Religions > Atheism > Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_=A3=B1cki?=" |
| Date: |
06 Dec 2005 03:49:38 PM |
| Object: |
Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
--
greetings Pawel Lacki
160 000pix.Now introducing Penguin-Counter! http://160000.radunica.net/
.
|
|
| User: "DaveJr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 04:06:44 PM |
|
|
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
Religions are born out of ignorance towards how the universe works, fear,
and myths. Science makes discoveries that dissolve ignorance. Someday
christianity will be as silly of a notion as worshipping anubis or isis in
the present time. They come and go. But humans discovering new things
will be around as long as humans are around.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_=A3=B1cki?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 04:45:49 PM |
|
|
Religions are born out of ignorance towards how the universe works, fear,
and myths. Science makes discoveries that dissolve ignorance. Someday
christianity will be as silly of a notion as worshipping anubis or isis in
the present time. They come and go. But humans discovering new things
will be around as long as humans are around.
This is well known argument. The problem is that as well as science explains
the mechanics of this world it does not give an answer to the basic
questions concerning its foundation. I will ask you another question: what
is the highest value for you?
--
pozdrawiam Pawel Lacki
160 000 pix. Penguin counter! http://160000.radunica.net/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 07:42:02 PM |
|
|
"Pawel Lacki" <welniak17beztego@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in message
news:43961412$0$5120$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
Religions are born out of ignorance towards how the universe works, fear,
and myths. Science makes discoveries that dissolve ignorance. Someday
christianity will be as silly of a notion as worshipping anubis or isis
in
the present time. They come and go. But humans discovering new things
will be around as long as humans are around.
This is well known argument. The problem is that as well as science
explains
the mechanics of this world it does not give an answer to the basic
questions concerning its foundation...
***...YET***
What's your rush?
(snip)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
07 Dec 2005 04:51:40 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism , Paweł Łącki said:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
The first one, in effect. Religion is the glue that holds the
individual to an authoritarian society.
------------------------------------------------
Look at the logo and tell me Christianity isn't a death cult.
D Silverman BAAWA and bar.
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 06:40:59 PM |
|
|
In article <43960717$0$10952$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>,
Pawe? ?acki <welniak17beztego@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
I suggest you read "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origin of
Religious Thought"
There you'll find that scientific analysis shows that religion (in all
its weird manifestations) is an inevitable side effect of the way the
human brain works. Doesn't make it "right," just very difficult normally
to avoid.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
07 Dec 2005 11:54:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:40:59 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
In article <43960717$0$10952$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>,
Pawe? ?acki <welniak17beztego@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
I suggest you read "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origin of
Religious Thought"
There you'll find that scientific analysis shows that religion (in all
its weird manifestations) is an inevitable side effect of the way the
human brain works. Doesn't make it "right," just very difficult normally
to avoid.
That sounds like my kind of book. Who wrote it? I can't find it on
Amazon.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
08 Dec 2005 04:47:26 AM |
|
|
In article <vjifp190gf4qgv4uqsqi6ksrv5otfu2k9g@4ax.com>,
Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:40:59 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
In article <43960717$0$10952$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>,
Pawe? ?acki <welniak17beztego@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
I suggest you read "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origin of
Religious Thought"
There you'll find that scientific analysis shows that religion (in all
its weird manifestations) is an inevitable side effect of the way the
human brain works. Doesn't make it "right," just very difficult normally
to avoid.
That sounds like my kind of book. Who wrote it? I can't find it on
Amazon.
Mephisto
Pascal Boyer. Copyright 2001, Published by Basic Books. I believe I
bought it at Borders.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
11 Dec 2005 08:40:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:47:26 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
In article <vjifp190gf4qgv4uqsqi6ksrv5otfu2k9g@4ax.com>,
Mephisto <mephisto@go.away> wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:40:59 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
In article <43960717$0$10952$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>,
Pawe? ?acki <welniak17beztego@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
I suggest you read "Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origin of
Religious Thought"
There you'll find that scientific analysis shows that religion (in all
its weird manifestations) is an inevitable side effect of the way the
human brain works. Doesn't make it "right," just very difficult normally
to avoid.
That sounds like my kind of book. Who wrote it? I can't find it on
Amazon.
