Mass hysteria of early hominid self awareness led to the creation of religion.

[Ouroboros]

It is not as if this was a new idea. This thread is merely a repeat of many more. And no, the contempt is more for the belief in the story.
I agree. Fiction is entertaining.

The nature of the belief is determined by its unhealthy rigor, not by the belief itself.

Fiction is more than entertaining, and I’m sure you got that from my statement.

 

[soylentgreen]

If one individual has a spiritual experience that few if any of his fellows can experience— let’s say, that he communed with the God of the Hunt— then he has to come up with some rationale by which he convey his experience to others.

I deem that the beginning of religion, and even the shakiest rationale is just the ancestor of the fully codified system.

Even in todays world people can be spiritual and yet decide they want nothing to do with religions. Yet many of the spiritual beliefs would also be found among the religious.
True that you can point out many similarities between the two. And you make a good point that spirituality is the starting point for religious beliefs. But for all their similarities the two are still different.

A general interpretation would be that spirituality gives an equality to life in that all things have a spirit or is guarded and guided by spirits. Where as religions concern themselves only with man who is given dominion over all things.

 

[Ouroboros]

Even in todays world people can be spiritual and yet decide they want nothing to do with religions. Yet many of the spiritual beliefs would also be found among the religious.
True that you can point out many similarities between the two. And you make a good point that spirituality is the starting point for religious beliefs. But for all their similarities the two are still different.

A general interpretation would be that spirituality gives an equality to life in that all things have a spirit or is guarded and guided by spirits. Where as religions concern themselves only with man who is given dominion over all things.

Yes, there are many people today who believe that spirituality can be separated from religion.

But can you demonstrate that such people existed in the infancy of humankind? From what information we have on those tribal peoples who lived roughly the same lives as real primitives, I don't know that they made such distinctions. What's the oldest example in your repertoire in which you feel the distinction between spiritualism and religion pertains?

Again, it's hard to say when humankind started seeing itself in a dominant position. But among themselves, there seems to have been an early manifestation in the idea that you could expel ill fortune through sacrifice, be it animal or human? Does not such a belief evolve from a belief in spirits who bring evil, spirits who must be dispelled? You might choose to blame that concept on religionists, but who can prove it?

 

[Gordy327]

Gordy thinks that he can win by turning the debate into an endurance race, where he just keeps repeating the same blather over and over. You’re about the same, but you’ve harped a lot more about your contempt for mere stories.

No, it continues because you refuse to accept or understand the point being made.

To allay my boredom with both of you, here’s a statement designed to fry your brains.
Stories are much more important than science. Reason being— humans can live without science. But they never have lived, and never will live, without stories.

Stories are just stories. All stories do is demonstrate human imagination or provide entertainment. Science has not only helped humans live, but live longer and better.

If one individual has a spiritual experience that few if any of his fellows can experience— let’s say, that he communed with the God of the Hunt— then he has to come up with some rationale by which he convey his experience to others.

Or maybe he's delusional.

 

[soylentgreen]

Yes, there are many people today who believe that spirituality can be separated from religion.

But can you demonstrate that such people existed in the infancy of humankind? From what information we have on those tribal peoples who lived roughly the same lives as real primitives, I don't know that they made such distinctions. What's the oldest example in your repertoire in which you feel the distinction between spiritualism and religion pertains?

Again, it's hard to say when humankind started seeing itself in a dominant position. But among themselves, there seems to have been an early manifestation in the idea that you could expel ill fortune through sacrifice, be it animal or human? Does not such a belief evolve from a belief in spirits who bring evil, spirits who must be dispelled? You might choose to blame that concept on religionists, but who can prove it?

For this there is a need to find evidence that contradicts what has been said. The oldest temple so far found is only 11,000 years old. No coincidence that that is about the same time the first civilisations appear.
the evidence to back my claim is in what has been found so far in what is left in graves and what has been painted on walls. It is also found in simply looking at tribal life that sill exists today.

Gods, spirits and demons existed long before an organised religion came along. Religion itself is simply a means to organise and control people through worship of gods.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, it continues because you refuse to accept or understand the point being made.

Stories are just stories. All stories do is demonstrate human imagination or provide entertainment. Science has not only helped humans live, but live longer and better.

