Plausible explnation for the emergence of religion?

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@Kellii

Some of the best attended churches in the U.S. are flat out run by con men.

All of the churches in the USA and worldwide are run by con men, flim-flam artists and bullshitters. There fixed it for you.

[rat_spit]

Anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, psychosis, and mania.

My personal response to annihilation anxiety was that God MUST exist, otherwise I’m fucked.

My personal response to depression was that God MUST exist, otherwise the word is unintelligible.

My personal response to schizophrenia is as that God MUST exist, because he abducted me onto his spaceship and held me hostage for a couple days. Did I mention he was an omnipotent industrial strength toilet. Ahh (wiping tear from eye). He always had the best sense of humour.

My personal response to mania was that God must exist, because how else could the word be so exulted.

You can imagine these mental illnesses have been around as long as mankind. And, shamans, priests, and the like would have prescribed God as the cause or solution to these various illnesses. It’s easy to see how that could spread throughout populations.

Also, fire and sacrifice. The early humans believed burnt sacrifices meant water sent from heaven by the Gods. So?

Also, drugs. Hallucinogenic substances. A great source of God inspired beliefs. Kind of like schizophrenia for normal people.

[FILECABINET]

All religions are mostly BS to unify and control the general population. But strong religions, no matter what their doctrines might be, are essential to act as the fabric that unites the population. Consider all of the noteworthy civilizations of the past, from the Aztec, Inca, Mayan, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Persian, Arabian, Christian, Jewish, Chinese, Japanese. They all had strong religions that unified the people so they created complex buildings, mathematics, written languages, scientific discoveries , etc. Then look at the people who didn’t have a strong religion (regardless of what it was). They remained primitive in comparison.

In today’s world people are dropping religions and trying to replace them with something else, like various political movements. But so far, that has been unsuccessful. And, although we may hate all religions we would mostly be primitive without them.

[CyberLN]

@FILECABINET

ul. And, although we may hate all religions we would mostly be primitive without them.

1. Who is “we”?
2. If you’re defining “we” as atheists, then you are mistaken. I, for one, do not hate all religions
3. Please demonstrate your assertion that “we” would be mostly primitive without religion
4. What unit of measurement is “mostly”?

@FILECABINET

Then look at the people who didn’t have a strong religion

Please provide a list of these people.

@FILECABINET

They all had strong religions that unified the people

Are you suggesting that religion is the entirety of a what unified a group of people? That religion is the only factor required for a culture to exist?

@FILECABINET

so they created complex buildings, mathematics, written languages, scientific discoveries

Are you asserting that without religion, people would not have architecture, language, or science?

[Sheldon]

@FILECABINET

strong religions, no matter what their doctrines might be, are essential to act as the fabric that unites the population.

I am not sure I accept they are essential, how many failed secular countries were in your test group, did you publish your research, and is it peer reviewed, for this sweeping generalisation? I’d accept that religions can or may, help add societal cohesion, however the historicity of religions show a fair amount of chaos resulting from, for example, brutal war and carnage, even among believers of ostensibly the same religion.

@FILECABINET

They all had strong religions that unified the people so they created complex buildings, mathematics, written languages, scientific discoveries , etc.

That seems like a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to me, again can you demonstrate objective evidence to support your assertion that religion is essential for those things, and now that those things occurred in the countries mentioned only or directly because of religion?

@FILECABINET

Then look at the people who didn’t have a strong religion (regardless of what it was). They remained primitive in comparison.

No you look at them, then demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for this assertion, so far all you’re offering are sweeping unevidenced assertions.

@FILECABINET

In today’s world people are dropping religions and trying to replace them with something else, like various political movements.

This seems to imply that politics and religion are mutually exclusive, which is dubious enough, but more tellingly this assertion directly contradicts your earlier assertion that “strong religions, no matter what their doctrines might be, are essential to act as the fabric that unites the population.”

So which is it, are they essential, or can they be replaced by non-religious doctrines and ideologies?

@FILECABINET

But so far, that has been unsuccessful.

Ah, a qualifying remark, but sadly another bare claim, now I hate to be pedantic, but do you have anything beyond bare claims to offer? Only you seem to be reeling them off in tandem.

