Did the gods (god) create us?

[angelhunter]

Did the gods (god) create us or did we create the gods (god)? I have been an atheist the majority of my life. I became a Buddhist in 2001 after 9/11, the form of Buddhism my mother practiced, the base of it is world peace. There are so many forms of Buddhism the closest theology is the Jedi religion. They don't speak of no beginning or an ending of the universe or multi-verse.

The meaning of my belief as an atheist is not that I didn't believe in a divine being but all the theories did not make sense to me. The big bang is real, it is happening as we speak but they can't say what kick start the universe.

Most everyone ask these questions, why is I am here and what is my purpose? One physicist asked these questions, what is the purpose of the universe and are we connected to that purpose?

I go back to the title, did the gods create us? Is it we need the idea of the gods to make us stronger and have faith in a world that is so cruel? I am not into polytheism, it just sounds cool. Any thoughts or the spectrum of it all. I use to not even care but the world events and science had made me wonder. I am just saying.

Nuff said.

[Thorne]

There is absolutely no evidence that gods exist. Therefor there can be no evidence that they made us, or the universe. There is ample evidence that the gods of humanity have been created in our image, rather than we in theirs.

In fact, belief in any kind of supernatural beings or events has no basis in reality. Every religion known to man has arisen from attempts to explain natural events in terms understandable to people. When you have no knowledge of electricity or weather patterns it's only natural to assume that lightning must originate from a very powerful being, a god if you will. Once you learn the true nature of lightning, though, the need for that god is gone. There's a reason people no longer worship the ancient gods of Rome, Greece, Egypt or Babylonia. Their existence is not necessary to explain the events they were invented to explain.

That leaves the last big mystery, death. What happens to us after death? Do we survive somehow? Where do we go? What will happen there? These are the primary questions which keep religion alive in the modern world. People are afraid of death. They want the comfort of believing that they will end up in some sort of utopia, surrounded by their loved ones, living a life of peace and bliss for eternity. So powerful is this need that people are willing to allow themselves to be deluded and defrauded by hucksters claiming to know the answers. People will throw their money at a conman in an expensive suit with a slick line of drivel just because he claims to speak for God and knows the way into heaven. They don't demand evidence for his claims because they might learn that there is none, and that he is just a fraud.

The truth (as I see it) is that there are no gods. There are no miracles. Prayer does not work except possibly as a method of calming oneself down. There is no heaven or hell, no life after death. We are here for a brief time and then we are gone. The only thing passing down through time are our genes, through our children. There is no wondrous reason for why we are here. The entire history of mankind is less than a hiccup in the history of the universe, and when we are gone there will be none who will know or care.

That's life. Live it or get out of the way.

[denuseri]

There is also absolutely no evidence that the gods or the God does not exist.

Therefore there can be no evidence that they didn't make us, or the universe. There is also ample evidence that the gods of humanity may have created us in their own image just as much as there may be evidence that we precieve them in ours if you have faith in the writtings of our ancestors.

In fact, belief in any kind of supernatural beings or events has just as much basis in reality as any other belief in the intangenle or belief in what some cannot measure at this time or do not so readily precive as others. Every religion known to man has strived to explain a great many things, in fact all things, in terms understandable to people. What else could be behind all the wonders of creation if not a god of some kind. Many people believe that once they have explained somthing through science that the need to keep peity with the god or gods is gone. Others however believe that just becuase you think you understand something in such terms it doesnt mean you dismiss the part you do not understand piecmeal. The propogation of a belief in one god over many and the rise of this beief in the forms of Christianity, Islam, and others via Judism is the reason many people no longer worship the ancient gods of Rome, Greece, Egypt or Babylonia. Though oddly enough the oldest religion in the world still in common practice to date is poltheistic and has survived from ancient times in its original form thanks to the Hindus. Though the existence of seperatete entities was still incorperated into the previously mentioned monotheistic religions in other forms.

How we began and how we end and what happens to us after are mysteries to many and have been all throughout human history. Those who lack faith in paticular are preturbed by them. What happens to us after death? Do we survive somehow? Where do we go? What will happen there? These are the primary questions which intigue us as we do not yet fully understand the science behind them. People are indeed often afraid of death, especially those who hold no hope for their life continuing in a different form or being reborn in a different state becuase they have lost their faith. Jealously those who refuse to acknowledge such possibilities as being just as real today as they were for our ancestors esque their peity for the matle of cold hard show me or it doesnt exist science (which is the newest of religions in its own way...the anti religion) though it need not be so. So powerful is this jealousy that the faithless feel the need to tell all people who wish to believe in somthing higher than themselves that any who do would be branded as deluded or stupid, even when such is not true. We who are faithful should not be defrauded by such hucksters claiming to know the answers with science alone.

The truth (as I see it) is that the universe is a wonderous thing of incalcuably divine design quite litterally a miracle in its own right and proof enough of the existeance of my God. Many cosmologists such as Einstien shared such faith. I have personally experienced the power of prayer and meditation (something which the science of noetics is just begining to unraveal but few are willing to accept. I believe there is an afterlife. Our time in this world may be fleeting and brief but our souls are as eternal as the stars from which we come.

That's life with faith. Live with it or not (your choice), but don't tell me how to live my life or what to believe or that becuase I have faith I am deluded or taken in by hucksters etc just becuase you dont share my faith and I will not tell you how to live your life without it..........then perhaps we can both stay peacefully out of each others way.

[lucy]

Is it we need the idea of the gods to make us stronger and have faith in a world that is so cruel?
Some people need god(s) so they don't have to take responsibility for their own life. Some people need god(s) because the idea of life being utterly meaningless is more than they can bear. Some people need god(s) because they need to be comforted. Some people need god(s) for any reason.


Did the gods (god) create us or did we create the gods (god)?

We created him/her/them, and i think it was the biggest mistakes mankind has ever made.

Apart from that I couldn't care less whether someone believes in god(s), as long as they keep it to themselves. Unfortunately, too many of the faithful don't keep it to themselves and that's very likely the second biggest mistake of mankind.

[MMI]

Reality is so highly improbable that the existence of a divinity would seem absolutely essential and unextraordinary. There is no other explanantion.

[Thorne]

Reality is so highly improbable that the existence of a divinity would seem absolutely essential and unextraordinary. There is no other explanantion.
Improbable? How can that be! If we can prove nothing else, we can prove that the probability of life forming on this tiny ball of rock around this mediocre star in the outskirts of a below average galaxy is roughly 100%. After all, we are here.

Science can show fairly definitively the method for the development of the universe from a point a few milliseconds after the big bang right up until today. And they can show that everything has proceeded naturally, according to laws of physics and biology and geology and most other -ologies, without any intervention from a supernatural being. So the most we can say is that there might be a possibility that some kind of being started the whole thing in motion but has not interfered since. But then you have to ask, where did that being come from?

As far as I can tell, the likelihood of any sort of supernatural being controlling everything is approaching zero. There are no gods.

[Thorne]

There is also absolutely no evidence that the gods or the God does not exist.
There can never be definitive evidence that they do not exist. Just as there can never be definitive that Santa Clause does not exist, or the Easter Bunny, or unicorns. There is plenty of evidence to show that, if any of them do exist, they don't interact with reality. There is no tangible, verifiable evidence to show that they do. If something does not interact with reality then, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.


Therefore there can be no evidence that they didn't make us, or the universe. There is also ample evidence that the gods of humanity may have created us in their own image just as much as there may be evidence that we precieve them in ours if you have faith in the writtings of our ancestors.
Again, you suggest that such evidence would be available, when it cannot be. One cannot absolutely prove a negative. One can only show that the likelihood of something is so low as to be virtually impossible.

But what evidence exists that these beings do exist? Ancient writings? I've read books which attest to the fact that Hobbits and trolls and Elves exist in a place called Middle Earth. Am I to take that as truth? Sure, it's not an "ancient" text, but I would venture to guess that there are as many people who are familiar with that story than have actually read the Bible.

And when those "ancient writings" are contradictory even within themselves, how are we to have faith that they describe anything remotely true?


