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

[Jacksprat]

bye

 

[tosca1]

I personally accept the Stoned Ape Theory of consciousness.
It makes a lot of sense that mind alternation mushrooms probably enhanced consciousness enough to reach sentiency.

hmmmm.....sounds like a posturing statement that means ..................................nada.

 

[soylentgreen]

Then you admit that atheists are dependent upon the concept of materialism. So glad we agree.

How so? Pointing out that the material world does not include your imaginary god is not being dependent on materialism. It is merely pointing out what materialism is.

 

[Ouroboros]

How so? Pointing out that the material world does not include your imaginary god is not being dependent on materialism. It is merely pointing out what materialism is.

You've oversimplified the argument. The dominant atheist argument is that the world does not require any deity or deities because it functions in response to material forces acting upon one another. Materialism does not come into being as a theory except as a reaction against theism.

 

[soylentgreen]

You've oversimplified the argument. The dominant atheist argument is that the world does not require any deity or deities because it functions in response to material forces acting upon one another. Materialism does not come into being as a theory except as a reaction against theism.

That is not true. Theists invention of creationism is a poor attempt by theists to pretend a material universe at the whim of a god. The ridiculous claim that the bible is a scientific account is another example.

You cannot blame atheists for pointing out materialism when the theist tries to use materialism to justify their fantasy world.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is not true. Theists invention of creationism is a poor attempt by theists to pretend a material universe at the whim of a god. The ridiculous claim that the bible is a scientific account is another example.

You cannot blame atheists for pointing out materialism when the theist tries to use materialism to justify their fantasy world.

I don't think creationists were around at the time that theism began.

But to the extent that there's any resemblance between that contemporary phenomenon and all the religious movements that spawned various visions of deity, they're alike in stating that the world of matter is molded in some way, be it by God passing over the face of the waters or a cosmic bird laying six eggs on the knee of the air goddess.

 

[soylentgreen]

I don't think creationists were around at the time that theism began.

But to the extent that there's any resemblance between that contemporary phenomenon and all the religious movements that spawned various visions of deity, they're alike in stating that the world of matter is molded in some way, be it by God passing over the face of the waters or a cosmic bird laying six eggs on the knee of the air goddess.

Considering that theism has created creationist stories as part of the mythology then such concepts were not only around when theism started but is one of the main points of theism.

All just stories.

 

[Ouroboros]

Considering that theism has created creationist stories as part of the mythology then such concepts were not only around when theism started but is one of the main points of theism.

All just stories.

Way to miss the point.

 

[soylentgreen]

Way to miss the point.

The point was that you confused creationists with a modern term rather than the fact that religions have creation stories .

And again they are all just fairy tales made from imagination.

 

[Ouroboros]

The point was that you confused creationists with a modern term rather than the fact that religions have creation stories .

And again they are all just fairy tales made from imagination.

No, you brought up creationists, who are a modern phenomenon irrelevant to the founding history of religion. It is that history against which the generally modern phenomenon of atheism is a response. You have attempted to reverse the historical hierarchy, as if theists must prove their assertions to atheists. That may be flattering, but it’s inaccurate.

 

[watsup]

Imagine this: A human being no different than a dog that lives in the moment is dependent on nature, instinct, and has no thought of "self" or language. Then, through however means, the first human(s) somehow becomes self-aware of their own existence.

All of a sudden a being is now aware they exist but there are no words, thoughts, explanations, or history to explain what they are experiencing. I would assert the only logical reaction to this would have been hysteria. Wouldn't this reaction eventually give way to the rise of religion (God) that is the complete opposite of the hysteria the being was feeling.

Early man: Scared, unsure, purposeless, without a history, without a meaning, without a goal.
God: All powerful, all knowing, knows the past, present and future, has a goal for Itself and humanity.

This is my opinion. What say you ?

If you mean that primitive humans were SUPERSTITIOUS and this created fables and myths in order to try to explain natural phenomena, then you may be correct since that is what religions still do up to this very day.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, you brought up creationists, who are a modern phenomenon irrelevant to the founding history of religion. It is that history against which the generally modern phenomenon of atheism is a response. You have attempted to reverse the historical hierarchy, as if theists must prove their assertions to atheists. That may be flattering, but it’s inaccurate.

