Making fun of the concept of God with attributes

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
That's right. Obviously, there is no evidence that cavemen were “scared” in particular just because they were living in caves.

Are you kidding? We're still cowering. But now we live in houses.

Its a fair guess to say that ancient cave dwellers were quite frightened from day to day. Probably more brave than modern day man, but scared none the less.

I take Twiteheads point that the term may have been coined to discredit Evolution Theory.
But I find it a very revealing and desciptive term.

If any ancient societies were in touch with the divine, (with Love with a capital "L" ), either through shamans or through some other way that the collective could maintain a direct relationship with the Perrenial Philosophy, they would not have been so awed and duped when they were visited by aliens (I mean aliens in the other worldly sense AS WELL AS aliens that were humans from other parts of the world, usually coming to conquer).

I have come across many different histories of ancient societies , and I have found that some were the "cowering in caves" type, where they were duped out of land and rescouces by outsiders that claimed to be superior ,(by showing off their technology, for example), because they were unsure of themselves and their place in the world, lived in constant fear, and had no direct connection to the Divine.
Also their were the more intelligent, loving societies, where elders, wisdom, shamans, and such were respected and their words were adhered to.
These societies were harder to conquer, and many strange unions came out of this loving type of approach that these wiser societies had.
The Tibetans, Red Indians, Bhuddists even some christian sects come to mind of the top of my head as exmples of societies that were in tune with nature and the universe and were not duped by the cheap salvation offered by their conquerers

As Wikipedia points out the whole label "Caveman" is more of an archetype than an accurate description of our ancestors.
In reality there is no reason to believe that all humans at one time lived in caves. There is clear evidence that some did, but that is really not surprising considering that caves, where available provide good shelter..

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

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
What is point of bashing the faithful when you know that Omniscience et al were simply attempts of the then beleagured humanity trying to think of a higher Self modelled on themselves but immensely more powerful. Organised Religion everywhere comes wrapped in Superstition. Which is why wherever there is a rise of Science,organised Religion has retreated. ...[text shortened]... knows ,the humbler one becomes because it is only the that one knows that a lot remains unknown.

Our spiritual needs may be genuine but there is justifiable skepticism when the next person walks up to us with a Book of Truths.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I see any no.of posts here as well as in Science Forum which make fun of the concept of "God" having various attributes like being omniscient,omnipotent etc.
It is very easy to bash such concepts. But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when ...[text shortened]...
Leave the believers alone.Let us turn our attention to issues rather than such petty foibles.

I see any no.of posts here as well as in Science Forum which make fun of the concept of "God" having various attributes like being omniscient,omnipotent etc.
It is very easy to bash such concepts. But one must bear in mind that such concepts rightfully developed in the earlier history of Mankind when Man was cowering in caves or just after this time when he became a hunter-gatherer etc. Religion as we know it also has developed along similar lines due to the need of Man to conceptualize a Being in his model but having attributes like omniscience etc.
Till here I agree with you.

We must not make fun of any believers who believe on these lines because it means that we have egos far too much swollen on a small dose of Science.
Leave the believers alone.Let us turn our attention to issues rather than such petty foibles.
That is questionable. We agree that religions arose in times people needed them. All people of one region or culture could believe (often forceful) in the same god with the same teachings.
This is not the case anymore. In many ways these religions have now become a blockade for harmony and progress. Religions have become more than just an hindrance we should avoid. When something suppresses healthy progress irony is a good tool to expose that.

Originally posted by souverein
That is questionable. We agree that religions arose in times people needed them. All people of one region or culture could believe (often forceful) in the same god with the same teachings.

And I find both those statements questionable too.
Religion didn't 'arise in times when people needed them'.
Religions arose. Some people believe they need religion, but then we would have to argue about the meaning of 'need' in order to justify any such claim. I don't think religion has ever been a requirement for survival, nor has it been significantly more beneficial in the past than it is today.

Religion has always caused division - especially where there are two main religious groups. This was no less the case in the past. If anything it was worse in the past (hence the forceful conversion you mention - like it was somehow a good thing).