Every religion known to man has strived to explain a great many things, in fact all things, in terms understandable to people.
And every one of them has failed miserably.


What else could be behind all the wonders of creation if not a god of some kind.
Which wonders? People being killed in earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanic eruptions? Children orphaned by killer storms and tornadoes? Perhaps you mean children born with crippling birth defects? Or stillborn? Or the wonder of a five year old with terminal cancer? Are these the wonders we are to marvel at and thank the gods for? Man can explain these things through natural law, and in some cases man can prevent them. Can anyone explain why a god who created everything would permit such atrocities?


Many people believe that once they have explained somthing through science that the need to keep peity with the god or gods is gone. Others however believe that just becuase you think you understand something in such terms it doesnt mean you dismiss the part you do not understand piecmeal.
People are, of course, free to belief any fairy tales they like. What they are not free to do is to force others to believe as they do, or to proclaim that their particular fairy tale is the One True Faith®. Not without evidence.


The propogation of a belief in one god over many and the rise of this beief in the forms of Christianity, Islam, and others via Judism is the reason many people no longer worship the ancient gods of Rome, Greece, Egypt or Babylonia.
I suppose the Church's ruthless suppression of all other religions, or the Muslim bloody jihads against other religions, had nothing to do with it? If you believe in the Bible then you have to admit that even the Jews spread their religion at the point of a spear. The propagation of these religions was violent and evil, and is still going on around the world.


People are indeed often afraid of death, especially those who hold no hope for their life continuing in a different form or being reborn in a different state becuase they have lost their faith.
For my part, and many like me, I did not "lose" my faith. I took it out, studied it and found it an empty bag of air. I tossed it aside with all the other trash I've thrown out in my life. Yet strangely, according to your beliefs, I am no longer afraid of death. Afraid of dying, yes. When I go I hope it will be quick and painless. But I am not worried about going to heaven or hell because I know they don't exist.


Jealously those who refuse to acknowledge such possibilities as being just as real today as they were for our ancestors esque their peity for the matle of cold hard show me or it doesnt exist science (which is the newest of religions in its own way...the anti religion)
No, science is not a religion. It does not depend upon faith, but upon facts. You must prove your assertions in science. You can't simply get away with, "This is so because God told me it was."


So powerful is this jealousy that the faithless feel the need to tell all people who wish to believe in somthing higher than themselves that any who do would be branded as deluded or stupid, even when such is not true. We who are faithful should not be defrauded by such hucksters claiming to know the answers with science alone.
Very few of us have any interest in forcing others to throw away their faith. In fact, many of us fear that those who do good only because they fear their gods should definitely retain their faith, if only to protect the rest of us. What we are fighting against are the religions which are constantly battling to suppress free thought and exploration. They don't want people learning how the universe works because that diminishes the likelihood of their gods.


The truth (as I see it) is that the universe is a wonderous thing of incalcuably divine design quite litterally a miracle in its own right and proof enough of the existeance of my God.
I also find the universe a wondrous thing of incalculable beauty, even more marvelous because it was brought about so randomly. I don't need to posit a creator for it. That doesn't make it any less beautiful.


Many cosmologists such as Einstien shared such faith.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)


I have personally experienced the power of prayer and meditation (something which the science of noetics is just begining to unraveal but few are willing to accept. I believe there is an afterlife. Our time in this world may be fleeting and brief but our souls are as eternal as the stars from which we come.
I have already noted that prayer, like meditation, can have a calming effect on someone, which can indeed influence their health and well being. Reducing stress is very important. But studies done regarding people praying for others has shown that it has no significant effects, and in some cases can even provide negative effects. Noetics is still in its infancy, but has not gotten beyond that same idea, that meditation (or prayer) can help us reduce stress levels. It is being studied, and if it can show solid evidence through controlled, reproducible experiments, it may yet work its way into the mainstream of science. But that still has nothing to do with the existence of gods. Or souls.


That's life with faith. Live with it or not (your choice), but don't tell me how to live my life or what to believe or that becuase I have faith I am deluded or taken in by hucksters etc just becuase you dont share my faith and I will not tell you how to live your life without it..........then perhaps we can both stay peacefully out of each others way.
Once more for the record: I have no objections to your living with faith. I have no objections to anyone living with faith. It's a personal choice, and I've made my choice to live without it. But if you are basing your faith on the teachings of a minister or preacher or imam or rabbi or whatever without actually studying it to learn what it's really about, then you are simply allowing yourself to be led. And if you are actually paying these people to lead you around then you have been taken in by them. And if you can ignore the harm that they do (http://whatstheharm.net/), then I can only believe that you must be deluded as well.

[MMI]

Science is based on the belief that if you can repeat an experiment, it must be true. But who has proved the existence of truth? Who has proved reality?

Science has, through thought experiment, created the laws it says govern the universe. It has also created another set of laws to explain the difference between the reality the physics of science predicts and the reality that we all perceive ... and this second set of laws is more mind-bogglingly wierd than any description of divine creation.

It may be, as I have heard recently, that the uncaused and spontaneous emergence of a material universe where there was nowhere before, and no before until afterwards, is an inevitability, because "non-existence" is such a volatile condition that something is bound to happen. But that's just another thought experiment, not a statment of what is, or was.

It may be true that everything is because it always was and ever will be, but neither believers nor many scientists support that idea (which might be a point in its favour).

But I suggest that the creation of everything out of nothing by no Prime Mover is just as preposterous an idea as the one that says God started work on Sunday, finished on Friday, and spent Saturday watching football.

So, Thorne, if you decline to attempt to prove the non-existence of God, I challenge you to prove the truth of an uncaused physical universe.

[Thorne]

Science is based on the belief that if you can repeat an experiment, it must be true. But who has proved the existence of truth? Who has proved reality?
These kinds of mind games, while perhaps entertaining to some, are useless. If there is no reality, if we are all figments of some unknowable creature's fantasies, how does that change what we can see, and touch, and smell, and hear? If the world we perceive around us responds as though it were real, then it is real. If, rather than thinking up all sorts of inane excuses for why it is not real these philosophers could devise some way of proving the existence of this unknown creature then they might have done something useful. And your statement about science is not quite right. If you can repeat an experiment many times, with predictable results, then it is most probably true. It only takes one failure to change "most probaby" into "not".


Science has, through thought experiment, created the laws it says govern the universe.
Again, not quite. Science has created these laws to explain the forces, discovered through experimentation and observation, that seem to govern the universe. And if experimentation or observation in the future shows that these laws are not right, then they will either be changed or eliminated to explain the universe more accurately.


It has also created another set of laws to explain the difference between the reality the physics of science predicts and the reality that we all perceive ... and this second set of laws is more mind-bogglingly wierd than any description of divine creation.
I'm not sure what these other laws you're talking about are supposed to be. If you're talking about quantum physics then yes, it is "mind-bogglingly weird". It's far beyond my capacity to understand, or to explain. But it's my understanding ("belief", if you insist) that without the understanding of quantum mechanics we wouldn't have computers. And it still explains what we see around us better than any creation fable.


It may be, as I have heard recently, that the uncaused and spontaneous emergence of a material universe where there was nowhere before, and no before until afterwards, is an inevitability, because "non-existence" is such a volatile condition that something is bound to happen. But that's just another thought experiment, not a statment of what is, or was.
The problem is that we don't know that the big bang was uncaused. We don't even know if there was a "before", much less that it was non-existence. There is nothing in our science which can penetrate the initial point of the big bang. There may well have been gods aplenty, and they decided to merge themselves into a huge ball of matter and thus initiate the big bang. An amusing story, perhaps, but certainly no less plausible than any other myth. But if it did happen that way there is no evidence, so far, that those gods survived creation to inflict themselves upon our universe.