Creationism itself is not a modern phenomenon. Most common thing about religions are their creationist fantasies.

It is only in modern times that we have theists creating a creationist mythology dressed in pseudo science.

And no, the hierarchy is that it is up to a theist to prove their assertions. Atheism after all is simply a response to the crap one usually hears from theists.

 

[Ouroboros]

Creationism itself is not a modern phenomenon. Most common thing about religions are their creationist fantasies.

It is only in modern times that we have theists creating a creationist mythology dressed in pseudo science.

And no, the hierarchy is that it is up to a theist to prove their assertions. Atheism after all is simply a response to the crap one usually hears from theists.

Nope, creationism is entirely a modern phenomenon. I challenge you to produce a definition that states otherwise.

Most theists champion faith and therefore are not concerned with proof. That's the department of atheists, which is the "response" I mentioned above. But their focus on proof is irrelevant to anyone who is not an atheist.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nope, creationism is entirely a modern phenomenon. I challenge you to produce a definition that states otherwise.

Most theists champion faith and therefore are not concerned with proof. That's the department of atheists, which is the "response" I mentioned above. But their focus on proof is irrelevant to anyone who is not an atheist.

Yet you cannot deny that creationist mythology has existed as long as religion has existed. what you are pointing to is only a modern version of creationism that pretends to be science based.

Yet it is the theist creationists who insist that their pseudo science is proof. So again you are wrong about the intent of theism.

True, the theist insistence that the bible is a true account is one way they not only demand proof exists but is also as you say to an atheist is irrelevant as proof.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yet you cannot deny that creationist mythology has existed as long as religion has existed. what you are pointing to is only a modern version of creationism that pretends to be science based.

Yet it is the theist creationists who insist that their pseudo science is proof. So again you are wrong about the intent of theism.

True, the theist insistence that the bible is a true account is one way they not only demand proof exists but is also as you say to an atheist is irrelevant as proof.

Your own screed carries the seeds of your rhetorical destruction.

Creationism is a modern phenomenon because it attempts to graft a faith based belief in design atop scientific methodology.

My recognition of this dissonance should not be taken as wholesale endorsement of science in its entirely materialistic forms. There are valid critiques to be made against materialistic science— Stuart Kauffman for one— but they can’t be made through religion as such.

Archaic religion has nothing to do with creationism.

 

[soylentgreen]

Your own screed carries the seeds of your rhetorical destruction.

Creationism is a modern phenomenon because it attempts to graft a faith based belief in design atop scientific methodology.

My recognition of this dissonance should not be taken as wholesale endorsement of science in its entirely materialistic forms. There are valid critiques to be made against materialistic science— Stuart Kauffman for one— but they can’t be made through religion as such.

Archaic religion has nothing to do with creationism.

No, let's not agree that modern creationism and science actually have anything to do with each other. Creationism contains only pseudo science.

Creationism does not mean the only form of creationism belongs to the modern person who distorts science to fit a myth. Creationism is something all religions do even those of the past. Creationism is after all nothing but a superstitious story. Regardless of whether it dressed in pseudo science or not

 

[Ouroboros]

No, let's not agree that modern creationism and science actually have anything to do with each other. Creationism contains only pseudo science.

Creationism does not mean the only form of creationism belongs to the modern person who distorts science to fit a myth. Creationism is something all religions do even those of the past. Creationism is after all nothing but a superstitious story. Regardless of whether it dressed in pseudo science or not

No, let's not agree that modern creationism and science actually have anything to do with each other. Creationism contains only pseudo science.

Creationism does not mean the only form of creationism belongs to the modern person who distorts science to fit a myth. Creationism is something all religions do even those of the past. Creationism is after all nothing but a superstitious story. Regardless of whether it dressed in pseudo science or not

Were you planning to get around to the challenge I made?

creationism is entirely a modern phenomenon. I challenge you to produce a definition that states otherwise.

That did not mean your own private definition, in case that was unclear.

 

[Gordy327]

Creationism is a modern phenomenon because it attempts to graft a faith based belief in design atop scientific methodology.

Creationism is not scientific in the least, nor does it follow any scientific methodology. Creationism boils down to "god did it" as an explanation. THat is not scientific.