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I find both those statements questionable too.
Religion didn't 'arise in times when people needed them'.
Religions arose. Some people believe they need religion, but then we would have to argue about the meaning of 'need' in order to justify any such claim. I don't think religion has ever been a requirement for survival, nor has it been significantl ...[text shortened]... n the past (hence the forceful conversion you mention - like it was somehow a good thing).

Religions arose in the past. They arose everywhere. Manmade.
Why did these manmade religions arise everywhere when they were not functional or needed as you seem to believe?

Sure, in the past religions often caused severe problems and sufferings. Nevertheless their very existence everywhere proves there was a need for them.

Originally posted by souverein
Religions arose in the past. They arose everywhere. Manmade.

They are still 'arising'.

Why did these manmade religions arise everywhere when they were not functional or needed as you seem to believe?
I didn't say they weren't functional. I said they were not needed. They are still functional, and they are still not needed.
You seem to think they were functional in the past but are no longer.

Sure, in the past religions often caused severe problems and sufferings. Nevertheless their very existence everywhere proves there was a need for them.
It proves no such thing. It only proves that we, as humans have a propensity for creating religions. I personally believe it is largely a side effect of other useful attributes (pattern matching, culture sharing, imagination etc).

Originally posted by twhitehead
They are still 'arising'.

[b]Why did these manmade religions arise everywhere when they were not functional or needed as you seem to believe?
I didn't say they weren't functional. I said they were not needed. They are still functional, and they are still not needed.
You seem to think they were functional in the past but are no longer.

Sure, ...[text shortened]... side effect of other useful attributes (pattern matching, culture sharing, imagination etc).

They are still 'arising'.
Yes they are, but not as a necessity as before. Nature has become less bewildering and people have become more civilized, partly due to religion. We are now able to establish our own moral code.

I didn't say they weren't functional. I said they were not needed. They are still functional, and they are still not needed.
If they were not a necessity in the past, how can you explain they arose in all old cultures? They were the forerunners of science and humanism.
And why are they still functional? I would say they have become pretty dysfunctional. Inward exploration(spirituality) and outward exploration (science) don't need religion anymore. The main reason that religions still exist is because children are indoctrinated with it and are caught before they can think independently.

Originally posted by JS357
Our spiritual needs may be genuine but there is justifiable skepticism when the next person walks up to us with a Book of Truths.

I agree of course.

The idea that we humans "need" religion or did at one time seems poorly expressed to me, leading to problems that are avoidable. It makes more sense to me to suggest that for at least some human needs, religion appeard to many people to offer a solution. In this phrasing, religion is not what we need, it is what has been offered in order to meet our needs.

What those needs were / are can be debated. I am certain that one need was for (in effect) psychotherapy, and that religion appeals still to people with psychological problems. Indeed religion is often targeted specifically at such people. Other needs were the need for social cohesion and shared values, which typically seemed to merge with the opportunity to use religion for social control and persuasion (various types of appeal to authority instead of to reason).

Originally posted by souverein
Yes they are, but not as a necessity as before. Nature has become less bewildering and people have become more civilized, partly due to religion. We are now able to establish our own moral code.

If they were not a necessity in the past, how can you explain they arose in all old cultures?

Cant you see the contradiction in your own argument? You admit they are arising to this day yet say they are not required, then try to use the fact that they arose in the past as evidence of necessity. You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Cant you see the contradiction in your own argument? You admit they are arising to this day yet say they are not required, then try to use the fact that they arose in the past as evidence of necessity. You cannot have it both ways.

There is no contradiction. I can give you many examples where necessities change in habits through history.
You still didn't answer my question if you know any ancient culture where the supernatural didn't play an eminent role in daily life.

Originally posted by souverein
There is no contradiction. I can give you many examples where necessities change in habits through history.
You still didn't answer my question if you know any ancient culture where the supernatural didn't play an eminent role in daily life.

What is universal in human culture is magical thinking and this is still a feature in child development. It arises from the inability to account for cause and effect owing to a lack of both knowledge and also the confidence if not the capacity to seek explanations. The antidote to magical thinking is the use of reason, which humans achieve as they develop but without losing significant elements of magical thought even as adults, especially in our emotional lives.