@FILECABINET

although we may hate all religions we would mostly be primitive without them.

I don’t hate all religions, so I am not sure who “we” is here? Again, please can you offer something to support your assertion that “we would mostly be primitive without them (religions).” beyond the claim itself, and your previous post hoc ergo propter fallacy that unity and cohesion emerged only because of the presence of (a) religion?

[Nyarlathotep]

@FILECABINET

Consider all of the noteworthy civilizations of the past, from the Aztec, Inca, Mayan, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Persian, Arabian, Christian, Jewish, Chinese, Japanese.

The Christian civilization?

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@FILECABINET

Consider all of the noteworthy civilizations of the past, from the Aztec, Inca, Mayan, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Persian, Arabian, Christian, Jewish, Chinese, Japanese. They all had strong religions that unified the people so they created complex buildings, mathematics, written languages, scientific discoveries , etc. Then look at the people who didn’t have a strong religion (regardless of what it was). They remained primitive in comparison.

Which other civilizations are you thinking of here? Please give us some concrete examples.
Can you think of any other factors that contribute to making a civilization “great”?

[FILECABINET]

Are you asserting that without religion, people would not have architecture, language, or science?

Consider the Aztec, Mayan, and Incan societies that had strong religions, although their religious were barbaric. Look t the Plains Indians and the Eskimos who didn’t have any strong religions. Which group was more advanced in architecture, written languages, and science?

You can compare the Egyptians , Ethiopians, and Sudanese to the other African groups. Guess who had strong religions and built complex architecture like pyramids? The same is true around the world. Societies that had strong religions outperformed those that didn’t.

[FILECABINET]

[quote=“Nyarlathotep, post:26, topic:4353”]

The Christian civilization?

The Christian civilization has outperformed all other civilizations. Even if you are an American atheist you are still part of the Christian civilization and benefit from it every minute of your life. That is not saying that Christianity is true. It is saying that humans function better as a group if they have a strong religion that unifies them even if the religion itself is pure BS. One day people might develop a political doctrine that will replace religions but it hasn’t happened yet.

[Nyarlathotep]

Ignoring the unilineal model of civilization which seems implied:

How are you separating correlation and causation. What if being a “advanced” civilization leads to having a “strong religion”?

[CyberLN]

@FILECABINET

Consider the Aztec, Mayan, and Incan societies that had strong religions, although their religious were barbaric. Look t the Plains Indians and the Eskimos who didn’t have any strong religions. Which group was more advanced in architecture, written languages, and science?

Please define “strong”.
Please define “barbaric”.
Please define “advanced”.
How do you measure “out performed”?

You continue to make value judgments in an effort to prop up assertions for which you’ve not provided empirical data.

Until or unless you provide something other than mere opinion, I’ll consider your assertions to be complete bupkus.

[FILECABINET]

Ignoring the unilineal model of civilization which seems implied:

How are you separating correlation and causation. What if being a “advanced” civilization leads to having a “strong religion”?

Religions come first and then civilizations follow… A lazy conman comes up with the idea of a god that he can get his superstitious buddies to follow. That gives him power and prestige that he can use to get the people to do what he says the god wants them to do. So the group gets organized into different trades, like the military, farmers, laborers, merchants, etc. People start to pay taxes and the big wigs get rich without working. The Moses character was a master extortionist and he set the standard that people follow to this day.

[FILECABINET]

Until or unless you provide something other than mere opinion, I’ll consider your assertions to be complete bupkus.

We see things from a different perspective. Enjoy your view and I will enjoy mine.

[Calilasseia]

Western Civilisation “outperformed” other civilisations because it embraced science, initially in the face of stiff opposition from religion.

Funny how the most developed societies today are also the most secular. Here’s a peer reviewed academic paper covering this:

https://cdr.creighton.edu/items/240e5125-7ce5-45d5-a341-47925e192093

From that paper:

[19] If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported. Although they are by no means utopias, the populations of secular democracies are clearly able to govern themselves and maintain societal cohesion. Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, proevolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.

The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data – a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

[20] The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject.

Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.

