What if we're all wrong though?

[Paul the Human]

Where then did the original idea for religion evolve from. Someone somewhere had to originate the idea from some observance.

Early man saw lightning flash and imagined an angry being in the sky, so he bowed down and begged for forgiveness. Early man saw the sun travel across the sky and imagined that a supernatural being was providing light and keeping watch on him. Etc., etc.

A pack/tribe leader imagined that this same supernatural being created the entire world and the sky above and told his people... and they believed him. Just look! How else can water fall from the sky?

That is where the original idea for religion evolved from. The observance of natural phenomena without the knowledge of scientific explanations.

[Scented Nectar]

Where then did the original idea for religion evolve from. Someone somewhere had to originate the idea from some observance.

Here's a possibility, from Philhellenes on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY0x_YNlhz8

[Strongbad]

Your arguement is flawed. Where then did the original idea for religion evolve from. Someone somewhere had to originate the idea from some observance. It's impossible that all belief in any god ever is always coerced, that's an absolutist statement and is inaccurate. Without the Bible I would still have some idea of a designer or creator, and that would be my God. I also in fact do not believe that all other religions are inheritly false or derived from deception. I'm not implying that one is completely satisfied by religion, I for one am never completely fufilled or satisfied. Nor am I saying that I am without resentment 100% of the time, I'm human and that's a near impossibility. Please restate

You’re right – my argument is flawed. What I meant to say was that in modern times, all belief in any god is coerced. Absolutely no one, today, “finds” religion without being introduced to it by someone else. (Please don’t conjure up some story such as “what if a boy was raised by wolves with no human contact, and conceived the idea of a god all by himself?”) Without the bible or the introduction to religion by someone else, you would have no concept of religion at all. It is easy for you to say that you would still have some idea of a designer or creator, but that is pure speculation.

Where did the original idea for religion come from? We will probably never know for sure. However, because all religions date to primitive times, we can infer that they most likely arose from ignorance. Primitive man did not understand what caused earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, violent storms, disease, etc. Because of their ignorance, they conceived deities to blame things on, and made sacrifices to them in an attempt to appease them. Religion evolved to include giving “thanks” to the deities for such things as a bountiful crop or hunt, and for having a tornado wipe out a neighboring tribe instead of their own. The ideas of eternal life, salvation, and damnation were all part of the religious evolutionary process. All religions are man-made concepts.

It is understandable that you are not fulfilled or satisfied 100% of the time – that’s a little doubt called “reality” that is always in the back of your mind.

[Purple Rabbit]

@tackattack
Since you have argued that god is not capable of human emotions, than how is it possible to associate him with love?

[Purple Rabbit]

@PR- By the strictest definition in Christianity as Fr0d0 has given you is, God is. This doesn't denote we can't know anything about God, just that historically in Biblical scripture people were chastised for thinking they knew everything about God and this modern Christian attitude is probably more of a safety position. IMO, If I had to nail down some attributes to God I would say
1-God is a creative entity existing incorporeally
2-God's presence isn't detectable by today's standards within the known universe
3-God is the entity that created matter and guided the creation of the universe and it's laws and axioms.
4-God is a moral compass in both Jesus' teachings about God and in the modern revelations that are observed
5-If there is an afterlife, and a judgement, God would have the best perspective to judge fairly.
6-God's hand allows for a design in chaos that exceed chance and provides sychronicity and shows purpose individually

That's the worst nightmare of a definition I've ever seen.
"God is" as a defintion of god is
1) a cop out
2) failing to define anything
3) an insult of intellect
4) lazyness gone haywire
5) procrastination
6) in the face refusal of definition
7) too easy
8) designed to be a semi-profundity
9) theological bankruptcy
10) je moeder op een houtvlot
11) not worth flushing the toilet
12) crap
13) like the ultimate untruth of the universe
14) showing a deranged brain
15) what validates theological non-cognitivism
...

And then you proceed with some attributes you on a personal basis would like to add!
QED, I rest my case.

[Caecilian]

15) what validates theological non-cognitivism
...

And your number 15 is surely the most important point.

Because the 'god concept' really is just a hodgepodge list of attributes, some seemingly incoherent in their own right (wtf is 'omnipotence'?). There is no reference, no underlying concept of what 'god' is apart from a list of descriptors. Thats it.

And what are descriptors with nothing to describe? Meaningless, thats what.

[fr0d0]

That just is non cognitivism ...not thinking about it. You deny the subject you're supposedly considering. Observance, would you entertain it, could show you a consistent picture of God. Let's not get carried away here and believe what our hang ups dictate.