It may be true that everything is because it always was and ever will be, but neither believers nor many scientists support that idea (which might be a point in its favour).
This is similar to a concept that I've toyed with over the years. I have no evidence for it, and I'm certainly not a physicist or cosmologist with the background to take it further than I have. But I've often wondered why people can accept the idea of an eternal God but cannot accept the idea of an eternal cosmos? Always was and always will be. We know (as well as we can know anything) that nothing can be destroyed, only changed. So we can envision the universe, an infinite cosmos perhaps, filled with whatever the most fundamental particle of matter or energy may be. And periodically, over vast unmeasurable expanses of "time", these particles begin to clump together, gradually building what we have termed the cosmic "egg", until a certain critical point is reached and it erupts into a new universe like the one we see all around us now. Who knows? There may be many universes out there, all in varying stages of expansion. All gradually reducing themselves down to that same fundamental particle within the surrounding cosmos.

And if you ask where those fundamental particles came from originally, my answer is that they came from the same place your god came from.


But I suggest that the creation of everything out of nothing by no Prime Mover is just as preposterous an idea as the one that says God started work on Sunday, finished on Friday, and spent Saturday watching football.
But can you explain what created your Prime Mover? And even if we do accept a Prime Mover, what evidence do we have that He has any interest in us or our doings? For all we know, this universe around us may be no more than the equivalent of dung from a passing animal, left beside the trail with no further thought.


So, Thorne, if you decline to attempt to prove the non-existence of God, I challenge you to prove the truth of an uncaused physical universe.
While nothing would please me more than being able to prove the non-existence of God, or any gods, such a task would be far beyond my meager capabilities. But one possible start is this bit that I've taken from the book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor J. Stenger. This has been termed the lack of evidence argument.

1. Probably, if God were to exist, then there would be good objective evidence for his existence.
2. But there is no good objective evidence for his existence.
3. Therefore, probably God does not exist.
Granted, this doesn't prove that there are no gods, but it shows the difficulty of proving a negative. After all, a True Believer will simply assert that God doesn't want any evidence of his existence to be found. Or he can say that the evidence is there, but you can only see it through the eyes of faith. How can I, or science, refute such claims?

Libraries are filled with books on both sides of this argument and it would take far more space and time than I'm willing to devote to go into any real detail. So if you want to take that as declining, then so be it.

As for proving the truth of an uncaused universe, the same problem applies. There is nothing (so far as I know) that can penetrate the singularity that we believe started the universe. There is just no way (yet) to gain evidence to support any claims anyone might make.

But I do thank you for believing that I might have the sufficiently irresistible power to move the immovable object.

[thir]

There is absolutely no evidence that gods exist. Therefor there can be no evidence that they made us, or the universe. There is ample evidence that the gods of humanity have been created in our image, rather than we in theirs.


A character in one of Terry Pratchet's novels say "I do not believe in the Gods. It only encourages them" :-)



In fact, belief in any kind of supernatural beings or events has no basis in reality. Every religion known to man has arisen from attempts to explain natural events in terms understandable to people. When you have no knowledge of electricity or weather patterns it's only natural to assume that lightning must originate from a very powerful being, a god if you will. Once you learn the true nature of lightning, though, the need for that god is gone. There's a reason people no longer worship the ancient gods of Rome, Greece, Egypt or Babylonia. Their existence is not necessary to explain the events they were invented to explain.


Certainly religion is also used to explain what happens around us - and so it does even in this day an age, though from another angle. Remember the discussion about why the Haiti earth quake happened?

But, absence of proof is not proof of absence. There is so much science does not know! If you only "believe" in what can be measured, you claim that science is capeable of measuring everything that exists, and as history shows, this is not true. With new technology new discoveries, all the time.



That leaves the last big mystery, death. What happens to us after death? Do we survive somehow? Where do we go? What will happen there? These are the primary questions which keep religion alive in the modern world.


This is a very good point. A lot of us are afraid of death, and I have noticed that villains in many stories and films are almost always afraid of death!
However, I personally think that people are also seeking answers about life, and how to live it.



The truth (as I see it) is that there are no gods. There are no miracles.


But there may well be things we do not know of yet, and which now seem miraculous because we cannot explain them.



Prayer does not work except possibly as a method of calming oneself down.


We do not know that. Mind and body are one.



There is no heaven or hell, no life after death. We are here for a brief time and then we are gone. The only thing passing down through time are our genes, through our children.


Actually, since we are all made of the same material as everything else, all that we physically are is forever circulating. Is is a fun thought, isn't it?



There is no wondrous reason for why we are here. The entire history of mankind is less than a hiccup in the history of the universe, and when we are gone there will be none who will know or care.


I think it is wondrous enough that we are here. Yes, seen from eternity we are less than a hiccup, but so is all other life. Efternity is made of hiccups, you might say ;-)
When we are gone, other life will be here, and that too will be wondrous. And maybe somebody will one day study us, as we study the dinosaurs.



That's life.


You mean, that is death? ;-)



Live it or get out of the way.

Out of who's way?
Why should another way of thinking be in the way? There is room for it all.

[thir]

We created him/her/them, and i think it was the biggest mistakes mankind has ever made.

Apart from that I couldn't care less whether someone believes in god(s), as long as they keep it to themselves. Unfortunately, too many of the faithful don't keep it to themselves and that's very likely the second biggest mistake of mankind.

The need for some to force their beliefs on other people is the cause of so many problems. That is all about power, as I see it.
The biggest mistakes, though, were agriculture, and cities - but that is another story.

I am currently reading a book about medieval England, and boy did they need Gods to get by! For 90% of the population life was unbeliveable hard, and few lived to be very old.

It is easy enough to reject gods if you are not directly depending on things beyond your control, like farmers, sailors, soldiers etc. But I think most of us tend to pray or have mascots for charms in such situations - circumstances beyond our control. Even atheists.

[Thorne]

Certainly religion is also used to explain what happens around us - and so it does even in this day an age, though from another angle. Remember the discussion about why the Haiti earth quake happened?
I don't remember the details, but I fail to see the point. Are you suggesting that the cause of the Haiti earthquake was anything but natural?


But, absence of proof is not proof of absence. There is so much science does not know!
As I've been saying all along! But absence of proof does not mean that you can fill in the blanks with whatever fancy comes to mind.


If you only "believe" in what can be measured, you claim that science is capeable of measuring everything that exists, and as history shows, this is not true. With new technology new discoveries, all the time.
Accepting what can be measured does not mean that only things which can be measured exist. Can one measure emotions? We can recognize them, understand what causes them, even control them to some degree. But we cannot measure them. And yes, with new technology will come new discoveries. And some of those discoveries may stand everything we think we know now on its head. But again, that does not give you the right to toss out any far-fetched notion and claim it is truth by divine writ.


This is a very good point. A lot of us are afraid of death, and I have noticed that villains in many stories and films are almost always afraid of death!
That's because the writers of those stories and films tend to believe in an afterlife in which there villains will be justly punished.


However, I personally think that people are also seeking answers about life, and how to live it.
Yes, they are. And that is what the religious stories are all about. Teaching tools to help people learn how to live. They are not, necessarily, historical documents, nor are they the inspired word of gods. They are stories, no more nor less.


But there may well be things we do not know of yet, and which now seem miraculous because we cannot explain them.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
That doesn't necessarily mean miracles, just that we don't yet know. This is one big difference between science and religion. In science, "I don't know" is the starting point for many journeys of knowledge. In religion, "I don't know" is answered with, "God."


We do not know that. Mind and body are one.
There have been studies done with prayer. These studies have regularly shown that results of prayer are indistinguishable from random chance. However, in cases where people in hospitals were told that people were praying for them, they did statistically poorer than those who were not aware, or those who were not being prayed for.

Since our minds are functions of electrochemical processes within the body, yes, they are one. No metaphysical nonsense required.


Actually, since we are all made of the same material as everything else, all that we physically are is forever circulating. Is is a fun thought, isn't it?
It's even better than that! Every element in our bodies besides hydrogen was made within stars. We are made of star stuff!


When we are gone, other life will be here, and that too will be wondrous. And maybe somebody will one day study us, as we study the dinosaurs.
Well, when they get around to studying me I hope they find some very nasty surprises! ;)


Why should another way of thinking be in the way? There is room for it all.
Those who would obstruct the advancement of knowledge, who would try to control us with their imaginary gods, need to get out of the way.

