65 replies to this topic

[HyDrive]

Religion was invented for manipulation because if just a random guy told you to wait till marriage to have sex, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, etc. you would be like, uh who are you and why should I listen to you? But if I tell you that you are going to hell and will burn for eternity, and I have a big convincing story of why you should believe me.. then you might actually listen to me. When you ask for physical proof of God, you are told that you must have "faith" which means you need to believe what you are told without asking questions because there is no hard evidence.

Evolution is more logical. There are various forms of proof to back it up.. you don't need to rely on your "faith". Evolution is like 1+1=2 and it is easy to understand exactly how we came to be. There is nothing outrageous about evolution. But religion on the other hand, is so similar to a science fiction movie. Hell, heaven, pregnant virgins, human beings created out of thin air by some God... everything about religion is so far-fetched. Everything about evolution is logical and easily explained with our current level of science and technology.

Hundreds, thousands of years ago, they didn't have the science/technology we have now, so I can see why they might have believed it. They weren't able to research organisms, bones, cells, elements, compounds, etc. like we can do. Heck, they didn't even know what any of those things were.

Religion gives people a false sense of hope. Pray and god will come save you from your debt, disease, whatever. No! Go get a job and some healthcare and you will save YOURSELF. You control your own destiny, not some mysterious all powerful God.

Discuss.

Edited by HyDrive, 07 September 2009 - 10:27 PM.

[Lufega]

There's really not much more to day. You covered it all.

[Reeve Treaty]

WHO CARES WHY RELIGION WAS INVENTED!? It is the enemy of both science and TRUE spirituality. Organized dogma is plain bad for humanity in general no matter what the reasons were behind its creation! I don't need to know the chemical properties of a poison and exactly how it processes in my body to kill me in order to understand why not to $*&^%#@ drink it!

Edited by Reeve Treaty, 24 September 2009 - 08:49 AM.

[Teixeira]

Religion was invented for manipulation because if just a random guy told you to wait till marriage to have sex, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, etc. you would be like, uh who are you and why should I listen to you? But if I tell you that you are going to hell and will burn for eternity, and I have a big convincing story of why you should believe me.. then you might actually listen to me. When you ask for physical proof of God, you are told that you must have "faith" which means you need to believe what you are told without asking questions because there is no hard evidence.

Evolution is more logical. There are various forms of proof to back it up.. you don't need to rely on your "faith". Evolution is like 1+1=2 and it is easy to understand exactly how we came to be. There is nothing outrageous about evolution. But religion on the other hand, is so similar to a science fiction movie. Hell, heaven, pregnant virgins, human beings created out of thin air by some God... everything about religion is so far-fetched. Everything about evolution is logical and easily explained with our current level of science and technology.

Hundreds, thousands of years ago, they didn't have the science/technology we have now, so I can see why they might have believed it. They weren't able to research organisms, bones, cells, elements, compounds, etc. like we can do. Heck, they didn't even know what any of those things were.

Religion gives people a false sense of hope. Pray and god will come save you from your debt, disease, whatever. No! Go get a job and some healthcare and you will save YOURSELF. You control your own destiny, not some mysterious all powerful God.

Discuss.

I need more faith to belief in the THEORY of macro evolution, than I need to believe in God! Because the theory of evolution ask me to believe in probabilities that are so low that I can´t believe it! To believe in God do not ask me so much. If you utilise mathematics in the evolution, the things get so difficult, that famous mathematicians doubt very much the theory. The things are not that easy. They are not like evolutionists tell us they are. We need a carefull study to start seeing the big problems of that theory.
"Evolution is like 1+1=2". It´s more like 1+1=5 (please believe us!! have some faith!!). I simply don´t have that kind of faith!

[eternaltraveler]

Denying evolution is nonsense. Its used in engineering projects as a tool. You may as well deny the existence of the hammer

If I use directed evolution to create enzymatic machinery that has never before been remotely seen in nature does that make me a wizard or a warlock; that would be cool

Edited by eternaltraveler, 17 December 2009 - 11:23 PM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Religion preys on human biases. Until we reorganize our minds and societies in such a way as to overcome these biases, they will remain. Thus, I don't waste a lot of time trying to convince people to become more rational on religious matters, nor have I participated in any spiritual communities no matter how liberal.

However, I am starting to think I may be misguided. Since most successful religions are exclusive, the ones that win out will by necessity prohibit involvement in other religions. It is zero-sum. Thus, it would be best if a benign one is the dominant one until such time as religion can become obsolete.