My recognition of this dissonance should not be taken as wholesale endorsement of science in its entirely materialistic forms. There are valid critiques to be made against materialistic science— Stuart Kauffman for one— but they can’t be made through religion as such.

Archaic religion has nothing to do with creationism.

Even ancient religions have their own versions of creation stories. The ancient Greek creation myth is rather amusing for one.

 

[Ouroboros]

Creationism is not scientific in the least, nor does it follow any scientific methodology. Creationism boils down to "god did it" as an explanation. THat is not scientific.

Even ancient religions have their own versions of creation stories. The ancient Greek creation myth is rather amusing for one.

The question is not whether or not archaic religions believe in creation stories. The question is whether or not they are formulated to react against materialistic science.

OK, since you're going along with Iguanaman's imprecise definition of creationism, here's an example of a precise one from Wikipedia:

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.[1][2] In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views,[3][4] which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.[5][6]

But archaic religions neither accept nor reject scientific explanations, because in a functional sense there were no scientific explanations in archaic times. The most one can say is that there may have existed proponents of "proto-science" like Aristotle, but Aristotle was not a proponent of what we now call science, given his belief in things like amamnesis.

Wiki also asserts that the earliest manifestation of anything like creationism might be found in the 18th century.

 

[Gordy327]

The question is not whether or not archaic religions believe in creation stories. The question is whether or not they are formulated to react against materialistic science.

Creationism has nothing to do with science (nor most likely reality too). Science doesn't deal with creationism as a religious concpet.

OK, since you're going along with Iguanaman's imprecise definition of creationism, here's an example of a precise one from Wikipedia:

Creationism is commonly associated with religious belief or tenets.

But archaic religions neither accept nor reject scientific explanations, because in a functional sense there were no scientific explanations in archaic times. The most one can say is that there may have existed proponents of "proto-science" like Aristotle, but Aristotle was not a proponent of what we now call science, given his belief in things like amamnesis.

Fortunately, we've come a long way since ancient times.

Wiki also asserts that the earliest manifestation of anything like creationism might be found in the 18th century.

So what? Creationism became popularized as a concept because of Darwin's work regarding evolution.

 

[soylentgreen]

Were you planning to get around to the challenge I made?


That did not mean your own private definition, in case that was unclear.

Can you point to the post that challenge was made. because I do not remember any challange.

Actually I think it is you who are creating a private definition. Creationism has existed since religion and probably before.

 

[Ouroboros]

Creationism has nothing to do with science (nor most likely reality too). Science doesn't deal with creationism as a religious concpet.

Creationism is commonly associated with religious belief or tenets.

Fortunately, we've come a long way since ancient times.

So what? Creationism became popularized as a concept because of Darwin's work regarding evolution.

Still not interested in your personal definition of creationism. I provided one from a source outside myself; it’s your turn.

Try reviewing what I actually said about creationism’s response to science rather than making up straw men.

 

[Ouroboros]

Can you point to the post that challenge was made. because I do not remember any challange.

Actually I think it is you who are creating a private definition. Creationism has existed since religion and probably before.

I guess you didn’t bother to read the definition I posted to Gordy. Before I bother reiterating stuff you could look up easily (though I probably will not bother since I don’t think you’re playing a fair game), let’s see you respond to that definition.

 

[Gordy327]

Still not interested in your personal definition of creationism. I provided one from a source outside myself; it’s your turn.

I specified what Creationism is.

Try reviewing what I actually said about creationism’s response to science rather than making up straw men.

What you said doesn't actually refute what I said.

 

[soylentgreen]

I guess you didn’t bother to read the definition I posted to Gordy. Before I bother reiterating stuff you could look up easily (though I probably will not bother since I don’t think you’re playing a fair game), let’s see you respond to that definition.

No I did not but now I have.

Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation.[1][2] In its broadest sense, creationism includes a continuum of religious views,[3][4] which vary in their acceptance or rejection of scientific explanations such as evolution that describe the origin and development of natural phenomena.[5][6]

Nothing here that changes what I have said. Creationist stories have been around since even before religion began. And science has been used to explain all of them away. You seem to assume science only need explain away chrisitan myths for some reason.