"Belief gets in the way of learning." - Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

[Thorne]

The biggest mistakes, though, were agriculture, and cities - but that is another story.

I am currently reading a book about medieval England, and boy did they need Gods to get by! For 90% of the population life was unbeliveable hard, and few lived to be very old.
You contradict yourself. Agriculture allowed the development of cities, which allowed for specialization, which allowed for the advancement of technology, which helps to ease the burdens of workers and lets us build hospitals and train doctors and fight diseases, allowing us to live longer, more productive lives.


It is easy enough to reject gods if you are not directly depending on things beyond your control, like farmers, sailors, soldiers etc. But I think most of us tend to pray or have mascots for charms in such situations - circumstances beyond our control. Even atheists.
We are all dependent upon things beyond our control. Earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes, all are beyond control yet can kill us at any time. The solution is not to succumb to fear and terror and blame it all on the will of the gods. The solution is to learn what is causing these things and then learn how to control them. Or at least how to avoid them.

And who do atheists pray to? Other atheists? A lot of good that does. And I honestly don't think that many people actually believe in a lucky rabbit's foot. After all, it wasn't all that lucky for the rabbit.

[angelhunter]

When I was atheist I did pray to no one and what I believed back then was, whatever happens and there will be good days and bad days. One of the things comes to mind, it seems that they can't find no real life on other planets, I mean not microbes. I read an article it was called comic coincidence, he spoke of our existence here and it seem like a coincidence proposing help from divine being. If you think of the dinosaurs that they got instinct at the right time, there is no way we could lived with the t-Rex. Even most people who believe in god believe in the 6 day theory, I know that is so whacked. I believe that religion thing is more of a business instead of the belief in God. In the history of the Gods or God, it seems it brings more death then good. I just wonder sometimes when I look at the stars and is totally amazed. Is it some bizarre event that means nothing. The ones who are not religious I salute you and for me I always loved it. It's just interesting. They say what makes us human and separate from the animals is that we wonder what is beyond our lives. When I heard that, just imagine, what if dogs had a god, the great dog god. Then again, they are ahead of us in a way. Just saying.

[Thorne]

One of the things comes to mind, it seems that they can't find no real life on other planets, I mean not microbes.
So far they haven't found any life on any other planet in our Solar System, true. But then again, we've barely scratched the surface of the other planets. Current opinion is that conditions beneath the surface of Europa may permit some form of life to proliferate. Yes, it may only be microbes or other form of microscopic life, but the discovery of any life off Earth will be monumental.

And don't forget, they've already found several hundred extra-Solar planets in our galactic neighborhood. These planets are generally far too large to be Earth-like, but until relatively recently we could only assume there were other planets circling other stars. Since we now know that planets are relatively common, we can speculate with some confidence that somewhere out there is life.

Which raises some interesting questions for religion. If we should discover an intelligent life form elsewhere, especially one which doesn't look humanoid, how would the religious communities view it? Would they consider these beings as having souls? Would they accept them as God's children? Or would they think of them as nothing more than somewhat bright animals, since the gods "obviously" made humans in their own image.

And even more intriguing, what kinds of gods, if any, would these hypothetical beings have? And would they have any more evidence for their gods than we do for ours?

[sdgirl]

I will borrow Thorne's words with one slight change.

For my part, and many like me, I did not "lose" my faith. I took it out, studied it and found it an empty bag of air. I tossed it aside with all the other trash I've thrown out in my life. Yet strangely, according to your beliefs, I am no longer afraid of death.

Nor am I afraid of dying. In fact, when i'm ready i plan on taking myself out quickly, quietly and painlessly 'cause I'll be damned (pardon the expression) if I'm going to let my body slowly rot or be a burden upon those I love.

I am not worried about going to heaven or hell because I know they don't exist.

[leo9]

A lot of us are afraid of death, and I have noticed that villains in many stories and films are almost always afraid of death!
That's because the writers of those stories and films tend to believe in an afterlife in which there villains will be justly punished.

Actually no, it's a trope that most often occurs in books with an agnostic or atheistic background, and what drives the thanatophobe to search for immortality at any cost is usually not the fear of damnation but the fear of nothing - the fear that his (it's usually a he) supremely valuable ego will cease to exist. It's a subject worthy of study by any literature student in search of a thesis topic.

The only exception I know of is Huxley's "After Many A Summer," which is a literary exploration of the ways people handle the fear of death. The major thanatophobe there is driven by a simplistic fear of hellfire (to the point where he considers an immortality treatment even after learning that the price is to regress to an animal existence), but the author himself clearly pities the character for being a prey to such superstition: if Huxley believed in the survival of the soul, he inclined to a concept of merging with the All, not individual judgement.

[leo9]

I am a scientist: the materialist model of the operation of the universe satisfies me, and I find no difficulty with the models science has deduced for the origins of the human race, the planet and the Universe. To require a cosmic hobbyist to be constantly tinkering with the machinery to make it work seems to me to diminish the glory of the world.

On the other cerebral hemisphere, I am also aware of the spiritual dimension of the world, which is as much a part of my empirical evidence as the measurements of instruments. I have personally encountered both a ghost and a goddess, and to reject that evidence as unreal because I don't have photographs or tape recordings to "prove" it seems to me to be as unscientific as rejecting instrument readings that don't fit my beliefs. Mind and life are realities, not just processes: the difference between Astroturf and a living field is not only measureable with chemical or physical tests, but something that can be felt.

Therefore, I believe that the Universe has a spirit as well as a body, just as we do: it may be called the Dao or the Force, but I wouldn't call it God because that implies a whole raft of properties I don't believe in. Whether it caused the event of physical creation, or whether it developed in parallel with the physical entity as our individual minds do, I can't say; like a physicist, I have to recognise that part of the story as being out of reach. But as physical matter developed from a single cloud of mass/energy into differentiated particles, similarly the Dao gave rise to more individuated spirits in a range of states from the archetypal gods, through local and tribal deities, through spirits of place and elemental beings, to the matter-bound minds of biological creatures. And as our bodies return to the cycles of matter, our minds return to the mind of the world. If there is a purpose to the whole thing, that is it: without the physical world and the beings that inhabit it, the Dao would have nowhere to go play.

None of which I can prove in any way, so don't bother disecting it, Thorne: it's just a faith. In the wise words of the White Knight, when you hear it, either it brings tears to your eyes, or it doesn't.

[Thorne]

I have personally encountered both a ghost and a goddess, and to reject that evidence as unreal because I don't have photographs or tape recordings to "prove" it seems to me to be as unscientific as rejecting instrument readings that don't fit my beliefs.
I can accept the idea that you experienced some things which your mind interpreted as a ghost and a goddess. But as a scientist you should be aware of the propensity of the mind to interpret unknown things we experience within a known framework (Pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia)). And while it may feel absolutely real to you, if you cannot provide real evidence, or at least additional witnesses who can corroborate your visions, then the experience can only be classified as "unknown" at best.


Therefore, I believe that the Universe has a spirit as well as a body, just as we do ... similarly the Dao gave rise to more individuated spirits in a range of states from the archetypal gods, through local and tribal deities, through spirits of place and elemental beings, to the matter-bound minds of biological creatures.
While you may believe this, without evidence this belief is no better, or worse, than any other religion. Nor is it any better, or worse, than my interpretation of the universe as a strictly physical, natural process with no spiritual element at all.


And as our bodies return to the cycles of matter, our minds return to the mind of the world. If there is a purpose to the whole thing, that is it: without the physical world and the beings that inhabit it, the Dao would have nowhere to go play.
I will admit that the concept of something of ourselves surviving past death can be comforting. I don't begrudge anyone clinging to that concept. I just can't rationalize it myself.


None of which I can prove in any way, so don't bother disecting it, Thorne: it's just a faith.
But dissecting other's posts is the best part of participating in these forums! :)

[thir]

There is also absolutely no evidence that the gods or the God does not exist.


No. there is only the certainty, or feeling, in one's own heart.