I think Unitarianism is not exclusive enough to be counted. Buddhism is a good candidate though. Bahá'í is another good candidate. Yet, even Catholicism isn't so bad compared to many certain fundamentalist denominations. I think I might support certain forms of religious imperialism on this basis. I would also support the participation by secular folks in dialogue with these religions to keep them moderate and and perhaps even involvement to keep them dominant.

[advancedatheist]

Most religions don't have "inventors," or even historical founders. Nobody invented Hinduism, for example. They just arise through complex historical processes we've only begun to understand.

Some recent religions do have identifiable inventors, like Scientology. But these don't represent how the religious phenomenon works in general.

Edited by advancedatheist, 27 December 2009 - 12:14 AM.

[SATANICAT]

Religion seems to be a necessary element of society. Some men are born with moral, others need it scared into them. Religion tries protects the moral men from the immoral men. It provides order for people who are not intelligent enough to discover the order within themselves; protecting the orderly from destructive chaos. It is a very effective element in any society. When I say religion I'm primarily referring to Christianity.

[caston]

If you created AI you may want to give it some rules to stop it over occupying and destroying its own environment. Some of the AI's may hypocritically break these rules in secret while running organisations that through rule of law stop the other AIs from breaking them. Thereby they try to enforce a monopoly on who can break the rules given to them by the creator and in doing so pretend to be working in the creators interests.

To some degree this slows things down and makes the AI's self governing but over time the other AI's realise these organisations are hypocritical and manipulate the creators words for their own economic benefit. e.g. forcing, through threats of damnation, gay members of their church to marry (and thus enter a cuckold relationship with) members of the opposite sex.

The other AI's find tremendous economic and personal benefit in doing things like lending at interest, setting up central banks, listing companies on the stock exchange, stealing wealth and assets from people using inflationary lending practices, creating and promoting idols and sleeping with other mens wives.

Over time they overuse, over populate and pollute their own environemnt. The end.

Edited by caston, 27 December 2009 - 12:05 PM.

[Teixeira]

Denying evolution is nonsense. Its used in engineering projects as a tool. You may as well deny the existence of the hammer

If I use directed evolution to create enzymatic machinery that has never before been remotely seen in nature does that make me a wizard or a warlock; that would be cool

You are talking about micro evolution, that I accept and is well established, but I´m talking of macro evolution a very problematic theory.

[magellan]

sensory expression of those with faith or those who want more faith
neural networks are antennae only stronger
some tuned to correct station, some not
Tesla knew this
me, bigger fish to worry about...question everything, accept nothing

[DukeNukem]

Denying evolution is nonsense. Its used in engineering projects as a tool. You may as well deny the existence of the hammer

If I use directed evolution to create enzymatic machinery that has never before been remotely seen in nature does that make me a wizard or a warlock; that would be cool

You are talking about micro evolution, that I accept and is well established, but I´m talking of macro evolution a very problematic theory.

In what way is macro evolution problematic?

[N.T.M.]

I've read that people's proclivity for religion can be ascribed to a byproduct of an evolutionary advantage. by innately believing that an entity is designed we can extrapolate their behavior quicker, appose to calculating things more pragmatically. I read about this in The God Delusion.

So it can be said that evolution fosters religious belief.

Edited by N.T.M., 05 June 2010 - 07:53 PM.

[JLL]

Most of the theories on how religions came to be don't really answer the fundamental question of "who came up with this stuff?"

Because, quite frankly, despite what complex processes of cultural evolution may be involved, it does boil down to some caveman dude telling his friends that the guy whose head just got bitten off by a tiger somehow lives on in spirit form.

One theory that I like says that back in the day, people could not really grasp the concept of a person dying, so they came up with an alternative explanation. One moment your caveman friend is standing there, breathing, and the next he's lying there motionless. What happened? Where did he go? For the caveman, maybe the logical explanation was that the person did not really disappear but that he still lives on somehow.

The same probably applied to animals also. Death as the ultimate disappearance into the eternal void is probably a rather new discovery. I'm not sure the fear of death is what created religions -- because cavemen were not even smart enough to fear oblivion -- though it may be what keeps religions alive.

[DukeNukem]

It's quite understandable how we came to believe in gods. First, we believed our dead ancestors visited us in dreams. For early humans, dreams were likely considered a different reality, perhaps the afterlife. These passed ancestors imparted advice, and eventually sacrifices were made to keep these ancestors happy and keep the advice-train rolling. Note that when Europe discovered the Americas, most of the native religions where style of this type.