Or maybe he's delusional.

You have not made a point; only proffered a false definition, so you're not worth talking to until you actually bring something to the discussion beyond your mindless repetition.

 

[Rexedgar]

When the religious folk found out that money was invented, it reached new levels of grift………..

 

[Gordy327]

You have not made a point; only proffered a false definition, so you're not worth talking to until you actually bring something to the discussion beyond your mindless repetition.

Speak for yourself!

 

[Ouroboros]

For this there is a need to find evidence that contradicts what has been said. The oldest temple so far found is only 11,000 years old. No coincidence that that is about the same time the first civilisations appear.
the evidence to back my claim is in what has been found so far in what is left in graves and what has been painted on walls. It is also found in simply looking at tribal life that sill exists today.

Gods, spirits and demons existed long before an organised religion came along. Religion itself is simply a means to organise and control people through worship of gods.

Why would the absence of temples mean the absence of religion at the tribal level? Consider the point I made earlier about the evolution of sacrifice, which certainly needs religions elaboration to make it comprehensible.

Sacrifices (i.e., the presentation of offerings to higher beings or to the dead) appear as early as the Middle Paleolithic Period. Pits with some animal bones have been found in the vicinity of burial sites; thus, it is a likely possibility that they represent offerings to the dead. There is a dispute over the interpretation of the arrangement of the skulls and long bones of bears, since they are deposited in such a manner that it is hardly possible to discern a profane explanation. It is assumed that they had a cultic or magical significance. Most likely, certain parts of the prey, such as the head and the meaty shanks, or at least the bones with brain and marrow, were sacrificed. Even if it cannot be definitely stated who the recipient of these sacrifices was, analogies with present-day “primitive” phenomena make it likely that a part of the prey was offered to a higher being who was believed to dispense nourishment.

See? No need for temples whatever two million years ago, but plenty of religious thought.

 

[Ouroboros]

Speak for yourself!

Ohh, what a searing comeback...

 

[Gordy327]

Ohh, what a searing comeback...

Just an apt observation

 

[Ouroboros]

Just an apt observation

Any time you want to make an actual argument, come on back and say something new.

 

[soylentgreen]

Why would the absence of temples mean the absence of religion at the tribal level? Consider the point I made earlier about the evolution of sacrifice, which certainly needs religions elaboration to make it comprehensible.





See? No need for temples whatever two million years ago, but plenty of religious thought.

Plenty of spiritual beliefs. But little sign of organised religion.

 

[Gordy327]

Any time you want to make an actual argument, come on back and say something new.

I did. You just weren't paying attention.

 

[Ouroboros]

I did. You just weren't paying attention.

When I proffer a definition that I can back up, and you proffer one that you can't-- and you can't even show why you THINK your definition is present anywhere in the material YOU cited-- then you're not paying attention to the way words are used to convey meaning. You just want to repeat your posts endlessly, not actually making any new points, until you can convince yourself that you won the debate. Well, go ahead and convince yourself, then.

 

[Ouroboros]

Plenty of spiritual beliefs. But little sign of organised religion.

You might want to use the term "institutional religion," because it's chauvinistic to assume that tribes at the aforementioned Neolithic level were not "organized."

And why do think the hidebound materialist has any more use for tribal-level spirituality than for institutionalized spirituality? That's the falsehood coded into the OP; that there's a "normal" span of human endeavor and that everything that suggests a world beyond that span is borne of delusion.

 

[soylentgreen]

You might want to use the term "institutional religion," because it's chauvinistic to assume that tribes at the aforementioned Neolithic level were not "organized."

And why do think the hidebound materialist has any more use for tribal-level spirituality than for institutionalized spirituality? That's the falsehood coded into the OP; that there's a "normal" span of human endeavor and that everything that suggests a world beyond that span is borne of delusion.

Regardless of whether it is spirituality or religion they are both just delusions. Simply nothing more than a fantastical way to explain why things happen. The difference is simply the intent of the worshipper.

 

[Lisa]

I've no idea what in the cornbread hell you're talking about.

Do you have a point?

I am absolutely not surprised that you react with anger when your religious sacred cow is threatened by facts. It is very common to lash out when something that is the bedrock of your beliefs is threatened and you cannot protect your beliefs from being questioned.