The growth of reason is seen everywhere and the species would not have survived without the ability to make practical decisions and judgements. Initially this capacity was misapplied to systematizing religious thinking and devising coherent stories and myths. The culture in which reason was first seen to systematically displace magical thinking was that of the Greeks, who retained their pantheon of gods but regarded them with increasing incredulity and understood very clearly and explicitly the nature of myth. Their philosophy and scientific thinking achieved immense results, peaking perhaps in Alexandria ( A Greek city, since Greek culture extended throughout the margins of the Mediteranean and the Black Sea.) before the academies for teaching philosphy were closed down by the newly Christianized Roman Empire in the Fourth (or early 5th) Century. However it is fair to say that only an educated elite escaped the superstitions of their day and Socrates, for example, was executed for impiety (Aristotle nearly had the same end but made a wise exit).

Originally posted by finnegan
What is universal in human culture is magical thinking and this is still a feature in child development. It arises from the inability to account for cause and effect owing to a lack of both knowledge and also the confidence if not the capacity to seek explanations. The antidote to magical thinking is the use of reason, which humans achieve as they develop ...[text shortened]... for example, was executed for impiety (Aristotle nearly had the same end but made a wise exit).

Yeah, probably one of the most superstitious groups of people in history has got to be the several million people who witnessed the exodus of the Jews from both sides of those easily explained phenomena.

Right after them would be the thousands of people who witnessed aspects of the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, followed closely by the many witnesses to the resurrected Messiah.

Thankfully, we've put such childish notions behind us and have resigned ourselves to never, ever believing anything that cannot be explained, no matter what anyone else says. We have resolved this because someone very, very smart told us we should.

Originally posted by souverein
There is no contradiction.

There is a clear contradiction.
You claim:
1. The prevalence of religions starting is evidence of necessity.
2. Religions start to this day but are not necessary.

I can give you many examples where necessities change in habits through history.
I fail to see how this removes the contradiction.

You still didn't answer my question if you know any ancient culture where the supernatural didn't play an eminent role in daily life.
So now we are moving the goal posts are we? Now its 'the supernatural' and not 'religion'. What is 'the supernatural' in your opinion?
What is 'an eminent role'? As far as I know, most people in Zambia believe quite strongly in the supernatural, but other than that I wouldn't say that it played an eminent role in daily life until the advent of Christianity. I certainly don't think it was necessary then or is now.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Yeah, probably one of the most superstitious groups of people in history has got to be the several million people who witnessed the exodus of the Jews from both sides of those easily explained phenomena.

Right after them would be the thousands of people who witnessed aspects of the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, followed closely by the many witnesse ...[text shortened]... at anyone else says. We have resolved this because someone very, very smart told us we should.

Your post has no relevance to the question posed: "if you know any ancient culture where the supernatural didn't play an eminent role in daily life" nor is it a response to the content of my response to that question.

The historical evidence for the exodus of Jews is a good debating point. There was none after the sacking of Jerusalem in AD 70, and indeed there was a major Jewish rebellion some decades later (who rebelled AFTER the exodus?), all well documented in the history of the Roman Empire at a time when St Paul had not really established the new religion of Christianity. There have been Jews in the area throughout history since that time, including those massacred by the Christian Crusaders. There have been Jews outside of Israel for centuries before the sacking of Jerusalem and major conversions to the Jewish faith throughout the Mediterranean region between the Second Century BC and the Third AD. There was a major Jewish nation in the region around the Caspian Sea until it was destroyed by the Mongols.

The ministry of Jesus was largely put together after the supposed events and it was St Paul, not Jesus, who instituted Christianity as a distinct religion. The ostensible witnesses to his resurrection are not confirmed in contemporary reports, but retrospectively. There is little contemporary evidence outside of the retrospective accounts of the Christians to confirm their claims, some of which are highly improbable, such as the massacre of the inocents and the supposed Roman census that is the basis of the nativity myths.

We do not limit our beliefs to what can be explained since many phenomena in nature were only explained very recently in our history and could not have been explained at all if nobody believed in them. However, we do prefer to discard beliefs that are discovered on good evidence to be false.