Many people believe that once they have explained somthing through science that the need to keep peity with the god or gods is gone.


I do not think that there is a need to be pious. Are the gods a threat?

But neither do I think that scientific explanations takes the wonder away, rather, it makes it even more wondrous :-)



The propogation of a belief in one god over many and the rise of this beief in the forms of Christianity, Islam, and others via Judism is the reason many people no longer worship the ancient gods of Rome, Greece, Egypt or Babylonia. Though oddly enough the oldest religion in the world still in common practice to date is poltheistic and has survived from ancient times in its original form thanks to the Hindus. Though the existence of seperatete entities was still incorperated into the previously mentioned monotheistic religions in other forms.


I am not as clear headed today as I would like to be..Do you mean that there is a developement from many gods towards one, and that this is sort of better?

Anyway I have heard this, and do not see the logic of it. But most especiallly monotheism lends itself so easily to dogmatism and abuse of power. It is no acident that many kings accepted Christianity so readily! (While in many cases the populations either hung back, or simply incoporated the new belief into already existing ones.)



How we began and how we end and what happens to us after are mysteries to many and have been all throughout human history. Those who lack faith in paticular are preturbed by them.


Perturbed, yes, nessarily scared. But is struck me, reading the book I mentioned before, that in medieval times most Christians were extremely scared of death, because of all the ideas of Hell thrown at them. I find this so unfair, thinking of all the other things they had to deal with in those times.



So powerful is this jealousy that the faithless feel the need to tell all people who wish to believe in somthing higher than themselves that any who do would be branded as deluded or stupid, even when such is not true. We who are faithful should not be defrauded by such hucksters claiming to know the answers with science alone.


You are right, name calling is not an argument.



Our time in this world may be fleeting and brief but our souls are as eternal as the stars from which we come.


As Thorne points out, the stuff we are made of comes from the stars, and it is ever re-used in eternal circulation.
It is an interesting question, as Leo9 talks about, if our minds/souls/energy does the same. After all, physics tells us that energy neither dies nor is created, only changes. Just like the rest.

[denuseri]

Well unless it gets anihilated by anti-matter.

[denuseri]

No. there is only the certainty, or feeling, in one's own heart.

Even that can feel uncertian...probabely why Kierkegard called it "the leap of faith" where one embraces a belief in spite of it's irationality.



I do not think that there is a need to be pious. Are the gods a threat?

That all depends upon ones view of who and what the Gods are/were and their intentions etc. Not to mention that being pious didnt nessesaraly mean being afriad so much as respectful.

In many ways the ancient gods were to be "feared" or respected as much for what evil they could do as good; just as much if not more so than the relativly modern concept (by comparrison) of a monothesist's diety. Allmost every single hero or nymph that came into contact with westren gods of mythology regretted it in the end, paticularly amongst the Greeks, though their gods need for sardonic irony and revenge over what some may consider to be petty slights paled in comparrison to many other belief systems in the new world, africa, and the far east.

But neither do I think that scientific explanations takes the wonder away, rather, it makes it even more wondrous :-)

No do I, I never said it did. If anything I find it truely awe inspireing, and the more I learn of creation, the more perplexingly of a wonderous marvel do I find it to behold. Additonally...its a common miconseption that all religions esque science...some (such as my own faith of the Bahai) embrace it.



I am not as clear headed today as I would like to be..Do you mean that there is a developement from many gods towards one, and that this is sort of better?

Well historically speaking, that is what has happened allmost worldwide, at least with all the majior faiths but I am not saying its any better or worse than any other way of doing it alltough in every polytheist religion one still finds a surpreme deity who rules over the others and in some cases a single god (such as Shiva for instance) has many facets or forms that may be taken.

In other words...I believe in all paths to God and furthermore: I see "science" as yet just another of those many paths.

Anyway I have heard this, and do not see the logic of it. But most especiallly monotheism lends itself so easily to dogmatism and abuse of power. It is no acident that many kings accepted Christianity so readily! (While in many cases the populations either hung back, or simply incoporated the new belief into already existing ones.)

If one makes a close study of history one shall find that the Christans and Muslims in no way shape or form hold the monopoly on such things.

Perturbed, yes, nessarily scared. But is struck me, reading the book I mentioned before, that in medieval times most Christians were extremely scared of death, because of all the ideas of Hell thrown at them. I find this so unfair, thinking of all the other things they had to deal with in those times.


And yet the Romans often wrote of those very same Christians facing the lions in the arena with a smile on their lips.

[thir]

But neither do I think that scientific explanations takes the wonder away, rather, it makes it even more wondrous :-)



No do I, I never said it did. If anything I find it truely awe inspireing, and the more I learn of creation, the more perplexingly of a wonderous marvel do I find it to behold. Additonally...its a common miconseption that all religions esque science...some (such as my own faith of the Bahai) embrace it.



Yes, I should have said that that was a general comment, not meant as a comment to you. I remember what you have said about this before, and find it of interest that your religion embraces science. Many religious people do, but not, as far as I know, their religion as such. They are divided on that topic.



And yet the Romans often wrote of those very same Christians facing the lions in the arena with a smile on their lips.

Yes, but much can happen to a religion over the centuries.

[Thorne]

And yet the Romans often wrote of those very same Christians facing the lions in the arena with a smile on their lips.
I think you will find that the concept of hell, or at least the Christian concept of hell, wasn't defined until much later in the Church's history. When you truly believe that you will be rewarded with eternal life in a beautiful place under the protection of a beneficent God, why should you fear death? And without the concept of hell, what's the downside? That you will be dead. No more torments, no more hunger, no more pain.

I wonder if that could have been a motivation for the idea of hell? Not only can you terrify people into following your arbitrary rules under threat of eternal damnation, you also prevent them from killing themselves, or allowing themselves to be killed, as a way to get out from under the thumb of a ruthless lord or church leader.

[denuseri]

I think the Christian concept of hell (at least from a close study of its history I am lead to believe) was a constantly evolving mythology based allmost entirely upon it's greek preddesesor. Which btw had been around before the persecutions and which btw is not a place anyone wanted to go, becuase it was filled with just as many bad things as dantes inferno, in fact...its where the author of that work got his ideas.

Additonally I dont believe the idea of suicide being wrong is inhierently rooted in any such machiavelean level smoking man x files level conspiricy whatsoever.

Hell or its existance in whatever form is irelavent to any discussion conserning weather or not a Christian smiled during their execution or prayed and forgave their executioners while burning at the stake etc (such circumstances btw being well documented).

The Christian didnt face the Lion with a smile out of some fear of hell anyways...for the Christian hell wasn't even relevant where as they were conserned...becuase the Christian knows they are not going there.

[thir]

The Christian didnt face the Lion with a smile out of some fear of hell anyways..
for the Christian hell wasn't even relevant where as they were

Historicallly speaking the fear of Hell has been a great factor through Medieval times in many countries. The fear of being involved in someone else's sins (and go to Hell by that route) could make for persecution and cruelty. Also later, during Puritan rule.

In this day and age, all I can say is that in the programs I have seen here (in UK) about Christians, fear of Hell has loomed large. Hence 'god-fearing'.

One program about coporal punishments for children down to 2 years old was explained by the families that it was better to beat them severely now, than risk them going to Hell if their behavior displeased god.

Other programs were likewise based on FEAR. To my great surprise, actually.

Of course not all Christianity or Christians think like this, but that was what the ones interviewed chose to focus on.

[Thorne]

Historicallly speaking the fear of Hell has been a great factor through Medieval times in many countries. The fear of being involved in someone else's sins (and go to Hell by that route) could make for persecution and cruelty. Also later, during Puritan rule.
Yes, but this belief came much later than the Roman persecution of the Christians.


One program about coporal punishments for children down to 2 years old was explained by the families that it was better to beat them severely now, than risk them going to Hell if their behavior displeased god.
Yes, and in some cases it's necessary to beat them to death (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/showing_children_gods_love_wit.php).