[tackattack]

@pr- I Attribute some semblance of love to God, despite the fact he is not human, because all I have is my human perspective to view reality and from the natural observances I attribute to God appear to fit the Christian dogma related to God's Love. Does he see it as love ? IDK. If I were to create a society of AI androids, their habitat and laws of physics and felt the need to protect all of that I would just see it as a natural instinct to preserve my creations I guess. So maybe God's love from God's perspective is actually just natural to his attributes as a creator and not love at all. From my perspective I see it as love in it's purest form and it's attributes are defined well in the Bible.

The rest idk, I answered your question with 6 simple points and you threw out tons of gibberish that I'm not going to take the time to translate, feel free to restate. Was that just referencing the God is portion only or what?

@Strongbad- Was "It is understandable that you are not fulfilled or satisfied 100% of the time – that’s a little doubt called “reality” that is always in the back of your mind. " an attempt at calling me delusional? My doubts are the same doubts that everyone has. What if we're in the matrix, is black really black, what is truth, could I be making more money, why is she looking at me... nothing is 100% I'm not satisfied with my paycheck, that doesn't indicate anything underlying or false.

It's very possible that it's impossible since the advent of the information age that all environmental influence could be ruled out as bias. You're still assuming that I believe before I observe, which IMO is false.

[Purple Rabbit]

@pr- I Attribute some semblance of love to God, despite the fact he is not human, because all I have is my human perspective to view reality and from the natural observances I attribute to God appear to fit the Christian dogma related to God's Love. Does he see it as love ? IDK. If I were to create a society of AI androids, their habitat and laws of physics and felt the need to protect all of that I would just see it as a natural instinct to preserve my creations I guess. So maybe God's love from God's perspective is actually just natural to his attributes as a creator and not love at all. From my perspective I see it as love in it's purest form and it's attributes are defined well in the Bible.

OK, since we're free to attribute on blind faith and poor historical insight all kind of gibberish to some god entity we fail to define in any way, let me do some attributing of my own:

Since, as you explained, we cannot know anything about non-human emotion from experience in any sense, implying therewith that a statement like "god IS love", with or without capitalization of nouns, is utter gibberish, I can only account of love and hate as I know it. From that perspective the god of the bible is a wrathful, hateful son of a bitch as accounted for in Leviticus and as taught in early (as in around relatively close after the death of Jesus) gnostic teachings. Teachings that were rudelessly and systematically stripped from mainstream pauline christian teachings even before was decided about the canonical contents of those teachings. So to say only that god is love and not that god is hate shows nothing but the blindness of faith. We can drivel on about which other attributes to stick on the guy but as blindness prevails it is impossible to arrive at any coherent conclusion and indeed the 7 billion god concepts are a clear indication that pursue of such a task is futile.

The rest idk, I answered your question with 6 simple points and you threw out tons of gibberish that I'm not going to take the time to translate, feel free to restate. Was that just referencing the God is portion only or what?

That's my point, your "definition" equals gibberish.

---

That just is non cognitivism ...not thinking about it. You deny the subject you're supposedly considering. Observance, would you entertain it, could show you a consistent picture of God. Let's not get carried away here and believe what our hang ups dictate.

Since we agree on the fact that your faith is illogical, I see no reason why your words should have any bearing on me. Please feel free though to continue cluttering the blogosphere with random illogical remarks.

[Strongbad]

@Strongbad- Was "It is understandable that you are not fulfilled or satisfied 100% of the time – that’s a little doubt called “reality” that is always in the back of your mind. " an attempt at calling me delusional? My doubts are the same doubts that everyone has. What if we're in the matrix, is black really black, what is truth, could I be making more money, why is she looking at me... nothing is 100% I'm not satisfied with my paycheck, that doesn't indicate anything underlying or false.

It's very possible that it's impossible since the advent of the information age that all environmental influence could be ruled out as bias. You're still assuming that I believe before I observe, which IMO is false.

Nice attempt at trying to make my post appear to be a personal attack on you. It is plainly obvious that “fulfillment and satisfaction”, in the context which you have been using them, refer to religious thinking. Now you toss in the matrix, truth, money, etc. Remember what I said before about dancing around the subject? I have already stated my position that anyone who is a “believer”, in any religion, has bought in to the delusion. All believers will disagree with me, and that’s fine.

How about addressing the actual points of my post, regarding coercion and the origins of deities and religions?