With a name like hanno that's no surprise.
Asking what was the first religion is the same as asking what came first the chicken or the egg. Regardless of what it was IMO opinion it was and still is based upon fear of the unknown. The deity could have been the wind, sun, stars, erupting volcano or any thing that primitive man did not understand. It certainly was not one that we recognize today.
au1929, how is it like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg? what do you mean by that.
Setanta wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:Religion got going with the transition of early man from hunter gatherer to farmer. He could put stuff in the ground, but he couldnt make it grow. For that he needed the right amount of rain and sunlight. Its not a great leap of imagination to invent a rain god and a sun god. Also the excess food allowed for the development of a priestly class, who did very little useful work, except for keeping the gods which they had invented, happy. Its not rocket science.
In the main, i agree with this. However, i would place the origin of the religious dog and pony show further back in the past.
Thag go kill mammoth now--everybody eat good ! ! !
Thag, Thag old buddy . . . com'ere buddy. You don't want to just rush off and panic all the mammoth--we could starve over the winter. We'll need to paint some mammoth pictures on the cave wall, and have a big dance around the fire in mammoth costumes to make sure the spirit of the mammoth doesn't queer the pitch. I could help you out with all of that, but, you know, all that painting and dancing, it takes it's toll . . .
What Og want?
Well, Thag, if you bring down that mammoth, as you will undoubtedly will after i've communed with the Great Mammoth Spirit, just keep the liver for me . . . 'K?
(the next day)
Sheeka, you lusty young slut . . . have you ever tasted mammoth liver?
lucky bastard, what I would do for a nice bit of mammoth liver. Times is hard, hard 'ere.
neo wrote:If one were to use only the bible and define religion simply as relationship to God, then religion started in the time of Eden, approximately 6000 years ago.
wow, you actually believe this neo? That the time of eden, the dawn of man, was 6000 years ago?
Harold Wilson once said that a week is a long time in politics. Perhaps a year meant something else in those days near the equator.
Gilbey
It is just an expression. Which came first the Chicken that laid the egg or the egg that produced the chicken
Actually I think it derives from thunder and lightning.
The ladies were all frightened when it thundered and they didn't know what it was and it wasn't long before some chap discovered that if he stayed cool he was in clover when all the other chaps's knees were knocking as well. The rest is history.
I don't think it's preposterous or anything - but I'm not sure I agree with the chicken-egg analogy, unless you take it to mean they evolved together rather than feed into each other. I look at my cat - she's got motives, planning, and problem solving ability - but not really the rigging to think into a situation. In a way - insofar as the cat is intelligent I would call her intuitions, relative to whatever impresses her the most, birds, her favorite people, things that scare her, not unlike the first generation of religion. That is to say a dim, foundationless, but often functionally sound conception of the riddles in ones life. I guess I'd draw the line of when it becomes Religion with a capital 'R' as soon as it becomes a behavior in and of itself - like drawing pictures, acting in an otherwise counterintuitive manner, or forming ideas interpolated from the perceived nature of the religious construct itself.
Damn I'm good.
Gilbey...
If you believe in the bible, you can't solve the chicken or the egg problem. However if you believe in evolution there is no problem to solve.
Cyracuz wrote:neo wrote:If one were to use only the bible and define religion simply as relationship to God, then religion started in the time of Eden, approximately 6000 years ago.
wow, you actually believe this neo? That the time of eden, the dawn of man, was 6000 years ago?
The post did not say I believed it, simply that it is what may be deduced from the bible.
But, as a matter of fact, I do believe it.
Does that surprise anyone?
Been pretty busy with eBay. Something about this time of the year. Forgive me if I miss a few.
neologist wrote:Cyracuz wrote:wow, you actually believe this neo? That the time of eden, the dawn of man, was 6000 years ago?
The post did not say I believed it, simply that it is what may be deduced from the bible. But, as a matter of fact, I do believe it. Does that surprise anyone?
Yes me. In fact I'm more than surprised, I'm horrified that an obviously intelligent, educated and reasonable person can suspend disbelief and, in the name of religion, "believe" in something that is demonstrably not true. What happened to your God-given brains? Of course I've left a little wriggle room by putting the word "believe" in quotes, so you can give your own definition of that word, but if you insist in maintaining that mankind originated 6000 years ago, I will go on repeating and showing why you are wrong until hell freezes.* Mankind is no more 6000 years old as the moon is 6000 miles above the surface of the earth. Merry Christmas Neo.
*on second thoughts I probably wont. Sadly I must conclued that its not possible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who is prepared to believe in the literal truth of myth and legend.
I don't think anybody believes that the myths of Narcissus and Ulysses passing by the Sirens actually took place as described by Ovid and Homer.
Reading them however does give a sense that these authors thought that mirrors and the seductive charms of the female sex are dangerous for men.
I happen to agree but I'm not confident I could have worked it out for myself with all these silly sods in media for guidance, all of whom take the opposite view.
I find that other, later, authors who are not inspired by such principles to be unfunny and a waste of time.
Did you work your position out for yourself Steve?
spendius wrote:I don't think anybody believes that the myths of Narcissus and Ulysses passing by the Sirens actually took place as described by Ovid and Homer.
Reading them however does give a sense that these authors thought that mirrors and the seductive charms of the female sex are dangerous for men.
I happen to agree but I'm not confident I could have worked it out for myself with all these silly sods in media for guidance, all of whom take the opposite view.
I find that other, later, authors who are not inspired by such principles to be unfunny and a waste of time.
Did you work your position out for yourself Steve?
I suppose I could be annoyed with that patronising comment, but I'll let it pass. I'm quite capable of realising that a truth about the human condition can be illustrated in the form of a myth fable or parable. But we are not dealing in myths here. We are talking about statements of fact. Thats on an entirely different level Spendy as you well know.
What facts are you talking about?
I wasn't being patronising at all. It is odd how often such a charge is brought out in lieu of an answer. Acute sensitivities render adult philosophical discussions pointless and impossible.
It is well known that the atheistic position denies free will, from de Sade right up to modern materialist theory, and that all the views that we have are conditioned into us. This is one of the reasons why atheism is so hopeless. It denies personal responsibilty and thus no criminal can be adjudged guilty of anything except having been exposed to certain conditioning processes such as exist in Al Quieda training camps and against which he has no defences when young or uneducated.
Anyone preaching atheism without such considerations is merely expressing an affectation, a conditioned one, and such things are dangerous when in the hands of superior rhetorical skills.
Theological training, developed over extended periods of time and in varying circumstances, involves the removal of affectations from debate and that allows a cool appraisal of the facts of human organisation beside which other facts concerning inanimate matter are subsiduary although still of importance.
Being an atheist is another subject. It is preaching atheism (conditioning others) with which I am concerned here.
How many believers does it take to make a religion? I would argue that it takes only one, who articulates a set of values he lives by. The question of when the first religion appeared seems to be an imponderable, because spirituality has a genetic base; we are inherently predisposed towards religious thought.
Neo.
I have to say that your belief that the world is 6000 years old does surprise me. I bet you get it often, but if the world is six thousand years old, then what about dinosaur fossils?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk
Didn't say the world is 6000 years old. The bible allows for the earth to be billions of years old. The length of the creative 'day' has not been specified. And the seventh day has not been recorded as having ended.
This is in partial answer to your poll presented in another thread.
Miklos7 wrote:The question of when the first religion appeared seems to be an imponderable, because spirituality has a genetic base; we are inherently predisposed towards religious thought.
Not to put too fine a point on it--horseshit.
What evidence do you have that this tripe is valid?