Other programs were likewise based on FEAR. To my great surprise, actually.
I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this. It's far easier to control people through fear than through contentment. Fear of death, fear of eternal damnation, fear of social exile. Most religious leaders learned long ago about the power of fear to keep their flocks in line.

[denuseri]

Historicallly speaking the fear of Hell has been a great factor through Medieval times in many countries. The fear of being involved in someone else's sins (and go to Hell by that route) could make for persecution and cruelty. Also later, during Puritan rule.

In this day and age, all I can say is that in the programs I have seen here (in UK) about Christians, fear of Hell has loomed large. Hence 'god-fearing'.

One program about coporal punishments for children down to 2 years old was explained by the families that it was better to beat them severely now, than risk them going to Hell if their behavior displeased god.

Other programs were likewise based on FEAR. To my great surprise, actually.

Of course not all Christianity or Christians think like this, but that was what the ones interviewed chose to focus on.

No surprises here...the idea of being punnished in the afterlife for miss-deeds done today or the use of negative reinforcment as a means of political control over a populace is nothing new and was preveleant in allmost every corner of the globe long before monotheism and christianity rose to the stage, predating even agriculture.

[thir]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thir View Post
Certainly religion is also used to explain what happens around us - and so it does even in this day an age, though from another angle. Remember the discussion about why the Haiti earth quake happened?

T: I don't remember the details, but I fail to see the point. Are you suggesting that the cause of the Haiti earthquake was anything but natural?


Not to me, but to some people it is god's punishment, and they anguish about what they have done wrong.



Quote:
But, absence of proof is not proof of absence. There is so much science does not know!

T:As I've been saying all along! But absence of proof does not mean that you can fill in the blanks with whatever fancy comes to mind.


True. But is also means that you cannot off-hand reject what you cannot prove right now.
In earlier times, reports of meteorites were rejected, because everybody knew that rocks do not fall out of the sky.



Quote:
If you only "believe" in what can be measured, you claim that science is capeable of measuring everything that exists, and as history shows, this is not true. With new technology new discoveries, all the time.

T:Accepting what can be measured does not mean that only things which can be measured exist. Can one measure emotions? We can recognize them, understand what causes them, even control them to some degree. But we cannot measure them. And yes, with new technology will come new discoveries. And some of those discoveries may stand everything we think we know now on its head. But again, that does not give you the right to toss out any far-fetched notion and claim it is truth by divine writ.


I am not talking about divine writ, but of what people may report that they experience, see, hear - whatever.
For example near death or death experiences. If science 'knows' that what people say cannot be true, then it is rejected, no matter what.




Quote:
However, I personally think that people are also seeking answers about life, and how to live it.

T:Yes, they are. And that is what the religious stories are all about. Teaching tools to help people learn how to live. They are not, necessarily, historical documents, nor are they the inspired word of gods. They are stories, no more nor less.


But some might be myth or legend, which I personally think comes from somewhere - even if it can be almost impossible to know what it was from the start.
Maybe some religious texts are the same, a version of something that happened, seen in a religious light.



Quote:
But there may well be things we do not know of yet, and which now seem miraculous because we cannot explain them.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)

That doesn't necessarily mean miracles, just that we don't yet know. This is one big difference between science and religion. In science, "I don't know" is the starting point for many journeys of knowledge. In religion, "I don't know" is answered with, "God."


Optimally, yes. But there is dogma in science as well. And sometimes who says something is more important than what is said.

How do you distinguish between 'miracles' and 'do not know yet'?



Quote:
Actually, since we are all made of the same material as everything else, all that we physically are is forever circulating. Is is a fun thought, isn't it?

T:It's even better than that! Every element in our bodies besides hydrogen was made within stars. We are made of star stuff!


We are indeed!



Quote:
When we are gone, other life will be here, and that too will be wondrous. And maybe somebody will one day study us, as we study the dinosaurs.
Well, when they get around to studying me I hope they find some very nasty surprises!


You would ;-)



Quote:
Why should another way of thinking be in the way? There is room for it all.
T:Those who would obstruct the advancement of knowledge, who would try to control us with their imaginary gods, need to get out of the way.


This is true. But as long as each person keep their beliefs as something individual and do not try to invade others with it, it does not matter.

[thir]

Yes, but this belief came much later than the Roman persecution of the Christians.
[quote]

Interesting. So who invented Hell??

[quote]
Yes, and in some cases it's necessary to beat them to death (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/showing_children_gods_love_wit.php).

Gods!!
I do not believe that this is religion, unless the people were insane from fear of hell! If not, I think they were just insane.

[quote]
I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by this. It's far easier to control people through fear than through contentment. Fear of death, fear of eternal damnation, fear of social exile. Most religious leaders learned long ago about the power of fear to keep their flocks in line.

I grew up in an almost non-religious society, but the religion I did hear about had no hell or damnation in it. I was very old before I realised that you could be afraid of god.

I think keeping people content is also a very good manipulator, and much used!

[leo9]

No surprises here...the idea of being punnished in the afterlife for miss-deeds done today or the use of negative reinforcment as a means of political control over a populace is nothing new and was preveleant in allmost every corner of the globe long before monotheism and christianity rose to the stage, predating even agriculture.

Do you have any evidence for this remarkable assertion?

It is well established that almost all known human cultures, back to the dawn of the species, have shown evidence of a belief in some kind of survival after death, as evidenced, in pre-literate times, by ritualistic funerary practices. But there is a world of difference between believing in the survival of the soul, and believing in judgement and damnation.

To take just a quick survey of those religions of which I have some knowledge, the Chinese, the Indians, the Native Americans, the Australians, all the native African cultures I have heard of, and the European Celts, did not believe that the souls of evil-doers went to punishment in the next world.

Some of those believed in reincarnation, and some of those (by no means all) believed that this was affected by one's deeds in previous lives, but that is another breed of cat again. Again, some believed in a special reward in the next world for special heroes, but the rest, good or bad, were all believed to end up in the same place sharing the same existence. This probably includes the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples: there is some evidence that their mythology included punishment of sinners, but it is questionable, as it dates from the period after the coming of Christianity and was recorded by Christian monks.

The Egyptians believed that only the good were admitted to the afterlife, but those who didn't qualify didn't go to Hell: they just stayed dead. Jehovah's Witnesses believe this is what Jesus taught, and they may have a point.

I think most historians of religion trace the idea of punishment in the afterlife to Zoroaster's Persia. From there it spread over the Middle East, and was taken up by the Hebrews. Jesus's recorded statements about the afterlife mostly concern the saved, so people went back to the Old Testament for something about the others, and the rest is history.

[Thorne]

Not to me, but to some people it is god's punishment, and they anguish about what they have done wrong.
Part of the reason for that is that they have been raised to believe that anything bad that happens to them is punishment from God. And to be honest, for some people that concept is far more comfortable than the idea that there is no reason for some things. Some things just happen.


True. But is also means that you cannot off-hand reject what you cannot prove right now.
Agreed. And there are scientists who are studying supernatural and paranormal claims. They have yet to find anything verifiable, however. If they ever do then we may have to change our ideas. I'm not holding my breath, though.


In earlier times, reports of meteorites were rejected, because everybody knew that rocks do not fall out of the sky.
"The Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them" - Joshua 10:11
Apparently the ancient Jews knew that rocks could fall from the sky. So did the ancient Greeks. They reasoned that the rocks were actually from the ground and had been picked up by winds, but they did know they fell from the sky. While it is true that there was a period during the 18th century when some scientists stated categorically that stones could not fall from the sky, it was hardly a universal belief. After all, stones were seen to fall.


I am not talking about divine writ, but of what people may report that they experience, see, hear - whatever.
Eye-witness testimony has been shown to be one of the least reliable methods of establishing the truth. People's perceptions are sometimes altered by their experiences, beliefs or even wishful thinking.


For example near death or death experiences. If science 'knows' that what people say cannot be true, then it is rejected, no matter what.
Near death experiences have been studied, and found to be not credible. It seems, IIRC, that peoples experiences tend to follow cultural and religious lines. You don't find devout Catholics experiencing the Hindu version of heave, for example. And if I'm not mistaken, scientists have been able to duplicate some of these experiences by stimulating various parts of the brain.