[CyberLN]

@FILECABINET

Religions come first and then civilizations follow… A lazy conman comes up with the idea of a god that he can get his superstitious buddies to follow. That gives him power and prestige that he can use to get the people to do what he says the god wants them to do. So the group gets organized into different trades, like the military, farmers, laborers, merchants, etc. People start to pay taxes and the big wigs get rich without working.

Yep…that’s the way it always happens. No need to supply any evidence. We all buy it.

[Cognostic]

@FILECABINET

A lazy conman comes up with the idea of a god

Hell, we could start a religion around that idea…

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@FILECABINET

Religions come first and then civilizations follow…

So why don’t you demonstrate that for, say, the sumerians? Or the Jiahu Culture of ancient China (7,000 B.C. – 5,700 B.C.)? Or the Indus valley civilization?

Also, to repeat: I’d like to you to give us concrete examples of what you call “primitive” civilizations that didn’t “rise” due to not having a strong religion. And to think of other factors that might contribute to making a civilization “great”.

[Sheldon]

@FILECABINET

Consider the Aztec, Mayan, and Incan societies that had strong religions, although their religious were barbaric. Look t the Plains Indians and the Eskimos who didn’t have any strong religions. Which group was more advanced in architecture, written languages, and science?

I knew someone who smoked and lived to over a hundred, and someone who never smoked who died in their 40’s from lung cancer, according to your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, not smoking causes cancer, and smoking a long life, it seems you want to simply repeat the fallacy without ever addressing it, but it isn’t going to going to go away as it’s poor reasoning (irrational), and without some objective evidence to support your core claim.

Now pay attention, you may learn something, correlation is not causation.

@FILECABINET

You can compare the Egyptians , Ethiopians, and Sudanese to the other African groups. Guess who had strong religions and built complex architecture like pyramids? The same is true around the world. Societies that had strong religions outperformed those that didn’t.

Now you’re offering an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and you seem to be shifting the goal posts slightly, from religion being essential for those things, to it performing better at producing those things, perhaps you thought no one notice this shift? Would you like a quote of your original claim?

@Nyarlathotep

How are you separating correlation and causation.

I shan’t even feign surprise that Nyarl got there before me, or that @FILECABINET has ignored the question, and responded with a new raft of unevidenced assertions, and rhetoric.

@FILECABINET

We see things from a different perspective. Enjoy your view and I will enjoy mine.

Meanwhile I will point out that @CyberLN’s perspective is examining your claims critically and objectively, whereas you are clearly not, The former is essential for honest debate. What you are doing now is preaching your beliefs.

[Sheldon]

@FILECABINET

Are you asserting that without religion, people would not have architecture, language, or science?

Consider the Aztec, Mayan, and Incan societies that had strong religions, although their religious were barbaric. Look t the Plains Indians and the Eskimos who didn’t have any strong religions. Which group was more advanced in architecture, written languages, and science?

You can compare the Egyptians , Ethiopians, and Sudanese to the other African groups. Guess who had strong religions and built complex architecture like pyramids? The same is true around the world. Societies that had strong religions outperformed those that didn’t.

Is that a yes you are, or a no you are not making that assertion? Only you seem not to have answered @CyberLN’s question…

Your examples are a false equivalence, as there were likely a host of other factors influencing those things, that you have not even mentioned. You’re also moving the goal posts here, as your original claim was that “strong religions, no matter what their doctrines might be, are essential to act as the fabric that unites the population.”

Your anecdotal claims don’t objectively evidence that assertion, and of course all one need offer is one counter example to demonstrate the claim to be false, as the word essential makes the claim an absolute. North Korea, China, seem like two good counter examples. As I said initially, and you ignored of course, whilst I accept that religion can, or might, add societal cohesion, I’d need to be convinced by some strong objective evidence that religion was essential, and you have offered nothing but more anecdotal claims, most of which wouldn’t support that assertion even were they true, and they seem to be describing some pretty subjective concepts in places.

[FILECABINET]

People seem to ignore the fact that in dictatorships, such as North Korean and China, the people worship the dictator as their deity. You can see the same thing happening in America with the nitwits who kiss trump’s ass, although he is one of the most despicable people in the country.