Mephisto
Pascal Boyer. Copyright 2001, Published by Basic Books. I believe I
bought it at Borders.
I'll keep an eye out for it - thanks :-)
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nightshade" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
07 Dec 2005 02:23:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:49:38 +0100, Paweł Łącki
<welniak17beztego@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
Ignorance, nothing more.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
07 Dec 2005 11:53:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 22:49:38 +0100, Paweł Łącki
<welniak17beztego@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
Buddhism is not a religion; Islam and Christianity are a part of the
same religion. They both popped up in the same area of the world and
are based on the same myths, so coincidence doesn't really come into
it.
Religion is not inevitable - many people (including, IIRC, Darwin)
have written about populations which were entirely atheistic until the
missionaries turned up. Its spread can be followed across the world
from the Middle East, often as a result of force and not a voluntary
acceptance of the teachings. Most of Europe had to be forced to accept
Christianity.
Personally, I think that humanity simply needed to fill a natural gap
when the strict hierarchy of primate groups broke down and different
structures emerged in society. God may just be a substitute for an
alpha ape. There is also a tendency for people to make up answers to
tricky questions - in most religions, people look up to the religious
leader because they have answers. Now that scientists have answers
that they can actually prove, the need for religion is declining.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 11:39:03 PM |
|
|
Pawe? ??cki wrote:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
My 2 cents:
Humans crave answers to their questions. Sadly, there are questions which
can hardly, if ever, answered by science alone, a prime example being the
famous "Is there anything after death?".
The prime function of religions is to provide answers to those questions.
So, in a way, religions are a historical "must". The specific type of
religion, however, is another question altogether.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove,
And gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer,
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 04:26:22 PM |
|
|
Pawel Lacki wrote:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
What do you mean by "Historical Must"?
--
greetings Pawel Lacki
160 000pix.Now introducing Penguin-Counter! http://160000.radunica.net/
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_=A3=B1cki?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 04:49:37 PM |
|
|
What do you mean by "Historical Must"?
I mean by it " Does every civilization on specific stage of its development
create complex religious system with rhich philosophical foundations"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 10:59:55 PM |
|
|
PaweĹ ĹÄ
cki wrote:
What do you mean by "Historical Must"?
I mean by it " Does every civilization on specific stage of its development
create complex religious system with rhich philosophical foundations"?
Most civilizations (and even smaller groups) have mythologies (tales,
sagas) that may or may not have "religious" overtones, like rituals,
dogmas and penalties for the unbelievers.
Hopefully, future generations will get rid of these myths and beliefs,
and file them under "fiction".
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 06:30:45 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (Codebreaker@bigsecret.com)
made the light shine upon us with this:
Pawel Lacki wrote:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
What do you mean by "Historical Must"?
Most people believe because they have a deep-seated need to believe. It's
a hereditary thing. I don't have it, neither does my brother, and neither
did my father, or his father. I was presented with religion as a small
child, and it never kicked in. By the time I was seven I was convinced
that the adults that went to church were nuts. I never went back.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
sig under construction
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 06:52:32 PM |
|
|
Pawel Lacki wrote:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
I think it is a necessary stage of human social development, so yes, I
think it was a historical must. I think the particular religions that
prevailed are purely based on geographical accident, that is, the
civilizations that had the most powerful religions happened to occur
where plant and animal domestication was most advanced, so those
cultures had an advantage (read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared
Diamond). That those religions you mention (except Buddhism) began in
the Fertile Crescent is no accident.
I don't think every civilization has to have religion, I think every
civilization in the future will discard religion voluntarilly, but
religion provided the most obvious answers to the fundamental questions
about existence to our ignorant ancestors. They had an excuse for being
ignorant; we have none anymore.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you consider the birth of religions as historical must? |
06 Dec 2005 07:45:59 PM |
|
|
Paweł Łącki <welniak17beztego@poczta.onet.pl> wrote in news:43960717$0
$10952$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be:
In other words: Do you consider the birth of major religions (Judaism,
Christianity, Islam, Bhuddism) as:
- historical must
- coincidence
- other?
I am christian myself, but would like to see your opinions
It did prove to be a money maker for the priests and/or leaders...
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
