.

Thirdly, what stereotype are you talking about? As a former member of the Christian faith, I don't recall any such stereotyping going on?

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

And, even if it did, why should any non-believer care?

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.

Besides, these points suggest that I do get religious motivations, as many of these points are made by religious people all the time:

Regulation: "The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman" - Former US President, George Bush.

Reunion: "I can't wait to see my grandfather when I get to heaven" - typical quote

Reason: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose." - The Apostle Paul

Retribution: "I hope you burn in hell" - Random fan mail for Richard Dawkins.

Reward: "God will prepare everything for our perfect happiness in heaven, and if it takes my dog being there, I believe he'll be there." - Evangelist Billy Graham

What you call unsubstantiated speculation, I call careful observation.

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

But I have to ask, why does this subject offend you so much?

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?

---

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.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

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.

[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.

[Minimalist]

It can be hard to separate anthropology from archaeology when dealing with early man but animism was only defined in the early 19th century by Edwin Tylor.

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

I forget where I read/saw it but someone was considering the practical effect of what would happen when a primitive human with marginal cognitive powers would see a live animal become a dead animal after sticking a spear in it. The old "one guy - brighter than the rest" routine began to wonder about the animating force which was no longer present in the dead animal.

Today, of course, marginal cognitive powers are generally found among theists.

[Faith No More]

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 preclude you from presenting any evidence?

Does that prevent discussion?

No, but you certainly didn't give the impression you were starting a discussion. You appeared to make claims.

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.

Then why not at least expound upon the observations that led you to these conclusions?

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

Asking an atheist to substantiate a claim made about religion is "pro-religion" all of a sudden?

I think I tried to make that reasonably evident.

Well, I think you should re-read your OP, because it wasn't even slightly evident.

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?

You see, this is exactly what I was talking about. Why not include this in the OP when you made the claim?

I feel that only helps to substantiate my position here.

How so?

(I'm not challenging you. I genuinely would like to know.)

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.

Again, I have to point out that you made claims, and nowhere did you indicate it was intended to spark discussion.

And why didn't you provide the supporting evidence with the claim?

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.

Perhaps in the future you should be more explicit about that instead of simply making claims with no elaboration.

[smax]

You see, this is exactly what I was talking about. Why not include this in the OP when you made the claim?

I already stated my intent to create a progressive discussion.

I feel that only helps to substantiate my position here.

How so?

(I'm not challenging you. I genuinely would like to know.)

That piece that you quoted speculates about the inherent benefits of religion, such as emotional rewards (love) and the desire for purpose (souls). His take is more geared toward the evolution of the human mind, but many of the motivating factors are identical. In fact, he practically summed it up for me:

Put these together and you get an appeal to a mysterious world of souls to bring about our fondest wishes.

Again, I have to point out that you made claims, and nowhere did you indicate it was intended to spark discussion.

Kind of seemed obvious to me, being that I was creating a thread on a discussion forum, but I'll keep your objection in mind in the future.

And why didn't you provide the supporting evidence with the claim?

In some cases, that's my approach. In other cases, my goal is to solicit the opinions of others without unnecessarily influencing them.

Excuse the slang, but this isn't my first rodeo.

Perhaps in the future you should be more explicit about that instead of simply making claims with no elaboration.

I'm not sure when it happened, but I suspect I rubbed you, and maybe some other staff members, the wrong way somewhere along the line. I loosely base that on the fact that I've read numerous thread topics that were ridiculously pointless and baseless, and yet not accompanied by the same objections some of mind have met with.

Anyway, just a theory.