But, in some parts of the world, the dead ancestors are elevated to god status, such as nature gods, creation gods, and vocational gods.

It's really easy to see the progression. Monotheism is a continuation of this progression, btw.

[DukeNukem]

I've read that people's proclivity for religion can be ascribed to a byproduct of an evolutionary advantage. by innately believing that an entity is designed we can extrapolate their behavior quicker, appose to calculating things more pragmatically. I read about this in The God Delusion.

So it can be said that evolution fosters religious belief.

This is true. The irony is that evolution has given us a religious instinct, aka, the God gene.

Before human tribes, primate groups were controlled by alpha males. But, with the arrival of language in humans, the alpha male system no longer held up, because weaker humans could talk and conspire against the alpha male, and through planned coordination, overthrow him. Supernatural oversight of tribes solved this, with supernatural punishment the result of tribe members not obeying tribal rules (rules for the betterment of the tribe). In a tribe of up to 150 people, everyone knows everyone else. If someone steps out of line, no one wants to punish the wrongdoer for fear of retaliation from the person, or his relatives. This, supernatural punishment solved this problem. A wrongdoer had to fear getting hurt, sick, struck by lightning, etc. Tribes developed Shaman who revealed the wishes and laws of the supernatural.

The other key driving force of religion was tribal wars. Religion promised supernatural punishment if you do not fight for your religious tribe, and supernatural reward if you die for the tribe. It was through tens of thousands of years of tribal warring (attrition rates are estimated at around 10-12% per tribe annually!) that effectively eliminated people and tribes without religious instincts, and left only those with a strong religious instinct. In effect, those willing to fight for their cause were the ones who survived over time, and spread their genes -- the genes the entire population of Earth inherited. In short, humans are much less afraid to die for their religious tribe because we know the supernatural reward is worth it.

[N.T.M.]

...attrition rates are estimated at around 10-12% per tribe annually!

lmao!

The other key driving force of religion was tribal wars. Religion promised supernatural punishment if you do not fight for your religious tribe, and supernatural reward if you die for the tribe. It was through tens of thousands of years of tribal warring (attrition rates are estimated at around 10-12% per tribe annually!) that effectively eliminated people and tribes without religious instincts, and left only those with a strong religious instinct.

The theory of group selection contains one key foible though: its vulnerability to internal subversion. People within a given tribe born without such predisposed conviction may recognize the futility exercised by their fellow members and consequently be less inclined to offer their lives in the name of religion. Natural selection would then favor them, and ultimately the tribe would be entirely reconstituted.

The consensus among evolutionists is that group selection is only plausible in very rare scenarios. Overall though, it offers only a negligible influence.

Edited by N.T.M., 07 June 2010 - 01:56 AM.

[DukeNukem]

...attrition rates are estimated at around 10-12% per tribe annually!

lmao!

The other key driving force of religion was tribal wars. Religion promised supernatural punishment if you do not fight for your religious tribe, and supernatural reward if you die for the tribe. It was through tens of thousands of years of tribal warring (attrition rates are estimated at around 10-12% per tribe annually!) that effectively eliminated people and tribes without religious instincts, and left only those with a strong religious instinct.

The theory of group selection contains one key foible though: its vulnerability to internal subversion. People within a given tribe born without such predisposed conviction may recognize the futility exercised by their fellow members and consequently be less inclined to offer their lives in the name of religion. Natural selection would then favor them, and ultimately the tribe would be entirely reconstituted.

The consensus among evolutionists is that group selection is only plausible in very rare scenarios. Overall though, it offers only a negligible influence.

There's more than group selection at play when it comes to the acceptance of supernatural religions. For example, religion is essentially no different than science for primitive people (including present-day primitive-minded people). Plus, as far as we know, humans are the only living species that can anticipate and fear our death arbitrarily in the future. This, as much as anything, leads to the desire for immortality. Thus, in the past we invented gods, and in the present we invented Imminst. ;-)

[N.T.M.]

...attrition rates are estimated at around 10-12% per tribe annually!

lmao!

The other key driving force of religion was tribal wars. Religion promised supernatural punishment if you do not fight for your religious tribe, and supernatural reward if you die for the tribe. It was through tens of thousands of years of tribal warring (attrition rates are estimated at around 10-12% per tribe annually!) that effectively eliminated people and tribes without religious instincts, and left only those with a strong religious instinct.