But some might be myth or legend, which I personally think comes from somewhere - even if it can be almost impossible to know what it was from the start.

Maybe some religious texts are the same, a version of something that happened, seen in a religious light.
Of course. I'm not about to claim that these stories are made up out of thin air. There is a basis for them. The universal flood stories, for example, are most probably based upon actual floods which caused tremendous amounts of damage. And in an age when most people rarely went further than a few miles from home, these floods would seem to have wiped out the world.


Optimally, yes. But there is dogma in science as well. And sometimes who says something is more important than what is said.
True again. There are those who have established themselves through their work as being experts. If you're going to joust against those windmills you have to make sure you have proof. And science works slowly sometimes. Many discoveries, especially those which overturn established theories, have the same problems as religions: those making extraordinary claims must provide extraordinary evidence.


How do you distinguish between 'miracles' and 'do not know yet'?
The first thing you have to do is find a real miracle. Then you study it, dissect it, learn about it. That will usually solve the problem.

Can you show me a miracle that hasn't been explained?


But as long as each person keep their beliefs as something individual and do not try to invade others with it, it does not matter.
I've said exactly the same thing. But look around you. Here in the US, for example, our money says, "In God We Trust". Our Pledge of Allegiance states, "One nation under God." Religious groups are continuously attempting to change the laws which separate Church and State. These are not the actions of people keeping their beliefs to themselves.

[Thorne]

Yes, and in some cases it's necessary to beat them to death (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/showing_children_gods_love_wit.php).
Gods!!
I do not believe that this is religion, unless the people were insane from fear of hell! If not, I think they were just insane.
I recommend that you look up the book mentioned in that entry, "To Train Up a Child" and see what that's all about. Some of the techniques used by the authors would make Torquemada blush. And remember too that the phrase, "Spare the rod and spoil the child" comes from the Bible.

[denuseri]

Do you have any evidence for this remarkable assertion?

"It is well established that almost all known human cultures, back to the dawn of the species, have shown evidence of a belief in some kind of survival after death, as evidenced, in pre-literate times, by ritualistic funerary practices. But there is a world of difference between believing in the survival of the soul, and believing in judgement and damnation.

To take just a quick survey of those religions of which I have some knowledge, the Chinese, the Indians, the Native Americans, the Australians, all the native African cultures I have heard of, and the European Celts, did not believe that the souls of evil-doers went to punishment in the next world.

Some of those believed in reincarnation, and some of those (by no means all) believed that this was affected by one's deeds in previous lives, but that is another breed of cat again. Again, some believed in a special reward in the next world for special heroes, but the rest, good or bad, were all believed to end up in the same place sharing the same existence. This probably includes the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples: there is some evidence that their mythology included punishment of sinners, but it is questionable, as it dates from the period after the coming of Christianity and was recorded by Christian monks.

The Egyptians believed that only the good were admitted to the afterlife, but those who didn't qualify didn't go to Hell: they just stayed dead. Jehovah's Witnesses believe this is what Jesus taught, and they may have a point.

I think most historians of religion trace the idea of punishment in the afterlife to Zoroaster's Persia. From there it spread over the Middle East, and was taken up by the Hebrews. Jesus's recorded statements about the afterlife mostly concern the saved, so people went back to the Old Testament for something about the others, and the rest is history.



Just those things written by others throughout history about the subject good Sir. Smiles.

Here is something from one of them:

"Although the word hell comes from Hel, the Norse* goddess of death, hells appear in the beliefs and mythologies of many cultures. Common features of hells include burning heat or freezing cold, darkness (symbolizing the soul's separation from light, goodness, and truth), physical agony that represents spiritual suffering, and devils or demons who torment the damned.

Hinduism is based on the belief that each soul lives many, many lives. A soul may spend time in any of 21 hells to pay for wrong actions during a lifetime, but eventually that soul will be reborn in the world.

In the Jain religion, which is related to Hinduism, sinners go to a hell called bhumis, where demons torment them until they have paid for whatever evil they committed in life.

In many myths, hell appears as a place of punishment and suffering after death.

There are numerous versions of Buddhism with various ideas of hell. Some Buddhists still follow the traditional belief of up to 136 hells. The hell to which a dead soul goes for punishment depends on the person's actions in the most recent life. Some Buddhist doctrines speak of the karmavacara, the realm of physical and sensory perceptions, as a series of hells. The Chinese belief that souls are punished after death to pay for sins or errors committed during life combines some Buddhist ideas with elements of traditional Taoist Chinese mythology.

Before Christianity gave its own meanings to the concepts of heaven and hell, the pagan peoples of Europe imagined the dark side of the afterlife. The Norse pictured Hel, the corpselike goddess of death, as queen of a grim underground realm populated by those who had died of sickness and old age. This view of hell involves a dread of death and a horror of the cold, dark, decaying grave, but it does not suggest a place of punishment. (though it still sounds like a not so fun place to go)

The Greek underworld was divided into three regions: Hades, Tartarus, and Elysium. Most of the dead went to the kingdom of the god Hades. In the deepest part of the underworld, a terrible dark place known as Tartarus, the very wicked suffered eternal punishment at the hands of the Furies. The third region, Elysium or the Elysian Fields, was where exceptionally good and righteous people went after death.

The image of hell as a place of torment for sinners emerged fully in the Persian mythology based on the faith founded in the 500s B . C . by Zoroaster. According to Zoroastrian belief, souls are judged after death at a bridge where their lives are weighed. If the outcome is good, the bridge widens and carries them to heaven. If they are judged to have been evil, the bridge narrows and pitches them down into a dreadful hell. Those whose lives were an equal mix of good and evil go to a realm called hamestagan, in which they experience both heat and cold.

The early Hebrews called their afterworld Sheol and pictured it as a quiet, sad place where all the dead went. By around 200 B . C ., under the influence of Zoroastrianism and other belief systems, the Jews had adopted the idea of judgment for the dead. The afterworld became a heaven for the good and a hell for the wicked.

Images of hell in Chinese myth are a blend of Buddhist scriptures and Taoist beliefs. Such images enlivened books about fictional journeys to hell, such as Travels in the West , which gave readers an unsettling glimpse of possible future torments. Sinners descend to the base of the sacred mountain, Meru, to undergo a set period of punishment in one hell or in a series of hells. When they have paid for their sins and are ready for rebirth, they drink a brew that makes them forget their past lives. In some accounts, a wheel of rebirth lifts them to their next life, while in others they are thrown from a bridge of pain into a river that carries them onward.

According to the Maya, the souls of most of the dead went to an underworld known as Xibalba. Only individuals who died in violent circumstances went directly to one of the heavens. In the Mayan legend of the Hero Twins, told in the Popol Vuh, Xibalba is divided into houses filled with terrifying objects such as knives, jaguars, and bats. The twins undergo a series of trials in these houses and eventually defeat the lords of Xibalba. The Aztecs believed that the souls of ordinary people went to an underworld called Mictlan. Each soul wandered through the layers of Mictlan until it reached the deepest level."

[Thorne]

So basically what we're saying here is that, after at least 10,000 years of "revelation" from the gods, people still have no idea what the afterlife is supposed to be like, or even if there actually is one?

Hmph! And those same people will scoff at science because we can't prove or disprove the existence of extra-terrestrial life, and we've only been looking for less than 50 years. Without benefit of divine revelation.

Hardly seems fair, does it?

[MMI]

Well who are you blaming? Is it the gods for failing to make themselves clear, or Man for failing to understand. Likewise, will mankind miss the presence of aliens because he's to stupid to recognise one unless it says "Take me to your leader."

[Thorne]

Well who are you blaming? Is it the gods for failing to make themselves clear, or Man for failing to understand. Likewise, will mankind miss the presence of aliens because he's to stupid to recognise one unless it says "Take me to your leader."
I don't blame anyone.