The theory of group selection contains one key foible though: its vulnerability to internal subversion. People within a given tribe born without such predisposed conviction may recognize the futility exercised by their fellow members and consequently be less inclined to offer their lives in the name of religion. Natural selection would then favor them, and ultimately the tribe would be entirely reconstituted.

The consensus among evolutionists is that group selection is only plausible in very rare scenarios. Overall though, it offers only a negligible influence.

There's more than group selection at play when it comes to the acceptance of supernatural religions. For example, religion is essentially no different than science for primitive people (including present-day primitive-minded people). Plus, as far as we know, humans are the only living species that can anticipate and fear our death arbitrarily in the future. This, as much as anything, leads to the desire for immortality. Thus, in the past we invented gods, and in the present we invented Imminst. ;-)

I agree. I just wanted to be sure that you weren't solely attributing it to group selection. And seeing as that's not the case, I agree with everything you've said.

[Cameron]

I need more faith to belief in the THEORY of macro evolution, than I need to believe in God! Because the theory of evolution ask me to believe in probabilities that are so low that I can´t believe it! To believe in God do not ask me so much. If you utilise mathematics in the evolution, the things get so difficult, that famous mathematicians doubt very much the theory. The things are not that easy. They are not like evolutionists tell us they are. We need a carefull study to start seeing the big problems of that theory.
"Evolution is like 1+1=2". It´s more like 1+1=5 (please believe us!! have some faith!!). I simply don´t have that kind of faith!

There are distributed species of birds across chains of islands where the mating from one extreme to the middle is possible, going from birds of both extremes. But mating between birds from the two extremes is not possible. Showing that an inability to produce fertile offspring speciation can occur in the wild as a population spreads and grows isolated. If you've seen what corn looked like, or the changes brought about in dogs, you should know massive changes in color, size, behavior, taste, lifespan are possible through selection. So we have here direct evidence that both massive changes in all physiological traits are possible combined with ability to lose the capacity to generate fertile offspring between groups. It really is 1+1=2.

[BrandonKing]

religion is the cause for so much death destruction and lack of progress because if you are not a member of most religions you deserve to die and religion ALWAYS stands in the way of human progresssion

[carlcrott]

religion is a psychological coping mechanism for the fear of death...

it just happened to be perverted by people with ulterior motives

Edited by carlcrott, 02 December 2010 - 01:45 AM.

[hooter]

http://egodeath.com/...yOfReligion.htm

This is an interesting take on the situation. One shall also consider the works of scholar John Marco Allegro on this topic.

[shadowhawk]

Why religion was invented? So far not much real evidence.

[hooter]

Why religion was invented? So far not much real evidence.

Thanks for contributing serious wisdom to this thread. You've really advanced the dialog.

[shadowhawk]

Why religion was invented? So far not much real evidence.

Thanks for contributing serious wisdom to this thread. You've really advanced the dialog.

You also. Do you have some evidence?

[hooter]

Why religion was invented? So far not much real evidence.

Thanks for contributing serious wisdom to this thread. You've really advanced the dialog.

You also. Do you have some evidence?

Yes in the post above yours, now either contribute or leave the thread.

[shadowhawk]

Why religion was invented? So far not much real evidence.

Thanks for contributing serious wisdom to this thread. You've really advanced the dialog.

You also. Do you have some evidence?

Yes in the post above yours, now either contribute or leave the thread.

So what did it say? I am interested in real evidence as to why religion was invented. Obviously you know.

[shadowhawk]

WHO MADE GOD?

Amazon.com: Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith (9780310247104): Ravi Zacharias, Norman L. Geisler: Books

HE said what?: Who Made God? An arguement for the existance of God.

Who created the creator? Who created God?, etc. | True Freethinker

Who Made God?

If Eveything Needed a Creator, Then Who Created God? Watch Free Videos Online - Vidbox.org

Who invented the idea that man made God? – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[hooter]

Thank you for your contribution of:

• Some book on amazon by someone who "mixes biblical teaching and Christian apologetics." (I wager its called apologetics because the things perpetrated by religion have been so horrible)
• A Christian blog post
• A link to some fundamentalist Christian page
• A video that doesn't work

I know you don't understand the concept of original content, but thanks for trying.


This is why religion was invented: ^^^^^^^^^

Edited by hooter, 09 March 2012 - 09:23 AM.