As for missing aliens, that's a hard one. Obviously, the closer alien life forms are to ourselves, the easier it will be to recognize them. So far as we know there is no non-organic life here on Earth. Could there be such life out there, somewhere? If so, how do we recognize it? If we don't does that make us stupid or just lacking the knowledge to recognize it?

Of more interest to me, regarding the current topic, is how religious people will react if we ever do discover intelligent life out there, especially if it is radically different from us. And even more especially if it is also more technologically advanced than we are. Can people who believe that we are made in God's image reconcile their religion with a more advanced form of life which is obviously not made in that same image?

[leo9]

Just those things written by others throughout history about the subject good Sir. Smiles.

Here is something from one of them:

"
Hinduism is based on the belief that each soul lives many, many lives. A soul may spend time in any of 21 hells to pay for wrong actions during a lifetime, but eventually that soul will be reborn in the world.

In the Jain religion, which is related to Hinduism, sinners go to a hell called bhumis, where demons torment them until they have paid for whatever evil they committed in life.

In many myths, hell appears as a place of punishment and suffering after death.

There are numerous versions of Buddhism with various ideas of hell. Some Buddhists still follow the traditional belief of up to 136 hells. The hell to which a dead soul goes for punishment depends on the person's actions in the most recent life. Some Buddhist doctrines speak of the karmavacara, the realm of physical and sensory perceptions, as a series of hells. The Chinese belief that souls are punished after death to pay for sins or errors committed during life combines some Buddhist ideas with elements of traditional Taoist Chinese mythology.
I stand corrected, I wasn't aware that either of those religions had that element as well as rebirth.



Before Christianity gave its own meanings to the concepts of heaven and hell, the pagan peoples of Europe imagined the dark side of the afterlife. The Norse pictured Hel, the corpselike goddess of death, as queen of a grim underground realm populated by those who had died of sickness and old age. This view of hell involves a dread of death and a horror of the cold, dark, decaying grave, but it does not suggest a place of punishment. Because, as I said, it wasn't a place of punishment: whether you went there wasn't about virtue but heroism. (It's been said that the main reason Christianity caught on in Northern Europe was that it offered everyone a shot at heaven, not just the heroes.)


The Greek underworld was divided into three regions: Hades, Tartarus, and Elysium. Most of the dead went to the kingdom of the god Hades. In the deepest part of the underworld, a terrible dark place known as Tartarus, the very wicked suffered eternal punishment at the hands of the Furies. The third region, Elysium or the Elysian Fields, was where exceptionally good and righteous people went after death. I'm familiar with this, which is why I didn't instance the Classical civilisations.


The image of hell as a place of torment for sinners emerged fully in the Persian mythology based on the faith founded in the 500s B . C . by Zoroaster. According to Zoroastrian belief, souls are judged after death at a bridge where their lives are weighed. If the outcome is good, the bridge widens and carries them to heaven. If they are judged to have been evil, the bridge narrows and pitches them down into a dreadful hell. Those whose lives were an equal mix of good and evil go to a realm called hamestagan, in which they experience both heat and cold.

The early Hebrews called their afterworld Sheol and pictured it as a quiet, sad place where all the dead went. By around 200 B . C ., under the influence of Zoroastrianism and other belief systems, the Jews had adopted the idea of judgment for the dead. The afterworld became a heaven for the good and a hell for the wicked. Which is, in more detail, what I said.



According to the Maya, the souls of most of the dead went to an underworld known as Xibalba. Only individuals who died in violent circumstances went directly to one of the heavens. In the Mayan legend of the Hero Twins, told in the Popol Vuh, Xibalba is divided into houses filled with terrifying objects such as knives, jaguars, and bats. The twins undergo a series of trials in these houses and eventually defeat the lords of Xibalba. The Aztecs believed that the souls of ordinary people went to an underworld called Mictlan. Each soul wandered through the layers of Mictlan until it reached the deepest level."
As I said, not an afterlife of judgement and punishment.

So, I accept I was mistaken about India and China. That still leaves a lot of "corners of the globe" that didn't believe in punishment for sins after death, and still doesn't offer any evidence for your assertion that this belief was so universal that it predates agriculture. As I said, the fact that Stone Age cultures apparently believed in life after death in some form doesn't tell us what form they imagined, and certainly doesn't give us any reason to believe they had already evolved the beliefs that your quoted authority dates to the late Iron Age.

[MMI]

@ Thorne

I think the religions affected by that problem could very well point out that as God has no physical form, "in His own image" must have referred to His spiritual likeness.

[Thorne]

I think the religions affected by that problem could very well point out that as God has no physical form, "in His own image" must have referred to His spiritual likeness.
I'm sure you're right. The religious dogma quite probably refers to spiritual image rather than physical. Especially when the religious leaders began converting people who looked quite different from themselves.

BUT! I'm pretty sure your average religious person thinks of his god as being just like him, in form if nothing else. How many Renaissance artists would have been able to sell their works if they had portrayed Jesus as a 1st century Jew? Would the Sistine Chapel have been considered as beautiful if God had been painted with Negroid or Mongoloid features? No, I rather think that Michelangelo would have more likely burned at the stake as a heretic.

For better or worse, we make our gods in our own images.

[denuseri]

Actually I believe that most people today do not libe under any such assumptions as to him being some kind of scandnavian looking deity.

Thinking that "they" all do etc would be the continuation or propogation of yet another negative stereotype about ones contemporary yet religious peers would it not?

What some think the Christian God looked like when he walked among us:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcfa.htm

The Bible never gives any physical description of Christ. The closest thing we get to a description is in Isaiah 53:2b, “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to Him, nothing in His appearance that we should desire Him.” All this tells us is that Jesus’ appearance was just like any other man's – He was ordinary-looking. Isaiah was here prophesying that the coming suffering Servant would arise in lowly conditions and wear none of the usual emblems of royalty, making His true identity visible only to the discerning eye of faith.

Isaiah further describes the appearance of Christ as He would appear as He was being scourged prior to His crucifixion. “His appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness” (Isaiah 52:14). These words describe the inhuman cruelty He suffered to the point that He no longer looked like a human being (Matthew 26:67; 27:30; John 19:3). His appearance was so awful that people looked at Him in astonishment.

Jesus was a Jew, so he likely had slightly darker skin dark eyes, and darker hair than most of his caucasian indo-european decended cousins from the colder latitudes. In other words he probabely looked just like all the other jews in his area at the time wchich means he was primaraily persian/phonecian in appearence.

This is a far cry from the blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair-skinned Jesus portrayed in many modern pictures or pictures derived from certian periods of westrn european art and just as far off from the artwork portraying him as african or oriental.

However:

One thing is clear: if it were important for us to know what He really did look like, Matthew, Peter and John, who spent three years with Him, would certainly be able to give and would have given an accurate description, as would His own brothers, James and Jude. Yet, these New Testament writers offer no details about His physical attributes.

[Thorne]

if it were important for us to know what He really did look like, Matthew, Peter and John, who spent three years with Him, would certainly be able to give and would have given an accurate description, as would His own brothers, James and Jude. Yet, these New Testament writers offer no details about His physical attributes.
That's quite true. Then again, these New Testament writers don't always agree on the details that they do report on.

[denuseri]

I have the same problem from any two news stations when watching them reporting the weather Thorne.

I also seem to find the same problem of inconsistancies in lots of historically translated texts that I come accross from a wide variety of scources (not just biblical reaserch).

And to boot...I see the same issues with scientific findings and their oft differing conclussions.

[Thorne]

I have the same problem from any two news stations when watching them reporting the weather Thorne.

I also seem to find the same problem of inconsistancies in lots of historically translated texts that I come accross from a wide variety of scources (not just biblical reaserch).

And to boot...I see the same issues with scientific findings and their oft differing conclussions.

All true, beyond question. Yet how many of these sources are held by their believers to be the self-proclaimed Word of God? It's not the fact that there are errors which upsets me, but the fact that the believers proclaim the bible to be without error.

[denuseri]

No different imho that what one side of claim-a-tolgists in science say about another faction who believes differently than their sect does about whatever the topic is at the time, be that climatology, cosmology, or paleotology etc etc the list goes on and on and on.